From the mid eighteenth century starting from Vaucansons Defecating Duck, there were series of attempts to simulate life and living processes. Every attempt much closer to real life than the previous ones, changed the meaning of simulation from 'mere fakery' to an actual reproduction of the real life process. From the external movements and activities like playing flute and piano, to internal physical process like digestion , to mental process like calculations and finally to intelligence and thinking we have come a long way in simulation of life. We have defined and redefined the extent to which we can simulate life, pushing it closer and closer to real life, leaving a very thin line between machines and animals. It is perhaps interesting to see that most of the modern machines are built in the same lines as we understand our body. The more we understand ourselves the better we simulate it.
About AARON
In 1973 Harold Cohen a reputed English painter took up an ambitious new project of creating a machine that can paint original art. AARON started as robot which draws black and white pictures. Over the thirty years that Harold Cohen worked on it, it has gone through many changes. Though it started as a mere drawing machine it grew in its complexity and eventually ending up drawing human figures and giving the program an increasingly sophisticated understanding of their positioning in space. Cohen has hard coded theory of colours, different strokes and theory of compositions. Though this is all procedural programming but at a higher level AARON chooses what to do when and what it should look like. There are no more than two painting so AARON that are the same. It mixes its own colours and cleans its brushes itself. Today AARON can it builds its images through colours the way Cezanne or Matisse once did. The colours are dazzling, deeply satisfying, which surprised everyone including its own tutor Cohen, already well-known as a gifted colourist. He says he has learned from AARON even as AARON learned about colour from him. It can make paintings of real life objects and also the abstract ones.
Hard copies of AARON paintings have hung in museums around the world, including the London's Tate Modern, Amsterdam's Stedelijk Museum, San Francisco Museum of Modern art, Brooklyn Museum and Washington Capital Children’s Museum.
Today the AARON software is licensed by the Kurzweil CyberArt Technologies Inc. The software uses the program used in the AARON robot but instead of making a hard copy of it, it displays it on your computer screen and we can print it out with a colour printer.
Is the computer being creative?
While AARON continues to makes those life like pictures, it raises a few questions about autonomy, creativity, learning, and intelligence. The automation in 18th century created a distinction between the creative and intelligent work to physical and unintelligent work. It was thought that only physical and unintelligent work can be simulated. As years passed by we simulated more complex human activities, are we now stimulating creativity?. This question is hard to answer because Creativity is very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to define in objective terms. It is impossible to measure creativity. Human creativity itself is not well understood. It is also not well understood why we are drawn towards certain visuals (art), certain sounds(music), etc.
When it comes to AARON a machine composing art worth of thousand of dollars is difficult to comprehend for lot of people. What does it say about originality? Creativity? Learning.
AARON's works are unique so it is original.
When it comes to learning and creativity Pamela McCorduck the author of “Aaron's Code” says:
“AARON has learned what Cohen has taught it, but like all good students, AARON surprises its teacher with its own work—in a human we would call that creativity.”
Ray Kurzweil who bought rights for AARON said:
“Harold's AI-based program actually creates original paintings on your computer's screen, each one completely different. If a human created paintings like AARON, we would regard him or her as an acclaimed artist. ”
On the contrary if we go by If one considers Robin Baker’s criteria for a program to be to be recognized as creative,
1) The conceptual space of the programmer is extended or broken by a creative program. [In other words, it creates something beyond the boundaries of what was originally programmed into it.]2) It should have judgment and be able to recognize its own work
Though AARON clearly seem to satisfy the first point the it can not satisfy the second point. It does not judge good picture and a bad picture which is generally done by an artist. AARON may please many people but can not please itself. Moreover art is considered as a medium through which an artist communicate his mood and feelings. This gives the art some life, which lacks completely when it comes to AARON's paintings. AARON does not even know what it is painting of.
To some extent the way that ARRON works is similar to humans. It learns what its teacher has tought it and makes a painting with its own intellect. But it is not anything close to a humans it the judgement of its painting. Though there are lot of different opinions on computer-art. AARON's paintings have been sold for thousand of dollars and it surely can be looked at as an another step in narrowing the gap between man and machine. It has simulated creativity partially though not completely.
-G Sujan Kumar
References
No comments:
Post a Comment