This algorithm can judge “creativity” in art like an expert

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around an algorithm designed to evaluate creativity in art, specifically how it assesses artworks based on their deviation from historical norms and their influence on subsequent works. Participants explore the implications of such an algorithm in the context of art evaluation and its potential value to companies.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification, Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the algorithm's premise, questioning whether it can truly recognize creativity without understanding art history.
  • There is a suggestion that the algorithm's definition of creativity—art that breaks from the past and inspires imitators—may reflect a subjective valuation determined by those imitators.
  • One participant highlights the significance of being able to code an algorithm for art evaluation, suggesting it could be valuable for companies.
  • Another participant notes that the algorithm's ability to analyze large datasets could allow it to identify temporal relatedness in art through spatiochromatic analysis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism about the algorithm's effectiveness and the validity of its conclusions, indicating that multiple competing views remain regarding its implications and the nature of creativity in art.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the algorithm's approach, particularly its lack of historical context and the subjective nature of what constitutes creativity.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in the intersection of technology and art evaluation, as well as those exploring the implications of algorithms in creative fields, may find this discussion relevant.

Computer science news on Phys.org
"They worked from the premise that the most creative art was that which broke most from the past, and then inspired the greatest visual shifts in the works that followed."

"Their experiment—which involved two datasets totalling more than 62,000 paintings—was entirely automated. They gave the computer no information about art history."

I don't get it. They used a pretty reasonable definition of what makes creative art, then made a program to recognize it (but that at the same time couldn't possibly do so), and then when they go the results they wanted they thought it meant something? I'm going to assume that this is just bad science writing and their paper is actually interesting.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Silicon Waffle
Tobias Funke said:
"They worked from the premise that the most creative art was that which broke most from the past, and then inspired the greatest visual shifts in the works that followed."

"Their experiment—which involved two datasets totalling more than 62,000 paintings—was entirely automated. They gave the computer no information about art history."

I don't get it. They used a pretty reasonable definition of what makes creative art, then made a program to recognize it (but that at the same time couldn't possibly do so), and then when they go the results they wanted they thought it meant something? I'm going to assume that this is just bad science writing and their paper is actually interesting.

That part doesn't make sense indeed, and it's in the original paper too, but what I found interesting is that they could code an algorithm to evaluate art, which is pretty important and I'm sure many companies will find this information valuable.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Silicon Waffle
Perhaps with any sufficiently large data set that spans the periods, the algorithm can determine temporal relatedness by spatiochromatic relatedness.
 
Tosh5457 said:
...what I found interesting is that they could code an algorithm to evaluate art, which is pretty important and I'm sure many companies will find this information valuable.
The program determines that art which 1.) breaks with the past, and 2.) inspires imitators. It seems to me that the imitators are determining what should be valued as creative and the program simply tallies the result of this 'poll'. It's interesting you can get a computer to do it, but the results would already be known to people.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Silicon Waffle

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K