the show, my brain, and an opinion

I had a pretty successful run at the show yesterday. 4 of the 7 pieces I entered got in. But I'm not trying to brag, rather I ask: is it possible that because I (may have) labeled more than the other people in the class (because I always feel bad that I miss class every week) that my tastes/preferences/opinions/whathaveyou that informed DARCI also inform my work, thereby making it easier for me to get into the show?

I know that Naomi doesn't like labeling. That's fine. It's not her thing. She called the days we spent downstairs in the lab like prison. Hilarious.

She wasn't as successful in getting into the show. Could this be because she didn't label as many images as me?

I just wonder what the coorelation is, if any.

Also, I wrote my sister (a mechanical engineer currently serving a mission in Nicaragua) and told her about the show. She said "Your DARCI project sounds super interesting.  I have no idea how those programmers programmed creativity.  It sounds like an oxymoron actually, programmed creativity.  But a really cool idea."

It does sound like an oxymoron. But it makes for a fun show.

a letter

Dear DARCI,

I just wanted to drop you a line and tell you how smart you've made me seem to people when they ask me about my art classes. "Artificial Intelligence carrying out creative processes!? Wow, you must be some sort of genius artists or something." I wasn't sure how to take this at first. It was as if a painter couldn't in anyway be as smart as someone working with artificial intelligence. And it may well be true. But I decided that it's just a different set of smarts. After all we did teach the smarty-pants Dave and Darrel what words like "painterly" and "kitschy" were yesterday.

Also, I would like to compliment you on how far you've come. While you're still young and we have a lot of teaching to do, you have done a pretty good job so far assigning adjectives to images. Kudos DARCI, kudos.

Love, Paige

Feeling

I have concluded in my personal opinion that in some ways DARCI is much like a human. Originally she is programed with a random function. Then depending on the results of that function she begins to build associations with right and wrong. This whole process is very human. As a child we develop patterns through associations. Much like DARCI. My next question is whether or not it is possible to program feeling. A part of thinking (in my opinion) consists of how an individual feels. Feeling takes place after the initial programing/learning. So the ability to learn can be programed. As described in our discussion on randomness. So what does it mean to feel? I can't exactly say, other than I have a feeling. So what is feeling? And can it be programed?

Random

How do you program randomness? By programing it, are you not expecting certain results? Therefore, it is not random. Could someone explain this to me? Please.

labeling is lots of fun

I decided that labeling is way more fun when there are a bunch of people around you. I didn't do the grueling three hours, but i do spend a fair amount of time doing it on my own and let me tell you, it's better with a group.

I like the new way to teach DARCI and I think it's interesting what she comes up with.

Does she only pull images that people have listed as "creepy" for example. Or, based on those images listed "creepy" she tries to find others?

More on associations and what is thinking

I chatted with my husband about our class discussion on Thursday. I told him how my thoughts went flying when Zac asked the question, "does DARCI think?" and Dan said that if we can describe it, we can program a computer to do it. My husband and I got on the subject of what is thinking, how do we think? What processes are considered "carrying out a thought" and how important making associations is. After he referred me to a recent Charlie Rose interview with David Brooks (columnist for the New York Times).

Here's the exerpt that stood out to me:

Brooks: . . . This cognitive revolution is giving us a more accurate view of human nature that we are not only the rational, incentive based, the linguistic, logical parts of our mind, but we have other processes which are associational, which are emotional, and this is how we really navigate the world. 

So to me this is just exciting in its own way, but also solves my problems, my problems of why we've had so many policy failures by giving us a more accurate view of human nature and how people are likely to respond to different situations. 

CHARLIE ROSE:  It's stunning. 

And, you know, when I talk to all these people and frequently say "What's the one question you most want to answer?" It's always about the unconscious.  There is this ultimate fascination with, as what you say, how much of what we do is unconscious, and how deeply influential it is in terms of all relationships we have. 

