Skip to main content

Partially interactive evolutionary artists

Abstract

User fatigue is probably the most pressing problem in current Interactive Evolutionary Computation systems. To address it we propose the use of automatic seeding procedure, phenotype filters, and partial automation fitness assignment. We test this approaches in the visual arts domain. To further enhance interactive evolution applications in aesthetic domains, we propose the use of artificial art critics—systems that perform stylistic and aesthetic valuations of art—presenting experimental results.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Arnheim, R.,Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye, University of California Press, 1954.

  2. Arnheim, R.,Entropy and Art, University of California Press, 1971.

  3. Baluja, S., Pomerleau, D. and Jochem, T., “Towards Automated Artificial Evolution for Computer-generated Images,”Connection Science, 6, 2–3, pp. 325–354, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Burton, A.R. and Vladimirova, T., “Applications of Genetic Techniques to Musical Composition,”Computer Music Journal,23,4, 1999.

  5. Graves, M.,Design Judgement Test, The Psychological Corporation, New York, 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Johnson, C. and Romero, J., “Genetic Algorithms in Visual Art and Music,”Leonardo, 35, 2, pp. 175–184, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Machado, P. and Cardoso, A., “NEvAr—The Assessment of an Evolutionary Art Tool,” inProceedings of the AISB’00 Symposium on Creative & Cultural Aspects and Applications of AI & Cognitive Science 2000 (Wiggins, G., ed.), Birmingham, UK, 2000.

  8. Machado, P. and Cardoso, A., “Computing Aesthetics,” inProceedings of the XIVth Brazilian Symposium on Artificial Intelligence SBIA’98 (Oliveira F., ed),LNAI Series, Springer-Verlag, pp. 219–229, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1998.

  9. Machado, P. and Cardoso, A., “All the Truth about NEvAr,”Applied Intelligence, Special issue on Creative Systems, 16, 2, (Bentley, P. and Corne, D., eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 101–119, 2002.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Machado, P., Romero, J., Santos, M.L., Cardoso, A. and Manaris, B., “Adaptive Critics for Evolutionary Artists,”Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Applications of Evolutionary Computing, LNCS 3005, Springer-Verlag, pp. 437–446, 2004.

  11. Manaris, B., Purewal, T. and McCormick, C., “Progress Towards Recognizing and Classifying Beautiful Music with Computers,” inProceedings of EEE SoutheastCon, Columbia, SC, USA, pp. 52–57, 2002.

  12. Papadopoulos, G. and Wiggins, G., “AI Methods for Algorithmic Composition: A Survey, a Critical View and Future Prospects,” inAISB’99 Symposium on Musical Creativity, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 110–117, 1999.

  13. Romero, J., Machado, P., Santos, A. and Cardoso, A., “On the Development of Critics in Evolutionary Computation Systems,”Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Applications of Evolutionary Computing, LNCS 2611, Springer-Verlag, pp. 559–569, 2003.

  14. Romero, J., Santos, A., Dorado, J., Arcay, B. and Rodriguez, J., “Evolutionary Computation System for Musical Composition,”Mathematics and Computers in Modern Science, World Scientific and Engineering Society Press, pp. 97–102, 2000.

  15. Saunders, R. and Gero, J.S., “The Digital Clockwork Muse: A Computational Model Of Aesthetic Evolution,” inAISB’01 Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Creativity in Arts and Science, York, UK, 2001.

  16. Svangaard, N. and Nordin, P. “Automated Aesthetic Selection of Evolutionary Art by Distance Based Classification of Genomes and Phenomes using the Universal Similarity Metric,”Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Applications of Evolutionary Computing, LNAI Series, Springer-Verlag, pp. 447–456, 2004.

  17. Takagi, H., “Interactive Evolutionary Computation: Fusion of the Capabilities of EC Optimization and Human Evaluation,” inProceedings of the IEEE, 89, 9, pp. 1275–1296, 2001.

  18. Taylor, R.P., Micolich, A.P. and Jonas, D., “Fractal Analysis of Pollock’s Drip Paintings,”Nature, pp. 399–422, 1999.

  19. Todd, P.M. and Werner, G.M., “Frankestenian Methods for Evolutionary Music Composition,”Musical Networks: Parallel distributed perception and performance, (Griffith, N. and Todd, P. M., eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Penousal Machado.

Additional information

Penousal Machado: He is a researcher at Centre for Informatics and Systems of the University of Coimbra (CISUC). He is the author of more than 20 journals and conference papers, and chair of several international workshops. His main research interest is the study and development of evolutionary approaches to creativity and artificial art.

Juan Romero, Ph.D.: He is the founder of the “Creative Computer Group” of the RNASA Lab. His present research focuses on (i) Hybrid Society, which consists of an egalitarian society composed of creative computers and human beings (ii) Artificial Art, using artificial art critics and creators based on connectionist and evolutionary techniques.

Amílcar Cardoso, Ph.D.: He is an Associate Professor at the Department of Informatics Engineering of the University of Coimbra. He is the leader of the CISUC AILab, and founder of the Creative Systems Group. His main research interest is the study and implementation of computer models of creativity. He has background as professional musician and composer.

Antonino Santos, Ph.D.: He is the author/editor of more than 25 articles and 7 books. He participated as researcher in 7 funded research proposals concerning to Artificial Intelligence, Neural Networks and Internet Security. His present research focuses in hybrid systems, creative systems, computer security, artificial neural networks and evolutionary computation.

About this article

Cite this article

Machado, P., Romero, J., Cardoso, A. et al. Partially interactive evolutionary artists. New Gener Comput 23, 143–155 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037491

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037491

Keywords

  • Interactive Evolutionary Computation
  • User Fatigue
  • Partial Automation
  • Artificial Art Critics