Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Big Data and Creativity

  • Palle Dahlstedt (a1)

Abstract

Big data and machine learning techniques are increasingly applied to creative tasks, often with strong reactions of both awe and concern. But we have to be careful about where to attribute the creative agency. Is it really the machine that paints like van Gogh, or is it a human that uses a high-level tool to impart one pattern upon another, based on her aesthetic preferences? In this paper, the author analyses the problem of machine creativity, focusing on four central themes: the inherent convergence of machine learning and big data techniques, their dependence on assumptions and incomplete data, the possibility of explorative search as a new creative paradigm, and the related problem of the opacity of results from such methods. The Google Deep Dream project is brought in as an example to illustrate the discussion. Information and complexity are brought into the discussion as central concepts for both creative processes and the resulting artefacts, concluding that the complexity of the interaction between the creative agent and the environment during the creative process is a crucial parameter for meaningful creative output. Based on the exposed limitations in current technologies, the author concludes that the principal creative agency still lies in the developers and users of the tools, not in the data processing itself. Human effort and input still matters. But we can take a constructive approach, regarding big data techniques as tools one order of magnitude more complex than what was available before, allowing artists to work with abstractions previously unfeasible for computational work.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. From Big Data to Big Understanding Seminar organized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, Tällberg Foundation, and SAS Institute. 21 November 2013, Stockholm, Sweden.
2. Gartner IT Glossary, Big Data, http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/big-data/ (accessed 15 December 2016).
3. SAS Institute, Big Data– What it is and why it matters, white paper, http://www.sas.com/en_us/insights/big-data/what-is-big-data.html (accessed 15 December 2016).
4. Jing, Y. and Baluja, S. (2008) Pagerank for product image search. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web, Beijing, China, pp. 307316.
5. Bobadilla, J., Ortega, F., Hernando, A. and Gutiérrez, A. (2013) Recommender systems survey. Knowledge-Based Systems, 46, pp. 109132.
6. Pachet, F. (2003) The continuator: musical interaction with style. Journal of New Music Research, 32(3), pp. 333341.
7.Notable examples include the artworks of Mark Wattenberg, Nathalie Miebach, Wesley Goatley and Tobias Revell, and the artistic collaborations of Mikael Lundberg and Mats Nordahl, e.g. Traces of an Ongoing Memory. For an overview of the field, see Viégas, F.B. and Wattenberg, M. (2007) Artistic data visualization: beyond visual analytics. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Online Communities and Social Computing, Beijing, China, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 456, pp. 182–191.
8. Tversky, B. (1993) Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Spatial Information Theory, pp. 14–24.
9. Sudol, L.A., Stehlik, M. and Carver, S. (2010) Mental models of data. In: Proceedings of Koli Calling: International Conference on Computing Education Research, Koli National Park, Finland, pp. 55–58.
10. Chinn, C.A. and Brewer, W.F. (1996) Mental models in data interpretation. Philosophy of Science, 63, pp. 211219.
11. Gentner, D. and Stevens, A.L. (1983). Mental models (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
12.This concept and the processed version of the Bible were originally conceived as part of a collaborative work by the author and the visual artist Mikael Lundberg in 2005, and programed by the author. However, the work was never finished nor exhibited. The other sound examples were prepared for the keynote presentation that this article is based on.
13. Cope, D. (2005) Computer Models of Musical Creativity (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
14.Cope’s more recent work is more interesting from a novelty point of view, where he personally interacts over time with his probabilistic composition model (which he calls Emily Howell), training it in more complex ways.
15. Dahlstedt, P. (2001) A MutaSynth in parameter space: interactive composition through evolution. Organised Sound, 6(2), pp. 121124.
16. Bach, J.S. (1899) Thematic Catalogue of the Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe, Band 46 (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel).