DAVID BROOKS:  Right.  And to me, the metaphor that helps me understand it is the conscious is like a general, distanced from the world, looking down on it.  The unconscious are like scouts, millions of them, permeating the world, going into other minds, going into an environment and sending back these emotional signals -- go, no, go. 

And so when you look at a menu, you can make a choice of what you want, but you do not have a choice of whether you like broccoli.  That's happening unconsciously.  If you describe to me a story of incest, I have an immediate moral reaction to that.  That's all done unconsciously. 

And, you know, so one of my favorite little science experiments are people named Dennis are disproportionately likely to become dentists.  People named Lawrence are disproportionately likely to become lawyers, because unconsciously we have a preference for things that are familiar and we follow those things. 

And by now there are now 30,000, 40,000 neuroscientists in the world as well as other fields, and they're reshaping the way we understand how we navigate in this way, how these scouts send back signals.  Sometime they send back very brilliant signals, sometimes they send back biased signals. 

But it doesn't simplify life, but it gives you a sense of why we react or don't react the way we do. 

CHARLIE ROSE:  You've answered the question that I kept saying, why is David writing about this, one?  And why is he at this cognitive conference and this other cognitive conference?  Now I know, because of the book. 

What can you tell me about the book?  Can you tell me more?  Is it about the brain?  Is it about the unconscious? 

DAVID BROOKS:  I'm not a neuroscientist, so it's not really about the brain.  So my goal is to go the whole book without using the word "amygdale," because there's all this stuff with MRIs and brain geography which is very cutting edge and it's not something I'm qualified to write about. 

CHARLIE ROSE:  But it is the frontier of science right now. 

DAVID BROOKS:  But I'm always -- for us outsiders, we really should be worried about it, because the brain has a hundred billion neurons and infinite, almost, numbers of connections, and sometimes I look at the brain scans, the nice color pictures, and you think, OK, they're flying over Los Angeles, they're looking at neighborhoods where the lights are on, and they're trying to guess at what people are talking about at the dinner table.  It's phenomenally complicated . . .

Nonetheless, they don't solve philosophical problems.  They don't give you a new philosophy of life.  But they do confirm or validate some old philosophies. 

If you thought that emotion was not separate from reason, that we were all fundamentally emotional creatures, then this confirms that, the importance of emotion.  And so few if you felt we were fundamentally social creatures, then this confirms that, because we get dopamine surges when we have social conferences. 

If you thought we were utilitarian, purely rational individualists, then this disconfirms all that.  So it confirms certain -- it settles certain philosophical arguments, or at least biases you in one direction.  And I found that just tremendously useful. 

I thought his ideas about associations, the subconscious etc. are really pertinent to our class discussions over the last few weeks. I think that part of the reason why it is so hard for me to describe my artistic process or pinpoint what a thought is, is because it's subconscious. I'm not totally aware of what I do, but I feel like DARCI has to be aware of her every move. Maybe I'm wrong. I just wonder how close she can really mimic artificial intelligence because so much of our intelligence and functioning powers aren't conscious thoughts. Telling my heart to pump, my lungs to breathe, explaining why to put this color there and that color there . . . I can't explain how it happens, I just know it does.   

Associations

I was so fascinated by the associations that we made. Dan said he didn't think it was a big deal that we made "incorrect" (insane, irrational...) associations, but does DARCI make associations that are incorrect? Does anything she do come out of random associations or is all of her information supplied by us? What happens if the associations she makes are incorrect? Maybe nothing. Maybe it doesn't matter.

Could DARCI do this?

I recently read a post about mathematical/computer generated art. Interesting. Could DARCI do what this guy does on his computer?

Read the post HERE.

