Creativity

[gusl]

Consider the analogy:
music <-> software
music composition <-> programming / software design

visualizing this analogy, we extrapolate using concepts we know about music and software:

notes ~> commands / expressions (depending on the paradigm)
...
...
and so on until we reach an interesting idea
...
...
music reuse <- software reuse (INTERESTING IDEA)

Do composers reuse musical patterns from other pieces? Could this idea allow higher-level composition (meta-composition?)?

Is it perhaps the case that good composers are those who, though experience, learn to automate low-level processes, thus greatly optimizing their composition? If so, maybe computers can help the beginning composer be more like an expert.

What about the "visualization" that experienced composers have? I have a feeling that no computer visualization can be a substitute to the person's own image of the composition, but I remain a technological optimist by default.

we can then explore this idea:
music composition patterns <- software design patterns

Now we ask: patterns are both about the content of the software and the processes (sequences of steps, schedules, etc.) we use to create it. It seems that experts master these two skills. Can computers help us with them?


Marvin Minsky on creativity:

Could Computers Be Creative?

I plan to answer "no" by showing that there's no such thing as "creativity'' in the first place. I don't believe there's any substantial difference between ordinary thought and creative thought. Then why do we think there's a difference? I'll argue that this is really not a matter of what's in the remind of the artist---but of what's in the mind of the critic: the less one understands an artist's mind the more creative seems the work the artist does.

Comments

[drx.livejournal.com]

yes they can. a lot of music has been composed by computers has fooled a lot of muscians, art (paintings specifically) as well.

the less one understands an artist's mind the more creative seems the work the artist does.

i think i agree with this. i think we give ourselves way too much credit, but the same goes for being abel to make thinking machines. i would not say it was impossible (as even recognizing such a thing brings up all kinds of problems), but i would be a little bit disppointed if it were to happen and be verified to my satisfaction.

[techstep.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen computer-generated visual art that can fool people into thinking it was created by a human hand. Perhaps on a computer screen, and non-representational art at that (say perhaps something in the style of Rothko or Mondrian), but it seems difficult for a computer to replicate the physical character of a painting, or create one in a very realistic, representational style. I've seen computers render pictures in an impressionistic manner, but there's a difference between rendering and generating.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Would the improvisation of a musical line (as in jazz, bluegrass, Irish music) given a theme be a rendering or a generation? This kind of thing seems fairly simple, and I believe it has been implemented successfully many times.

[techstep.livejournal.com]

I'd consider the creation of the improvisation to be a generation, and the actual playing of the impriovisation to be a rendering.

[drx.livejournal.com]

yes i would say that was a fair statement as improve, free jazz aside for now, is usually a 'take' on a particular piece and/or theme that has whatever randomness the artist(s) interject into become part of the 'improvisation'.

now in the case of free jazz, that's where those guys where actually trying to go in my opinion, out beyond logic. although i am not so sure whether any of them coltrane and coleman in particular would say that they succeded. my guess is the avergae person would say yes. *smile*

[drx.livejournal.com]

good point about visual art, i stated that badly, the music definitely has fooled folks but the art i am not sure, but there is computer generated art as shown above.

link to the program that made that: http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/

[techstep.livejournal.com]

That's pretty impressive -- if I hadn't known a priori that it was computer generated, I would've thought someone had done this using any number of computer drawing tools.

I heard of this tool (or at least the research project), but not much in almost a decade or so.

And Kurzweil's poetry software is also definitely neat.

Re:

[drx.livejournal.com]

yeah apparently the stuff sells as "real art," but damned if i know what that is. *chuckles*

yeah sometimes i am not quite sure what to make of kurzweil.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

hmm... what was your username when you made this comment?
I thought I had met 0x303c51 for the first time a couple of weeks ago.

IP Gets in the way

[(Anonymous)]

Faré writings on http://fare.tunes.org/articles/patents.html apply to all IP. Music, protected by copyright, will not be allowed to advance to the next level. This next level, as I imagine it is second order music; music that is reuse and sampling of existing music. I personally enjoy music that has been sampled from other works, but they are rare since corporations use copyright to stifle innovation.

My greatest fear is that music will stop evolving, not because there is nothing new to make, but because there is so much music out there that the masses have no time to listen to it all and want more. This saturation can only happen when copyright exists and corporations can make money off long dead artists. Every generation will be bombarded by the ancient corporate music that was made decades ago. Albiet good music, it pushes new music off the public stage. With infinite protection of ancient music, new music will not have the audience to grow. 90 years of copyright (plus extensions added to this duration every 20 years) have made the finite work an infinitely profitable entity.

As mentioned elsewhere on this site: art is ignorance of the artists thoughts. With this in mind copyright is the protection of ignorance. Computer generated art will never be allowed because it contains no artistic component and is not subject to copyright law.

We, the people, can make more art but our IP laws prohibit innovation. We will have to Fight the protectionist laws before we can advance art.

Re: IP Gets in the way

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the comment, but could you please identify yourself?

Re: IP Gets in the way

[(Anonymous)]

Yes.


Kyle Lahnakoski (kyle@arcavia.com)