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.