The artist, Tom Beddard, provides code and other resources for people interested on HIS SITE.

unkown boxes of interpretation

So I've been thinking quite a bit about Dan's post on black boxes that work their magic to create outputs out of inputs. My super long 'brain dump' was essentially outlining all the inputs that I am aware of in my artwork, and trying to correlate them with physical processes and outputs. I am still working on mapping all that out, just because I think it will be helpful to myself, but have postponed posting it, because I don't know how useful it would be (and besides, reading super long posts, or anything for that matter, in sans-serif fonts is painful). But, I have been thinking about the 'box,' what it means or represents, and the meaning of words that I normally associate with creating something of worth to myself. I thought of the word 'intelligence,' and what that means. In our religious context, that word has a lot of connotation and meaning, and perhaps even a tinge of a sense of magical wonder, and I wondered, 'How do interpret that into something definable?' I also have other questions I am still mulling over.
Today I was thinking of interpretation. I interpret a lot of things. I think that's a good word to put to my process of taking a lot of input and making an output that I feel will have significance in a realm beyond my personal self. I am interpreting emotions, thought processes/concepts, words, into a visual language. Other words I think might be synonymous are 'translating,' or 'encoding.' Often times I have heard the word 'feel' used in critiques, or have thought it to myself, where something simply feels consistent, or right, or something feels like it doesn't belong. It is a way of interpreting things across different areas, from visual to emotional, or visual to psychological--a synesthesia of emotion, subconscious, and physical senses.
I read some interesting articles about synesthesia and creative processes, and I think that is something significant to art making--the ability to have ideas cross over from one realm to another, or one language to another, while still maintaining a certain degree of integrity or self sufficiency.

Validation

A lot like Bryan, I was having a hard time submitting adjectives to Darci. Every time I entered what I thought to be an adjective, she denied it as such. At first I was a little miffed. I am an English major, and shouldn't have problems with words. But after the exercise in validation, this last Thursday, I realized why I have such a hard time. It is the fault of my exposure to the English major. Often times the simple, clear adjectives are looked upon as boring. But when I use a unique word in place of an adjective, to make an adjective, I am praised. Because of this validation scale I have altered my thinking. I rarely can think of an adjective that Darci accepts as such, because I rarely use dictionary adjectives.

The internet as friend with bad influence.

We network friends. Likewise in art making we seek the other - we put our limitations into the freedom the other has to critique our art-making. Their freedom is our limitation. We choose our friends therefore we choose our capacity to be limited. (For some of us who want a real challenge we choose Joe:)

--

I like the idea that DARCI's Dads (3 Men & a Baby-processor) are making sure DARCI is making good friends. Otherwise DARCI's network of friends would be the network she's built into -- the internet. And that is a friend with bad influences.

--

Fyi:

Machines are People // Not the other way around. + System 1 & 2; Jan 28

Treating people like machines: There is a fear in art making. It is disguised as laziness, procrastination, lack of self confidence. etc. This came up in an interesting conversation I had talking to my brother about the drive that propels someone to obsess over art making. We tried to pinpoint attributes that made someone an artist. One attribute discussed was the overtly positive view artists are able to take on problems. It's a necessary mind-set that needs to be achieved in order to be an effective problem solver in art. Not all people start off with that. Self confidence is a big issue - early in art-making we tend to fall short in execution of what we imagine an art-work should look like. My brother said that we are a lot like machines in this aspect - continuously self diagnosing the problem set before us, executing possible solutions and eliminating the ones that don't work. In response to the view that we are like robots, I reminded my brother that robots are our creation, made in our likeness. That we don't act like robots but robots act like us.

--

I wonder if DARCI cannot emulate a similar stage of growth where she overcomes her insecurities in order to become an obsessively positive art-making human?

