Stakeholder Groups in Computational Creativity Research and Practice

  • Simon Colton
  • Alison Pease
  • Joseph Corneli
  • Michael Cook
  • Rose Hepworth
  • Dan Ventura
Chapter
Part of the Atlantis Thinking Machines book series (ATLANTISTM, volume 7)

Abstract

The notion that software could be independently and usefully creative is becoming more commonplace in scientific, cultural, business and public circles. It is not fanciful to imagine creative software embedded in society in the short to medium term, acting as collaborators and autonomous creative agents for much societal benefit. Technologically, there is still some way to go to enable Artificial Intelligence methods to create artefacts and ideas of value, and to get software to do so in interesting and engaging ways. There are also a number of sociological hurdles to overcome in getting society to accept software as being truly creative, and we concentrate on those here. We discuss the various communities that can be considered stakeholders in the perception of computers being creative or not. In particular, we look in detail at three sets of stakeholders, namely the general public, Computational Creativity researchers and fellow creatives. We put forward various philosophical points which we argue will shape the way in which society accepts creative software. We make various claims along the way about how people perceive software as being creative or not, which we believe should be addressed with scientific experimentation, and we call on the Computational Creativity research community to do just that.

References

  1. 1.
    Locke, J.: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1975)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dennett, D.: Three kinds of intentional psychology. In: Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language: A Concise Anthology, pp. 163–186. Broadview Press, Peterborough (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gallie, W.: Essentially Contested Concepts. Proc. Aristot. Soc. 56, 167–198 (1956)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gray, J.N.: On the contestability of social and political concepts. Polit. Theory 5(3), 331 (1977)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith, K.: Mutually contested concepts and their standard general use. J. Class. Sociol. 2(3), 329–343 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Plucker, J.A., Makel, M.C.: Assessment of creativity, The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, pp. 48–73 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones, J.: Santa bought me a Playstation. But it’s still not art. The Guardian. 7th January (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stuart, K.: Video games and art: why does the media get it so wrong? The Guardian. 8th January (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jordanous, A.K.: Evaluating Computational Creativity: A Standardised Procedure for Evaluating Creative Systems and its Application. PhD thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Sussex (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Austin, J.L.: How to do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1975). The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Searle, J.: A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In: Günderson, K. (ed.) Language, Mind, and Knowledge, vol. 7. University of Minnesota Press (1975)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Latour, B.: Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Open University Press, Milton Keynes (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boden, M.A.: What is creativity? In: Boden, M.A. (ed.) Dimensions of Creativity, pp. 75–117. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boden, M.A.: The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Weidenfield and Nicholson, London (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cardoso, A., Veale, T., Wiggins, G.A.: Converging on the divergent: the history (and future) of the international joint workshops in computational creativity. AI Mag. 30(3), 15 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Science Foundation, CreativeIT, Program Solicitation 09-572 http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsf09572/nsf09572.htm (2009)
  17. 17.
    The Seventh Framework Programme (2007–2013) of the European Union: Information and Communication Technologies. http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/docs/ict-wp2013-10-7-2013-with-cover-issn.pdf (2013)
  18. 18.
    Lemaine, G., Macleod, R., Mulkay, M., Weingar, P.: Problems in the emergence of new disciplines. In: Lemaine, G., Macleod, R., Mulkay, M., Weingar, P. (eds.) Perspectives on the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines, pp. 1–26. Maison des Sciences de l’Homme (1976)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Colton, S., Ventura, D.: You can’t know my mind: a festival of computational creativity. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Creativity (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ravetz, J.R.: Usable knowledge, usable ignorance: Incomplete science with policy implications. Knowl. Creat. Diffus. Util. 9(1), 86–116 (1987)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ravetz, J.R.: Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stocking, S.H., Holstein, L.W.: Manufacturing doubt: journalists’ roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Underst. Sci. 18, 23–42 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ellegard, A.: Darwin and the General Reader: The Reception of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in the British Periodical Press, 1859–1872. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago (1990)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Franzen, M., Weingart, P., Rödder, S.: Exploring the impact of science communication on scientific knowledge production: an introduction. In: Rödder, S., Franzen, M., Weingart, P. (eds.) The Sciences’ Media Connection—Public Communication and its Repercussions, pp. 3–16. Springer, Dordrecht (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arbib, M.A., Hesse, M.B.: The Construction of Reality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fahnestock, J.: Rhetorical Figures in Science. Oxford University Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lakoff, G.: Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environ. Commun. 