We add to the discussion of how to assess the creativity of programs which generate artefacts such as poems, theorems, paintings, melodies, etc. To do so, we first review some existing frameworks for assessing artefact generation programs. Then, drawing on our experience of building both a mathematical discovery system and an automated painter, we argue that it is not appropriate to base the assessment of a system on its output alone, and that the way it produces artefacts also needs to be taken into account. We suggest a simple framework within which the behaviour of a program can be categorised and described which may add to the perception of creativity in the system.
Such creative software can be used for autonomous creative tasks, such as inventing mathematical theories, writing poems, painting pictures, and composing music. However, computational creativity studies also enable us to understand human creativity and to produce programs for creative people to use, where the software acts as a creative collaborator rather than a mere tool. Historically, it's been difficult for society to come to terms with machines that purport to be intelligent and even more difficult to admit that they might be creative. For instance, in 1934, some professors at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom built meccano models that were able to solve some mathematical equations. Groundbreaking for its time, this project was written up in a piece in Meccano Magazine.
This paper considers the kinds of AI systems we want involved in art and art practice. We explore this relationship from three perspectives: as artists interested in expanding and developing our own creative practice; as AI researchers interested in building new AI systems that contribute to the understanding and development of art and art practice; and as audience members interested in experiencing art. We examine the nature of both art practice and experiencing art to ask how AI can contribute. To do so, we review the history of work in intelligent agents which broadly speaking sits in two camps: autonomous agents (systems that can exhibit intelligent behaviour independently) in one, and multi-agent systems (systems which interact with other systems in communities of agents) in the other. In this context we consider the nature of the relationship between AI and Art and introduce two opposing concepts: that of “Heroic AI”, to describe the situation where the software takes on the role of the lone creative hero and “Collaborative AI” where the system supports, challenges and provokes the creative activity of humans. We then set out what we believe are the main challenges for AI research in understanding its potential relationship to art and art practice.
This paper examines five key questions surrounding computer generated art. Driven by the recent public auction of a work of "AI Art" we selectively summarise many decades of research and commentary around topics of autonomy, authenticity, authorship and intention in computer generated art, and use this research to answer contemporary questions often asked about art made by computers that concern these topics. We additionally reflect on whether current techniques in deep learning and Generative Adversarial Networks significantly change the answers provided by many decades of prior research.