--

Also: Thanks to everyone who put up with my game a couple of weeks ago:)

Creative Process

When I look at an artist, I see a "black box".  Computer scientists talk about algorithms as black boxes when they can see the inputs to the box and can see the outputs from the box, but can not see anything that goes on inside the box -- they cannot see how the inputs are transformed to outputs.  That is how I see you as an artist.  When I ask about this, you might start talking about your experiences, or your feelings or the weather, etc.  In my black box model, these are all considered inputs (yep, even the feelings).  So, in my black box model, we have Inputs (sights, sounds, feelings, experiences, smells, weather, memories, etc.) and we have Output (some visual artifact), and we have some (hidden) Process that transforms Inputs -> Outputs.  What I'm very interested in is that process -- what happens in the black box to transform those inputs to that output.  Can you tell me what happens in the box?

quick thought on 'teaching DARCI'

So, for a while I have been considering why it is so difficult for me to apply adjectives to imagery. I went to the public DARCI more than a week ago (I haven't since--and I only contributed to one image with only one adjective). I was surprised because I found it very difficult for me to think of adjectives. Maybe that sounds a bit crazy, but it did. It took ten minutes to for me to come up with one adjective.

I went to DARCI today, and am still there currently, and had a sort of epiphany.

I was thinking of adjectives in a specific way. There is a difference between describing and interpreting an image. There are descriptive adjectives and interpretive adjectives. The adjectives we use in describing what is visually happening in images is simple, direct, and fairly easy. But to put interpretive adjectives to an image (happy as opposed to bright, or creepy as opposed to dark, etc) takes a lot more. It also seems to me that interpretive labels and adjectives or ideas are based on descriptions of characteristics of what visually happens in an image. To interpret, we process the various descriptive qualities through our own context of experience to find correlations that we can then use to contextualize and interpret the image that has more meaning, more significance, or transcends simply being a re-description of something.

Pictures from class

Here are the paintings/drawings we did in class. We have the original image plus the modified version.

Bromerly:





Orfly:



Flamping:

Agency

During each class discussion, the topic I have found my thoughts constantly returning to is that of agency.

My main question is, from whence comes agency?

We have been trying to figure out through projects and discussion what sets us apart as artists. A current theme I have noticed in our thoughts is that agency is essential in determining the validity of and artistic action. What I mean to say is, we tend to value an art object when we know that someone exercised personal agency, made choices, and of their own accord created the piece.

But how do we determine what is agency, and where it comes from?

Can DARCI develop something akin to agency, or is it only considered agency when it applies to humans?

Similarly, we are products of everything that came before us. We may feel original or unique but we simply are not. Do we have more agency than DARCI because we are human, or are we just trying to tell ourselves that?

Where did our agency come from? We know from the Doctrine and Covenants that we were intelligences before we were spirit children, and that intelligence can neither be created nor destroyed. There are some that believe that agency is inherent with intelligence, therefore our agency was not given to us or created for us. If agency is not inherent with intelligences, than it was created by God. So did God create an environment for us to exercise our agency, or did he create our agency completely?

Is it possible to create agency for DARCI?

Why...

So as I read Paige's post below, it got me thinking, am I even an artist. I made this little video last night. I wouldn't call it art, I made it just for fun. I also wouldn't call it very creative; stuff like this has been done lots before. I was actually inspired to make this because of Annie Poon. I made the video because the song was stuck in my head, and I just felt like doodling.

Therefore based on my own ideas of what is art, my little video isn't because it doesn't have any real intention, not much craft, and isn’t innovative in anyway. But then, how come Annie Poon’s little videos are considered art. Is it quantity that determines if something is legitimate? And what determines if something is creative? I’m sure my fellow art friends would agree my video isn’t very “creative”, however my roommates think I’m the bees knees, (yes I said Bee’s Knee’s.)
So does being creative mean to simply create something, careless of what it is. Or does being creative have to do with its synonyms, according to word: original, imaginative, inspired, artistic, inventive, resourceful, ingenious and innovative.
I think these synonyms better explain what the aim of Darcy is, rather than to have her simply create something, the goal is to have her be innovative, create something new with a set intentions.
So how does one cross that line, of simply creating something, to actually doing something innovative? I’m sure the answer is worth some sum of money?

Creativity and Decision Making Processes

I have about 30 million thoughts running through my head on Thursday but the discussion always seemed to move on faster than my mind could run.