4(1), 70–81 (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Colton, S., Wiggins, G.A.: Computational creativity: the final frontier? In: Proceedings of the European Conference on AI (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Johnson, C.: Is it time for computational creativity to grow up and be irresponsible? In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Creativity (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eigenfeldt, A., Burnett, A., Pasquier, P.: Evaluating musical metacreation in a live performance context. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Creativity (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moffat, D., Kelly, M.: An investigation into people’s bias against computational creativity in music composition. In: Proceedings of the Third Joint Workshop on Computational Creativity (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Colton, S.: Creativity versus the perception of creativity in computational systems. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Creative Intelligent Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bown, O.: Empirically grounding the evaluation of creative systems: incorporating interaction design. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Creativity (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Turing, A.M.: Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59, 433–460 (1950)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wimsatt, W.K.: The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry. Number 123. University Press of Kentucky, Kentucky (1954)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Evans, K.: The Stuckists: The First Modernist Art Group. Victoria Press (2000)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lambourne, L.: The Aesthetic Movement. Phaidon, London (1996)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Colton, S., Cook, M., Hepworth, R., Pease, A.: On acid drops and teardrops: observer issues in computational creativity. In: Proceedings of the 7th AISB Symposium on Computing and Philosophy (2014)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pease, A., Colton, S.: On impact and evaluation in computational creativity: a discussion of the turing test and an alternative proposal. In: Proceedings of the AISB Symposium on Computing and Philosophy (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Charnley, J., Pease, A., Colton, S.: On the notion of framing in computational creativity. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Creativity (2012)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Colton, S., Goodwin, J., Veale, T.: Full FACE poetry generation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Creativity (2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pease, A., Colton, S., Ramezani, R., Charnley, J., Reed, K.: A discussion on serendipity in creative systems. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Creativity (2012)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Colton, S.: The painting fool: stories from building an automated painter. In: McCormack, J., d’Inverno, M. (eds.) Computers and Creativity, pp. 3–38. Springer, Berlin (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Norton, D., Heath, D., Ventura, D.: Finding creativity in an artificial artist. J. Creat. Behav. 47(2), 106–124 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Colton, S., Pease, A., Charnley, J.: Computational creativity theory: the FACE and IDEA descriptive models. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computational Creativity (2011)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pease, A., Colton, S.: Computational creativity theory: inspirations behind the FACE and the IDEA models. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computational Creativity (2011)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Colton, S., Pease, A., Corneli, J., Cook, M., Llano, T.: Assessing progress in building autonomously creative systems. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Creativity (2014)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Colton, S.: Automated Theory Formation in Pure Mathematics. Springer, London (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Colton, S.: Experiments in meta-theory formation. In: Proceedings of the AISB’01 Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Creativity in Arts and Science (2001)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Romero, J., Machado, P.: The Art of Artificial Evolution: A Handbook on Evolutionary Art and Music. Springer, Berlin (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Machado, P., Cardoso, A.: All the truth about NEvAr. Appl. Intell. 16(2), 101–118 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Li, Y., Hu, C., Minku, L., Zuo, H.: Learning aesthetic judgements in evolutionary art systems. Genet. Program. Evol. Mach. 14(3), 315–337 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Colton, S.: Evolving a library of artistic scene descriptors. In: Proceedings of the EvoMusArt Conference (2012)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Colton, S.: Automatic invention of fitness functions with application to scene generation. In: Proceedings of the EvoMusArt Workshop (2008)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ritchie, G.: Some empirical criteria for attributing creativity to a computer program. Minds Mach. 17(1), 67–99 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cook, M., Colton, S., Gow, J.: Automating game design in three dimensions. In: Proceedings of the AISB Symposium on AI and Games (2014)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    McVeigh, T.: Amazon acts to halt sales of ‘Keep Calm and Rape’ T-shirts. The Guardian. 2nd March (2013)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Jagmohan, A., Li, Y., Shao, N., Sheopuri, A., Wang, D., Varshney, L., Huang, P.: Exploring application domains for computational creativity. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Creativity (2014)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Pinel, F., Varshney, L., Bhattacharjya, D.: A culinary computational creativity system. In: This Edition (2014)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Shao, N., Murali, P., Sheopuri, A.: New developments in culinary computational creativity. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Creativity (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Atlantis Press and the authors 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Colton
    • 1
  • Alison Pease
    • 2
  • Joseph Corneli
    • 1
  • Michael Cook
    • 1
  • Rose Hepworth
    • 1
  • Dan Ventura
    • 3
  1. 1.Computational Creativity Group, Department of Computing, Goldsmiths CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.School of ComputingUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK
  3. 3.Computer Science DepartmentBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations