The Problem of Subjectivity in Algorithmic Creativity Organisation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31866/2410-1915.25.2024.312598Keywords:
algorithmic creativity, digital technology, cultural practice, subjectivityAbstract
The aim of the article is to study the issue of determining subjectivity, authorship and uniqueness of the results of producing the creative process, organised by the use of algorithmic calculations. Results. The article clarifies the possibility of organising the artistic and creative process using mathematical calculations, and automating the reproduction of certain manipulations, additionally, it reveals signs of the uniqueness of the corresponding generation results, and grounds the degree of automating the cultural process. The scientific novelty of the article is revealed in the process of highlighting technical assets of modern art, which, although slowly, nevertheless quite demonstratively show the potential of algorithmic computing as a stimulator of creative innovations. Among the methods used in the process of analysing the issues which are raised in the article, first of all, the analytical method has to be singled out, that is based on both historical and philosophical processes, as well as modern cultural activity. Conclusions. It is revealed that algorithmic creativity is actually a kind of mechanised production process, organised in accordance with the features of machine training, and the identified signs of stylistic imitation of traditional practices. Two types of practices for organising the corresponding creative process are established according to the degree of interaction of artists with robotic systems: practices where robotic mechanisms become “subjects of creativity”, that is they are able to produce content for organizing artistic processes; practices involving the equal interaction of robotic mechanisms and artists (for instance, in theatrical performances). The cultural process automation leads to the decrease in the artist’s participation, and weakening of his authorship, but he still has an absolute advantage in the thinking orientation. Interpretation of meaningful content is a critical problem in relevant practices. The usage of algorithms in creating art products challenges traditional methods of artistic cultural creation, as the artist’s meaning and intentions are not always clear. Evaluating further prospects for the artistic culture development requires taking into account these aspects, and recognising potential consequences of forming algorithmic creativity for the further cultural development of humanity.
References
Ames, C., & Domino, M. (1992). Cybernetic Composer: An overview. In M. Balaban, K. Ebcioglu, & O. Laske (Eds.), Understanding music with AI: Perspectives on music cognition (pp. 186–205). MIT Press [in English].
Andujar, M., Crawford, C. S., Nijholt, A., Jackson, F., & Gilbert, J. E. (2015). Artistic brain-computer interfaces: The expression and stimulation of the user’s affective state. Brain- Computer Interfaces, 2 (2–3), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/2326263X.2015.1104613 [in English].
Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press [in English].
Bruce, A., Knight, J., Listopad, S., Magerko, B., & Nourbakhsh, I. R. (2000, April 24–28). Robot improv: Using drama to create believable agents. In IEEE International conference on robotics and automation [Conference proceedings] (Vol. 4, pp. 4002–4008). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2000.845355 [in English].
Burleigh, T. J., Schoenherr, J. R., & Lacroix, G. L. (2013). Does the uncanny valley exist? An empirical test of the relationship between eeriness and the human likeness of digitally created faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 759–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.021 [in English].
Chen, W., Shidujaman, M., Jin, J., & Ahmed, S. U. (2020, July 19–24). Methodological Approach to Create Interactive Art in Artificial Intelligence. In 22nd HCI International conference 2020 – Late Breaking Papers: Cognition, learning and games [Conference proceedings] (pp. 13–31). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60128-7_2 [in English].
Dautenhahn, K. (2007). Socially intelligent robots: Dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 679–704. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2004 [in English].
Edmonds, E. (2018). Algorithmic art machines. Arts, 7(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts7010003 [in English].
Ferrari, F., Paladino, M. P., & Jetten, J. (2016). Blurring human-machine distinctions: anthropomorphic appearance in social robots as a threat to human distinctiveness. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(2), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0338-y [in English].
gtec medical engineering. (2018, January 24). A3 K3 by Dragan Ilic at Ars Electronica Festival 2017 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHzcCotmHbY [in English].
Lubart, T., Esposito, D., Gubenko, A., & Houssemand, C. (2021). Creativity in human, robots, humbbots. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/c3xzh [in English].
Lucchiari, C., Folgieri, R., Dei Cas, L., & Soave, F. (2016). Creative thinking: A brain computer interface of art. In T. Magnusson, C. Kiefer, & S. Duffy (Eds.), Live interfaces [Conference proceedings] (pp. 74–79). University of Sussex [in English].
O’Hanrahan, E. (2001). Pratique du dessin interculturel: la réponse de l’école d’art [Cross-cultural drawing practice: The art school’s response] [Interview]. In J. Chuhan, R. Creed, & A. Mitha (Eds.), Responses: Intercultural drawing practice (pp. 40–47). Liverpool School of Art and Design [in French].
Ogawa, K., Taura, K., & Ishiguro, H. (2012, September 9–13). Possibilities of androids as poetry-reciting agent. In 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International symposium on robot and human interactive communication [Conference proceedings] (pp. 565–570). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2012.6343811 [in English].
Paré, Z. (2015). Robot actors: Theatre for robot engineering. In Ehwa Institute for Humanities Science & LABEX Arts-H2H Laboratory (Eds.), Theatres du posthumain (pp. 143–162). Arcarnet [in English].
Pearce, M. T., Meredith, D., & Wiggins, G. A. (2002). Motivations and methodologies for automation of the compositional process. Musicae Scientiae, 6(2), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/102986490200600203 [in English].
Penny, S. (2013). Art and robotics: Sixty years of situated machines. AI & Society, 28, 148–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-012-0404-4 [in English].
Reblitz, A. A. (2001). The Golden Age of automatic musical instruments. Mechanical Music Press [in English].
Roehl, H. N. (1973). Player piano treasury: The scrapbook history of the mechanical piano in america, as told in story, pictures, trade journal articles and advertising. Vestal Press [in English].
Sovhyra, T. (2021). Robotic theatre: Comparative analysis of human and mechanized activities in the creative process. Creativity Studies, 14(2), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2021.13545 [in English].
Thompson, D. W. (1992). On growth and form. John Tyler Bonner. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107325852 [in English].
Tramonte, S., Sorbello, R., Guger, C., & Chella, A. (2019). Acceptability study of A3-K3 robotic architecture for a neurorobotics painting. Front. Neurorobot, 12(81). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2018.00081 [in English].
V Ukraini vystupyv rok-hurt robotiv Compressorhead [Robot rock band Compressorhead performed in Ukraine]. (2019, October 19). Ukrinform. https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-technology/2802253-v-ukraini-vistupiv-rokgurt-robotiv-compressorhead.html [in Ukrainian].
Verostko, R. (1998). Algorithmic art. Composing the score for visual art. Verostko.com. http://www.verostko.com/algorithm.html [in English].
Wadeson, A., Nijholt, A., & Nam, C. S. (2015). Artistic brain-computer interfaces: State-of-the-art control mechanisms. Brain-Computer Interfaces, 2(2–3), 70–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/2326263X.2015.1103155 [in English].
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
1) The authors reserve the right to the authorship of their work and transfer to the journal the right to first publish this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows others to freely distribute the published work with a mandatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.
2) The authors have the right to enter into independent additional agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal (for example, to place the work in the electronic repository of the institution or to publish it as part of a monograph), provided that the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal is maintained.
3) The journal's policy allows and encourages authors to post their manuscripts on the Internet (for example, in institutional repositories or on personal websites) both before submitting the manuscript to the editorial board and during its editorial processing, as this contributes to the emergence of a productive scientific discussion and has a positive effect on the efficiency and dynamics of citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).