But I did write down some of my questions as we went along:

How is decision making processes random? Are they?
What is art? (seems like we have different definitions of what it is--clearing this up could help us communicate?)
What is my decision making process when it comes to art?
What does Dan mean 'we think so differently?'
Is there a commonality in the creative process?
How do we define creativity?
Is art making at all random?
What is random?
Is predictability bad? How does predictably factor into art? Is 'good art' unpredictable?

I'll muse on a few of these questions in this post.

First I'll address Dan's statement that "we think so differently"
On this point I disagree almost entirely. Sure every person "thinks differently" I don't think that's hard to argue, but I think a more accurate statement would be that we express our ideas differently. And not just because someone uses paint and someone else uses binary, I mean the words we use. I think that lead to a lot of misunderstanding on Thursday. Our vocabularies are different when we're expressing our ideas. I grew up with a Mother who double majored in Computer Science and Mathematics and went on to get a Masters in Math. My grandfather chaired the Math Department at BYU for a number of years. My sister is a Mechanical Engineer . . . I have a lot of experience with trying to express myself so my family gets it. But they do, and often we find we're on the same page in a lot of ways.

Second, How do we define creativity?
I was thinking a lot about this and couldn't come up with something succinct. I thought of one work I like better than creative and it was innovative, but beyond that I couldn't think up any that I really thought expressed what so-called creativity is. Is it original? No, a lot of things I would deem creative but not original. It's sticky really. And it's something I've never really tried to define. I'll keep working at it.

Lastly, Predictability.
We talked about this briefly in class and Dave said, "is predictability bad?" Well, not in some cases, but I think as artists you don't want to be predictable and so yes, it is. What is the point of trying to create (connoting something innovative or new) if it's predictable? It would defeat the purpose for creation.

Nothing is original...

How Can We Talk About Creativity?

In the context of class discussions, the word creativity is unclear and I think almost worthless. It is important that we all have the same understanding of what we mean when we say “creative”, otherwise it’s going to be hard to communicate. What are people’s thoughts on what creativity means? Let’s see if we can come to a consensus on what we mean for the purposes of the class, and for the purposes of discussing DARCI.

My working definition is (derived from Csíkszentmihályi): creativity is the process of making creative artifacts (pictures, songs, algorithms, designs, ideas, stories, etc.). Creative artifacts are artifacts that a field (judges) deem valuable and novel to a domain (category of artifact). In other words, the artifact is going to stretch and change the domain in some way that the field accepts.

When attributing creativity, the field can be as broad or as narrow as you please, but the attribution of creativity is limited by the field. For example, the field could be me alone. Then I would essentially be evaluating my own artifacts. If I decided they were creative then they are, but only to me. This would be an example of the p-creativity mentioned in class. If I wanted to create something that was considered H-creative in a particular domain, then my artifact would need to be accepted by the field representing the entire domain (the experts of a domain / the gatekeepers). Obviously, the field can be anywhere in between these two extremes.

The domain can also be as broad and narrow as you please. In other words, the term is not limited to a discreet set of established domains such as visual arts, or music, or math, or whatever. It could be a hybrid or a sub-area of these for example. However, for there to be H-creativity, then there needs to be a field that defines what a specific domain is.

My understanding is that artists and scientists are striving for H-creativity in their respective domains (that’s the point of being an artist or a scientist). This does not mean that p-creativity is meaningless. For someone to be capable of H-creativity, they must be capable of p-creativity. I think that this does NOT necessarily mean that something that is deemed H-creative is p-creative.

What about artists that explicitly do not want to be accepted by the field? I’m no artist so I may not know what I’m talking about; but, I think that there actually aren’t artists like this if you think about it. Rather, these artists are hoping that the domain will change, hopefully in a radical way, because of their work. Or even better, a new domain will be created! Once that happens, then of course the artist will be uncomfortable because a field now exists that accepts their work. So, the artist will continuously try to change the domain (or create new domains). Boden, calls this transformational creativity (T-creativity) and if I remember correctly, I think she considers it the “highest” form of creativity. At any rate, acceptance by a field is still part of the process.

