Abstract

We describe the building of a library of 10,000 distinct abstract art images, and how these can be interpreted as describing the placement of objects in a scene for generative painting projects. Building the library to contain only markedly distinct images necessitated a machine learning approach, whereby two decision trees were derived to predict visual similarity in pairs of images. The first tree uses genotypical information to predict before image generation whether two images will be too similar. The second tree uses phenotypical information, namely how pairs of images differ when segmented using various distance thresholds. Taken together, the trees are highly effective at quickly predicting when two images are similar, and we used this in an evolutionary search where non-unique individuals are pruned, to build up the library. We show how the pruning approach can be used alongside a fitness function to increase the yield of images with certain properties, such as low/high colour variety, symmetry and contrast.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arthur, D., Vassilvitskii, S.: K-means++: The advantages of careful seeding. In: Proc. of the 18th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Colton, S.: Automatic invention of fitness functions, with application to scene generation. In: Proceedings of the EvoMusArt Workshop (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colton, S.: Experiments in constraint-based automated scene generation. In: Proceedings of the 5th Int. Joint Workshop on Computational Creativity (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Colton, S.: Seven catchy phrases for computational creativity research. In: Proceedings of the Dagstuhl Seminar on Computational Creativity (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colton, S.: The Painting Fool: Stories from building an automated artist. In: McCormack, J., d’Inverno, M. (eds.) Computers and Creativity. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colton, S., Cook, M., Raad, A.: Ludic considerations of tablet-based Evo-art. In: Proceedings of the EvoMusArt Workshop (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Datta, R., Joshi, D., Li, J., Wang, J.: Image retrieval: Ideas, influences, and trends of the new age. ACM Computing Surveys 40(2) (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    den Heijer, E., Eiben, A.: Comparing aesthetic measures for evolutionary art. In: Proceedings of the EvoMusArt Workshop (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ekárt, A., Sharma, D., Chalakov, S.: Modelling human preference in evolutionary art. In: Proceedings of the EvoMusArt Workshop (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., Witten, I.: The WEKA data mining software: An update. SIGKDD Explorations 11(1) (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kass, M., Witkin, A., Terzopoulos, D.: Snakes - Active contour models. International Journal of Computer Vision 1(4) (1987)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, Y., Hu, C.: Aesthetic learning in an interactive evolutionary art system. In: Proceedings of the EvoMusArt Workshop (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Macedo, L., Cardoso, A.: Assessing creativity: The importance of unexpected novelty. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Creative Systems (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Machado, P., Cardoso, A.: Computing Aesthetics. In: de Oliveira, F.M. (ed.) SBIA 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1515, pp. 219–228. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Machado, P., Romero, J., Manaris, B.: Experiments in computational aesthetics – an iterative approach to stylistic change in evolutionary art. In: The Art of Artificial Evolution. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCorduck, P.: AARON’s Code: Meta-Art, Artificial Intelligence, and the Work of Harold Cohen. W. H. Freeman and Company (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saunders, R., Grace, K.: Extending context free to teach interactive evolutionary design systems. In: Proceedings of the EvoMusArt Workshop (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Colton
    • 1
  1. 1.Computational Creativity Group, Dept. of ComputingImperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations