The Painting Fool is one of a growing number of computer programs which, so their makers claim, possess creative talents. Classical music by an artificial composer has had audiences enraptured, and even tricked them into believing a human was behind the score. Artworks painted by a robot have sold for thousands of dollars and been hung in prestigious galleries. And software has been built which creates art that could not have been imagined by the programmer.
好运快三开户Human beings are the only species to perform sophisticated creative acts regularly. If we can break this process down into computer code, where does that leave human creativity? ‘This is a question at the very core of humanity,’ says Geraint Wiggins, a computational creativity researcher at Goldsmiths, University of London. ‘It scares a lot of people. They are worried that it is taking something special away from what it means to be human.’
人類是唯一可以常規化地進行繁雜造型藝術創作個人行為的種群.如果我們能夠將這一全過程溶解變成電腦上編號,那把人類想像力放置何處呢?“這是一個事關人的本性最關鍵的難題”,倫敦大學金史密斯學校的一位電子計算機想像力科學研究專家學者Geraint Wiggins 那樣說.“它讓很多人害怕恐懼,她們憂慮這會從人類中奪走一些獨特的本歸屬于人類的物品.”
好运快三开户To some extent, we are all familiar with computerised art. The question is: where does the work of the artist stop and the creativity of the computer begin? Consider one of the oldest machine artists, Aaron, a robot that has had paintings exhibited in London’s Tate Modern and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Aaron can pick up a paintbrush and paint on canvas on its own. Impressive perhaps, but it is still little more than a tool to realise the programmer’s own creative ideas.
Simon Colton, the designer of the Painting Fool, is keen to make sure his creation doesn’t attract the same criticism. Unlike earlier ‘artists’ such as Aaron, the Painting Fool only needs minimal direction and can come up with its own concepts by going online for material. The software runs its own web searches and trawls through social media sites. It is now beginning to display a kind of imagination too, creating pictures from scratch. One of its original works is a series of fuzzy landscapes, depicting trees and sky. While some might say they have a mechanical look, Colton argues that such reactions arise from people’s double standards towards software-produced and human-produced art. After all, he says, consider that the Painting Fool painted the landscapes without referring to a photo. ‘If a child painted a new scene from its head, you’d say it has a certain level of imagination,’ he points out. The same should be true of a machine.’ Software bugs can also lead to unexpected results. Some of the Painting Fool’s paintings of a chair came out in black and white, thanks to a technical glitch. This gives the work an eerie, ghostlike quality. Human artists like the renowned Ellsworth Kelly are lauded for limiting their colour palette - so why should computers be any different?
好运快三开户“繪畫愚人”的設計師Simon Colton 十分熱切地要想保證他的商品不容易招來一樣的指責.不象Aaron那樣的初期藝術大師,“繪畫愚人”只必須少量的命令,就能根據上外網檢索原材料而造成自身的創作核心理念.這一手機軟件起動其本身的搜索網頁作用,訪問每個社交網絡網頁頁面.它如今也剛開始展現出了某類想像力,能從文稿中造就出詳細的美術作品.它的原創作品之一是一系列若隱若現風景圖畫,勾勒的是花草樹木與天上.盡管有的人或許要說這種美術作品有一種機械設備感,Colton卻辯駁說,那樣的反映是出自于大家看待手機軟件創作和人類創作的造型藝術的雙重標準.終究,他那樣說,要充分考慮“繪畫愚人”是在沒有參考一張照片的狀況下繪制了這種景色.“假如一個孩子從自身的大腦中勾畫出一副新的景色,你也就要說這一小孩有一定的想像力水準的”,她說,“放到一臺設備上也理應一樣.”手機軟件系統漏洞也是有將會會導致出乎意料的實際效果.“繪畫愚人”勾勒一把椅子的一些因為技術性常見故障著作變成黑白色.這授予了美術作品一種怪異、怪異的覺得.有一些如Ellsworth
Kelly般知名的人類藝術家由于十分抑制地應用自身調色盤上的顏色而備受傳揚——那麼放到電腦上的身上為何就理應各有不同呢? Researchers like Colton don’t believe it is right to measure machine creativity directly to that of humans who ‘have had millennia to develop our skills’. Others, though, are fascinated by the prospect that a computer might create something as original and subtle as our best artists. So far, only one has come close. Composer David Cope invented a program called Experiments in Musical Intelligence, or EMI. Not only did EMI create compositions in Cope’s style, but also that of the most revered classical composers, including Bach, Chopin and Mozart. Audiences were moved to tears, and EMI even fooled classical music experts into thinking they were hearing genuine Bach. Not everyone was impressed however. Some, such as Wiggins, have blasted Cope’s work as pseudoscience, and condemned him for his deliberately vague explanation of how the software worked. Meanwhile, Douglas Hofstadter of Indiana University said EMI created replicas which still rely completely on the original artist’s creative impulses. When audiences found out the truth they were often outraged with Cope, and one music lover even tried to punch him. Amid such controversy, Cope destroyed EMI’s vital databases.