I feel like I just wrote a book :) Anyways, please expand, discuss, or tear-apart these ideas; or share your own. Let’s come to an understanding of what we mean by creativity.

Thoughts..

The concept behind DARCI has been fascinating. I have been dwelling on a certain question about the way in which DARCI is learning. Language is a complicated area. We are influenced in many ways in how we communicate and when we feed DARCI adjectives I wonder how accurate her perceptions will be in the end. If one were to look at a work of art and feed DARCI adjectives and then individual comes to the site and see the same picture but has just been in a horrible argument and feel angry or their day has been unhappy, how will that affect the process in her learning? Is that the end goal for her vocabulary is to grow by feeding her different words that have emotional responses attached? (that can change how one would view or describe a work of art, I think)

Joe also asked us to contribute, via the blog, what we feel needs to be present in the process of creating a work of art. We sometimes feel that we have to be singular in approach (i.e. it is all centered around our own ideas and no one else.) Yet as I have gone through school I found that you are hindering your possibilities by secluding outside forces. There are many ways to view having input. One could look at higher power, a fellow classmate, an instructor, an individual that is simply coming to view your art, etc. How open are we to new ideas?

Also, what about what we like to call in the art community 'happy accidents'? Do we always embrace them and allow them to guide our initial direction into a new direction? I guess with all of these ideas the question really comes down to: Do we need to have so much control? I am sure as the semester goes on I will realize more and then update, but for now it is some food for thought for us as artist and also as DARCI is progressing towards her end goal of creation her own art.

The student has become the teacher

The copy of a copy activity we did in class was fun and insightful. During the in class discussion and afterward I thought about how that activity could apply to what we are trying to do with DARCI. When we make photocopies of photocopies we loose quality each time. However, as discussed in class, this change isn't always bad, in fact in may be very good. It reminds me of a teacher to student relationship. When a student learns from a teacher it can be thought of as copying information from the teacher to the student. However, the student can understand and interpret the information differently and the information is then changed a little. That student can then teach another student and the information is then changed again. Teaching DARCI adjectives seems no different than this. We as the teachers have our own understanding of these adjectives and how they are associated with images. DARCI, however, will develop her own understanding and interpretation of these adjectives that will be a little different from our own. These differences could provide an argument that DARCI is not just an overall reflection of her teachers, but adds something of her own. I also think it would be very interesting to have DARCI teach another copy of DARCI and compare them.

I Can Control My Heart Beat

Brian, I can control my heart beat. On a drizzly spring afternoon a few years ago, I was receiving a physical. I can remember the metallic cold of the stethoscope caress my back and chest. Then the doctor tested my heart rate. Because the physical was one of the athletic team sort, she had me run in place. After two minutes of running in place she tested my heart rate again. To her surprise, as well as mine, my heart rate had dropped. "What?" you say. Running would make your heart rate increase, not decrease. Well this is what happened. For years I had been running thirty to forty miles a week. Then I stopped. I hadn't run much in about six months. Luckily my body still had muscle memory. When my heart rate was supposed to raise, the training I had submitted my body to kicked in, and I slowed my heart instead. So you see, I can control the beat of my heart.

I rely on certain words, composed in a certain order, to connect with the reader and pull their interest in. Some people call these words the title. I also rely heavily on the reader having experienced a trip to the Doctor. This helps the reader connect to my story through their own experience. Without these connections the reader will lose interest in this story. The art of creating is not so much about slapping paint, or words onto an empty canvas. It is about communicating the creators intent. Creating is an attempt at communication through conditioned responses. The artist, writer, or scientist is trying to convey their thoughts by manipulating the viewers previous experience.