17. Griffiths, T. and Yuille, A. (2008) A primer on probabilistic inference. In: Chater, N., and Oaksfors, M. (Eds), The Probabilistic Mind: Prospects for Bayesian Cognitive Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 3357.
18.See Mattheson, J. (1739) Der vollkommene Capellmeister (Hamburg: Christian Herold) and J. Mattheson (1713) Das neu-eröffnete Orchestre, vol. 1 (Hamburg: B. Schiller).
19. Mattheson, J. and Lenneberg, H. (1958) Johann Mattheson on affect and rhetoric in music (II). Journal of Music Theory, 2(2), pp. 193236.
20. Lowrance, R.A. (2013) Instruction, devotion, and affection: three roles of Bach’s well-tempered clavier. Musical Offerings, 4(1), pp. 1530.
21. Kohonen, T. (1982) Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps. Biological Cybernetics, 43(1), pp. 5969.
22. Dahlstedt, P. (2011) Autonomous evolution of piano pieces and performances with Ossia II. In: Miranda, E.R. (Ed.), A-Life for Music: Music and Computer Models of Living Systems (Middleton, WI: A-R Editions).
23. McCormack, J. (2005) Open problems in evolutionary music and art. In: Proceedings of EvoWorkshops 2005 (Heidelberg: Ed. Springer-Verlag), pp. 428436.
24. Boden, M. (2004) The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms, 2nd edn (London: Routledge).
25. Hofstadter, D. (1985) Variations on a theme as the crux of creativity. In: Metamagical Themas (New York: Basic Books).
26. Dahlstedt, P. (2012) Between material and ideas: a process-based spatial model of artistic creativity. In: McCormack, J., and D’Inverno, M. (Eds), Computers and Creativity (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer).
27.For a historical overview and a more in-depth discussion of generative and restrictive properties of constriants, see chapter 3 of Dahlstedt, P. (2004) Sounds Unheard of: Evolutionary algorithms as creative tools for the contemporary composer. PhD thesis (Göteborg: Chalmers University of Technology).
28. Finke, R.A., Ward, T.B. and Smith, S.M. (1992) Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
29. Valkare, G. (1997) Det audiografiska fältet: om musikens förhållande till skriften och den unge Bo Nilssons strategier. PhD thesis (Göteborg: University of Gothenburg).
30.This paradigm is not completely new, but distinctly different from the more common way of creating things, which may – greatly simplified – be described as musical artefacts being constructed from scratch and evaluated in an iterated tweaking process.
31. Dahlstedt, P. (2009) Thoughts on creative evolution: a meta-generative approach to composition. Contemporary Music Review, 28(1), pp. 4355.
32. Dahlstedt, P. (2001) Creating and exploring huge parameter spaces: interactive evolution as a tool for sound generation. In: Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference 2001, Havana, Cuba, pp. 235–242.
33. Dawkins, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker (Harlow: Longman Scientific and Technical).
34. Sims, K. (1991) Artificial evolution for computer graphics. Computer Graphics, 25(4), pp. 319328.
35. Krueger, M.W. (1977) Responsive environments. In: Proceedings of the June 13-16, 1977, National Computer Conference (ACM), pp. 423–433.
36. Gibney, E. (2016) Google AI algorithm masters ancient game of Go. Nature News, 529(7587), p. 445.
37.I am simplifying a bit here, since we know a great deal about genetic low-level mechanisms. But there are still so many things we don’t know about how these detailed changes are expressed in the high-level organism, which is the main point.
38. Gregory, R.L. (1981) Mind in Science (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson).
39. Vygotsky, L.S. (1980) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
40. Arthur, W.B. (2009) The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves (New York: Simon and Schuster).
41. McCormack, J. and Dorin, A. (2001) Art, emergence and the computational sublime. In: Proceedings of Second Iteration: A Conference on Generative Systems in the Electronic Arts. (Melbourne: CEMA), pp. 6781.
42.Inceptionism: going deeper into neural networks. Google Research Blog (17 June 2015). https://research.googleblog.com/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neural.html
43. https://deepdreamgenerator.com (accessed 17 December 2016). The website has since been updated with more advanced versions of the algorithm.
44. Chayka, K. (2015) Why Google’s Deep Dream is future kitsch. Pacific Standard (10 July 2015).
45.For an extended discussion of this problem, see Dahlstedt, P. (2005) Defining spaces of potential art: the significance of representation in computer-aided creativity. In: Description & Creativity Conference, online proceedings, King’s College, Cambridge, UK, 3–5 July 2005.
Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Dahlstedt supplementary material
Dahlstedt supplementary material 1

 Unknown (3.2 MB)
3.2 MB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed