Mixed-Initiative Creative Drawing with webIconoscope

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10198)

Abstract

This paper presents the webIcononscope tool for creative drawing, which allows users to draw simple icons composed of basic shapes and colors in order to represent abstract semantic concepts. The goal of this creative exercise is to create icons that are ambiguous enough to confuse other people attempting to guess which concept they represent. webIcononscope is available online and all creations can be browsed, rated and voted on by anyone; this democratizes the creative process and increases the motivation for creating both appealing and ambiguous icons. To complement the creativity of the human users attempting to create novel icons, several computational assistants provide suggestions which alter what the user is currently drawing based on certain criteria such as typicality and novelty. This paper reports trends in the creations of webIcononscope users, based also on feedback from an online audience.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Serious Games Interactive and the FP7 ICT project C2Learn (project No: 318480) for the implementation of Iconoscope. The ongoing research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No: 693150.

References

  1. 1.
    Beaney, M.: Imagination and Creativity. Open University, Milton Keynes (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cachia, R., Ferrari, A., Kearney, C., Punie, Y., Van, W., Berghe, D., Wastiau, P.: Creativity in schools in Europe: a survey of teachers (2009). http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2940. Accessed Nov 2016
  3. 3.
    Chappell, K., Craft, A.R., Rolfe, L., Jobbins, V.: Humanizing creativity: valuing our journeys of becoming. Int. J. Educ. Arts 13(8) (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Bono, E.: Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step. Harper Collins, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jeffrey, B., Craft, A.: The universalization of creativity. In: Craft, A., Jeffrey, B., Leibling, M. (eds.) Creativity in Education. Continuum, London (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lehman, J., Stanley, K.O.: Abandoning objectives: evolution through the search for novelty alone. Evol. Comput. 19(2), 189–223 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liapis, A., Hoover, A.K., Yannakakis, G.N., Alexopoulos, C., Dimaraki, E.V.: Motivating visual interpretations in iconoscope: designing a game for fostering creativity. In: Proceedings of the Foundations of Digital Games Conference (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liapis, A., Yannakakis, G.N.: Boosting computational creativity with human interaction in mixed-initiative co-creation tasks. In: Proceedings of the ICCC Workshop on Computational Creativity and Games (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liapis, A., Yannakakis, G.N., Alexopoulos, C., Lopes, P.: Can computers foster human users’ creativity? Theory and praxis of mixed-initiative co-creativity. Digit. Cult. Educ. (DCE) 8(2), 136–152 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liapis, A., Yannakakis, G.N., Togelius, J.: Limitations of choice-based interactive evolution for game level design. In: Proceedings of AIIDE Workshop on Human Computation in Digital Entertainment (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liapis, A., Yannakakis, G.N., Togelius, J.: Sentient sketchbook: computer-aided game level authoring. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, pp. 213–220 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liapis, A., Yannakakis, G.N., Togelius, J.: Sentient world: human-based procedural cartography. In: Machado, P., McDermott, J., Carballal, A. (eds.) EvoMUSART 2013. LNCS, vol. 7834, pp. 180–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36955-1_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lim, C.U., Liapis, A., Harrell, D.F.: Discovering social and aesthetic categories of avatars: a bottom-up artificial intelligence approach using image clustering. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference of DiGRA and FDG (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Novick, D., Sutton, S.: What is mixed-initiative interaction?. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Computational Models for Mixed Initiative Interaction (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patrascu, C., Risi, S.: Artefacts: minecraft meets collaborative interactive evolution. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG) (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pirius, L.K., Creel, G.: Reflections on play, pedagogy, and world of warcraft. EDUCAUSE Q. 33 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cairns, H.: Plato: The Collected Dialogues. Princeton University Press, New Jersey (1961)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Risi, S., Lehman, J., D’Ambrosio, D.B., Hall, R., Stanley, K.O.: Combining search-based procedural content generation and social gaming in the petalz video game. In: Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ritchie, G.: Some empirical criteria for attributing creativity to a computer program. Mind. Mach. 17(1), 67–99 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rowe, J., Shores, L., Mott, B., Lester, J.: Integrating learning, problem solving, and engagement in narrative-centered learning environments. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 21(1–2), 115–133 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sawyer, K.: Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills Creativity 1, 41–48 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scaltsas, T., Alexopoulos, C.: Creating creativity through emotive thinking. In: Proceedings of the World Congress of Philosophy (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Secretan, J., Beato, N., D’Ambrosio, D.B., Rodriguez, A., Campbell, A., Folsom-Kovarik, J.T., Stanley, K.O.: Picbreeder: a case study in collaborative evolutionary exploration of design space. Evol. Comput. 19(3), 373–403 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith, G., Whitehead, J., Mateas, M.: Tanagra: reactive planning and constraint solving for mixed-initiative level design. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games 3(3), 201–215 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Takagi, H.: Interactive evolutionary computation: fusion of the capabilities of EC optimization and human evaluation. Proc. IEEE 89(9), 1275–1296 (2001). Invited paperCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Watters, A.: Legos for the digital age: students build imaginary worlds (2011). http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2011/03/legos-for-the-digital-age-students-build-imaginary-worlds/. Accessed Nov 2016
  27. 27.
    Yannakakis, G.N., Liapis, A., Alexopoulos, C.: Mixed-initiative co-creativity. In: Proceedings of the 9th Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang, J., Taarnby, R., Liapis, A., Risi, S.: DrawCompileEvolve: sparking interactive evolutionary art with human creations. In: Johnson, C., Carballal, A., Correia, J. (eds.) EvoMUSART 2015. LNCS, vol. 9027, pp. 261–273. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16498-4_23 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Digital GamesUniversity of MaltaMsidaMalta

Personalised recommendations