Images for Thought

For an assignment in another class, I read a chapter in a book called Western Wind (an introduction to poetry) by David Mason and John Frederick Nims. This chapter attributed all thinking to images. When a word is used, the reader has an image flutter through their mind. From the day we are born, we are taught to relate certain images with certain attributes. If I say the word hot, what do you see? A sunburned man, sweating large droplets of sweat, surrounding by nothing but cactuses. Or, the coils of a stove red hot and ready for a pot. The point is the word hot is processed in our minds using images. Without these images a word could not be processed, or thought. As the Darci project started to take shape in my mind; words swirling around in chaos began to settle down into a pattern that I seemed to understand. I read this chapter about imagery and thought, and realized this is what Darci does. She has images that she relates to a word. So when she is given a word she provides an image that she feels relates. Is this much different than the human process of thought?

;alialakia

Like the title of this post, I was left slightly confused. Each slide, each word, seemed to enter my head in an incongruent pattern. The first question I was able to identify as such, was, "Can Darci be given an image to create a word?" I found myself questioning who defines words. Then I realized that no word is defined the same. Each individual person has their own set of experiences that affect their perception of a word. These perceptions are often caused by past experiences in which they attribute feelings. These feelings are the defining factor in a definition. Kind of blew my mind. Will Darci be created with feelings? Or will she always be dependant on people?

Reflections so far

Darci is exciting. When we were introduced to the program and the project I had a lot of questions. Why do we want a computer to be creative? What purpose does it serve? Why is it important to understand the functions of creativity? What is creativity? How do you define it?

I was thinking about the questions that Darrel and David were asking us during class as we viewed each slide. "Is this creative? Is this artistic?" The words were so hard for me to define even to myself that I just went with a visceral response. Later in an art criticism class we were looking at Thomas Kinkade and I thought, "This is neither creative nor artistic" and slowly a definition is forming.

But still, what does this have to do with computers? I like that my computer isn't creative, that it reacts to what I tell it to do and that's all. I'm in the driver's seat and I determine the functions. I do think this project is exciting and interesting and worth pursuing, I'm just not exactly sure why yet.

I think that the projects in class have helped us to better understand "creativity." The activity designed by Amy and Melissa helped me to understand that each of us goes through a very real decision making process when we make art, and that that process varies greatly for each person. It made me wonder if Darci's decision making process will ever evolve to be as complex and often spontaneous as the decisions that we make as artists. I found that my approach to the project was very intuitive, I'm didn't consciously say, "I'll draw this and not this." I had the word "lonely" and I associate certain images with that word. In a way I guess it's like what Darci does. She pulls images that she associates with words or feelings.

It will be interesting to see how my understanding of many of these concepts evolve over the course of the semester.

A Creative Computer?

The first week of class was pretty exciting! The class made some very good comments about creativity in computers and seemed to enjoy the concept of DARCI. They expressed some great ideas about how we can help DARCI move toward creativity. For example, artists talk a lot about how their current mood and current life circumstances affect their work. They want to express their mood, or the feelings they feel when things happen in their life. So it would be cool to give DARCI something like a mood component that changes based on things like the weather, or current events in the world, or how often people interact with her. This mood component would then influence the way DARCI decides to render images. It is a neat idea that would significantly add to her ability to communicate intention in her artefacts.

Artificial Expression (Week 1)

So this is the first time I’ve posted in a blog. Pretty exciting! Anyways, I was thrilled with the response that the class gave to DARCI during our first week of class. Honestly, I had no idea what to expect. I was worried that maybe people would be upset, thinking that we were trying to replace human artists or something. Obviously that is impossible, since one of the main purposes of art is to act as a medium for people to express themselves—at least that’s the way I see it. Which leads to an interesting question: can a computer express itself with art, and if so, what is the value? I'm going to ponder this question now.

Beginning

Welcome to Art[ificial].  We will be using the blog as part of our experiment in what?  Computational Creativity?  Mixed Initiative Content?  Each time we meet together (that is, every Thursday), we will each be required to write at least one paragraph on what happened, what we think about it, what we learned, insights we had, etc.  At the end of the semester, we will have a good deal of (subjective) data about something, and it will be interesting to see what we can make of it all.  Perhaps this blog will die then.  Or, perhaps not.