Evolved Aesthetic Analogies to Improve Artistic Experience

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

Abstract

It has been demonstrated that computational evolution can be utilised in the creation of aesthetic analogies between two artistic domains by the use of mapping expressions. When given an artistic input these mapping expressions can be used to guide the generation of content in a separate domain. For example, a piece of music can be used to create an analogous visual display. In this paper we examine the implementation and performance of such a system. We explore the practical implementation of real-time evaluation of evolved mapping expressions, possible musical input and visual output approaches, and the challenges faced therein. We also present the results of an exploratory study testing the hypothesis that an evolved mapping expression between the measurable attributes of musical and visual harmony will produce an improved aesthetic experience compared to a random mapping expression. Expressions of various fitness values were used and the participants were surveyed on their enjoyment, interest, and fatigue. The results of this study indicate that further work is necessary to produce a strong aesthetic response. Finally, we present possible approaches to improve the performance and artistic merit of the system.

Keywords

Computational evolution Genetic algorithms Genetic Programming Grammatical evolution computational analogy Aesthetic analogy 

References

  1. 1.
    Becker, J.D.: The modeling of simple analogic and inductive processes in a semantic memory system. In: Proceedings of IJCAI-1969, pp. 655–668, Washington (1969). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.77.8346&rep=rep.1&type=pdf
  2. 2.
    Behravan, R.: Automatic mapping of emotion in music to abstract visual arts. Ph.D. thesis, University College London (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Birkhoff, G.: Aesthetic Measure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1933)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eliasmith, C., Thagard, P.: Integrating structure and meaning: a distributed model of analogical mapping. Cogn. Sci. 25(2), 245–286 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evans, T.G.: A program for the solution of a class of geometric-analogy intelligence-test questions. Technical report, Air Force Cambridge Research Labs LG Hanscom Field (1964)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    French, R.M.: The computational modeling of analogy-making. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6(5), 200–205 (2002). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11983582 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gentner, D.: Children’s performance on a spatial analogies task. Child Dev. 48, 1034–1039 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gentner, D., Forbus, K.D.: Computational models of analogy. Wiley Interdisc. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 2(3), 266–276 (2011). http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/wcs.105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goguen, J.A.: Art and the brain: editorial introduction. J. Conscious. Stud. 6(6), 5–14 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hofstadter, D.R.: Analogy as the core of cognition. In: Gentner, D., Holyoak, K., Kokinov, B. (eds.) The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, pp. 499–538. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang, M.: The neuroscience of art. Stanford J. Neurosci. 2(1), 24–26 (2009). http://www.stanford.edu/group/co-sign/huang.pdf Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hummel, J.E., Holyoak, K.J.: Distributed representations of structure: a theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychol. Rev. 104(3), 427 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    IBM Corp: IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kandinsky, W., Rebay, H.: Point and Line to Plane. Courier Corporation, North Chelmsford (1947)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klee, P.: Pedagogical Sketchbook. Praeger Publishers, New York (1925). http://monoskop.org/images/3/30/Klee_Paul_Pedagogical_Sketchbook_1960.pdf Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marshall, J.B., Hofstadter, D.R.: The metacat project: a self-watching model of analogy-making. Cogn. Stud. Bull. Japn. Cogn. Sci. Soc. 4(4), 57–71 (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mitchell, M.: Analogy-Making as Perception: A Computer Model. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Neil, M., Ryan, C.: Grammatical Evolution, pp. 33–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Palmer, S.E., Schloss, K.B., Sammartino, J.: Visual aesthetics and human preference. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 64, 77–107 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ramachandran, V.S., Hirstein, W.: The science of art: a neurological theory of aesthetic experience. J. Conscious. Stud. 6(6), 15–35 (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reitman, W.R.: Cognition and Thought: An Information Processing Approach. Wiley, New York (1965)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thibaut, J.P., French, R., Vezneva, M.: The development of analogy making in children: cognitive load and executive functions. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 106(1), 1–19 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National University of IrelandGalwayRepublic of Ireland

Personalised recommendations