Creativity
Apr. 15th, 2003 05:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
guslConsider 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.
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.
IP Gets in the way
Date: 2003-04-19 10:25 am (UTC)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
Date: 2003-04-19 11:00 am (UTC)Re: IP Gets in the way
Date: 2003-04-22 12:37 pm (UTC)Kyle Lahnakoski (kyle@arcavia.com)