像Colton那樣的學術研究們并不贊同將設備想像力立即與人類想像力一概而論相互之間較為,由于“人類早已有數千年的歲月來發展趨勢人們的方法了”.另一些仁的意思癡迷于那樣的市場前景：一臺電腦上或許能跟人們最好是的藝術家相提并論,創作出一樣頗具藝術創意而精致的著作.到迄今為止,只有一個貼近了這一總體目標.音樂家David Cope創造發明了一個程序流程,稱之為“歌曲智能化試驗”,通稱EMI.EMI不但創作出了Cope設計風格的樂曲,并且還仿造出了最受崇敬的古典樂曲音樂家們的著作,包含巴赫、肖邦和莫扎特.觀眾們打動得淚如雨下,EMI乃至還騙得了古典樂曲層面的權威專家,讓她們認為自身聽見的是真實的巴赫著作.殊不知并不是任何人都對于此事表達了驚訝.有一些人,比如Wiggins,就強烈批判Cope 的此項造就為偽科學,還斥責他對這一程序流程究竟怎樣運作的表述有意模棱兩可.此外,馬薩諸塞州高校的Douglas Hofstadter覺得,EMI創作的這種仿制品依然要徹底取決于原創藝術家的創作設計靈感.在粉絲們發覺了實情之后,她們對Cope 覺得出現異常惱怒,有一位樂迷乃至要想打他.在那樣的一片異議聲中,Cope消毀了EMI的重要數據庫查詢.
But why did so many people love the music, yet recoil when they discovered how it was composed? A study by computer scientist David Moffat of Glasgow Caledonian University provides a clue. He asked both expert musicians and non- experts to assess six compositions. The participants weren’t told beforehand whether the tunes were composed by humans or computers, but were asked to guess, and then rate how much they liked each one. People who thought the composer was a computer tended to dislike the piece more than those who believed it was human. This was true even among the experts, who might have been expected to be more objective in their analyses.
可是怎么會有那么多的人喜愛這些歌曲自身,在發覺了它是怎樣被創作出去以后卻膽怯了呢?格拉斯哥帕蘇多尼亞高校的電子計算機生物學家David Moffat開展的一項科學研究出示了一條案件線索.他讓技術專業作曲家和跨專業人員另外去評定六首樂曲.這種參加者并沒有被事前告之這種樂曲到底是由人類還是電腦上所創作的,可是被規定去開展猜想,隨后得出自身對每一首歌曲愛好水平的點評.這些覺得創作者是電腦上的大家一般 會比這些覺得其創作者是人類的觀眾更討厭這支樂曲.即便是在權威專家們當中狀況也是這般,但大家實際上最初是覺得權威專家的剖析評定會更為客觀性的.
好运快三开户Where does this prejudice come from? Paul Bloom of Yale University has a suggestion: he reckons part of the pleasure we get from art stems from the creative process behind the work. This can give it an ‘irresistible essence’, says Bloom. Meanwhile, experiments by Justin Kruger of New York University have shown that people’s enjoyment of an artwork increases if they think more time and effort was needed to create it. Similarly, Colton thinks that when people experience art, they wonder what the artist might have been thinking or what the artist is trying to tell them. It seems obvious, therefore, that with computers producing art, this speculation is cut short - there’s nothing to explore. But as technology becomes increasingly complex, finding those greater depths in computer art could become possible. This is precisely why Colton asks the Painting Fool to tap into online social networks for its inspiration: hopefully this way it will choose themes that will already be meaningful to us.
好运快三开户這類成見究竟來源于哪里?耶魯大學的Paul Bloom提出了一個看法：他覺得人們從造型藝術中獲得的愉快有一部分來自于著作身后的創作全過程.這能為它授予一種“不能抵觸的精粹感”,Bloom說.此外,紐約大學的Justin Kruger 所開展的試驗也顯示信息：大家假如覺得創作某件工藝品必須大量的時間和活力,便會更為賞析它.相近地,Colton 覺得當大家去感受造型藝術時,她們會禁不住去好奇心藝術家那時候已經想干什么,或是藝術家已經嘗試向她們表達什么.因而,這一點好像就很顯著了：當創作造型藝術的是電腦上時,這類遐想就被切斷了——由于沒什么可探尋的.可是伴隨著技術性越來越愈來愈繁雜,在電腦上的造型藝術創作中尋找這些實際意義深遂之處能夠慢慢變成將會.更是因而,Colton才會標示“美術繪畫愚人”去檢索各社交網絡網頁頁面來獲得設計靈感：期待根據這類方法,它可能選擇這些對人們而言早已具備實際意義的主題風格.