Empirically Grounding the Evaluation of Creative Systems: Incorporating Interaction Design
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Reference
Oliver Bown: Empirically Grounding the Evaluation of Creative Systems: Incorporating Interaction Design. In: Computational Creativity 2014 ICCC 2014, 112-119.
DOI
Abstract
In this paper I argue that the evaluation of artificial cre- ative systems in the direct form currently practiced is not in itself empirically well-grounded, hindering the potential for incremental development in the field. I propose an approach to evaluation that is grounded in thinking about interaction design, and inspired by an anthropological understanding of human creative be- haviour. This requires looking at interactions between systems and humans using a richer cultural model of creativity, and the application of empirically better- grounded methodological tools that view artificial cre- ative systems as situated in cultural contexts. The ap- plicability of the concepts ‘usability’ and ‘user expe- rience’ are considered for creative systems evaluation, and existing evaluation frameworks including Colton’s creativity tripod and Ritchie’s 18 criteria are reviewed from this perspective.
Extended Abstract
Bibtex
@inproceedings{
author = {Oliver Bown},
title = {Empirically Grounding the Evaluation of Creative Systems: Incorporating Interaction Design},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Creativity},
series = {ICCC2014},
year = {2014},
month = {Jun},
location = {Ljubljana, Slovenia},
pages = {112-119},
url = {http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2014/wp-content/uploads/2014/06//8.1_Bown.pdf, http://de.evo-art.org/index.php?title=Empirically_Grounding_the_Evaluation_of_Creative_Systems:_Incorporating_Interaction_Design },
publisher = {International Association for Computational Creativity},
keywords = {computational, creativity},
}
Used References
Boden, M. 1990. The Creative Mind. George Weidenfeld and Nicholson Ltd.
Bown, O. 2012. Generative and adaptive creativity. In Mc- Cormack, J., and d’Inverno, M., eds., Computers and Cre- ativity. Berlin: Springer. 361–381.
Brown, P. 2009. Autonomy, signature and creativity. In McCormack, J., and d’Inverno, M., eds., Dagstuhl Sem- inar Proceedings 09291: Computational Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Approach, 1–7.
Cardoso, A.; Veale, T.; and Wiggins, G. A. 2009. Con- verging on the divergent: The history (and future) of the international joint workshops in computational creativity. AI Magazine 30(3):15.
Charnley, J.; Pease, A.; and Colton, S. 2012. On the notion of framing in computational creativity. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Creativity, 77–82.
Colton, S.; Pease, A.; and Ritchie, G. 2001. The effect of input knowledge on creativity. In Case-based reason- ing: Papers from the workshop programme at ICCBR, volume 1.
Colton, S. 2008. Creativity versus the perception of creativ- ity in computational systems. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Creative Intelligent Systems, 14–20.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1999. Implications of a systems per- spective for the study of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J., ed., The Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. 313–335.
Diamond, J. 1987. Soft sciences are often harder than hard sciences. Discover 8(8):34–39.
DiPaola, S.; McCaig, G.; Carlson, K.; Salevati, S.; and Sorenson, N. 2013. Adaptation of an autonomous cre- ative evolutionary system for real-world design applica- tion based on creative cognition. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Cre- ativity, 40–48.
Feynman, R. 1974. Cargo cult science. Available from http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/ken/cargo cult.html.
Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Goldkuhl, G. 2004. Design theories in information systems- a need for multi-grounding. Journal of Information Tech- nology Theory and Application (JITTA) 6(2):7.
Hargreaves, D. J., and North, A. C. 1999. The functions of music in everyday life: Redefining the social in music psychology. Psychology of Music 27(1):71–83.
Hassenzahl, M., and Tractinsky, N. 2006. User experience- a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology 25(2):91–97.
Jordanous, A. 2011. Evaluating evaluation: Assessing progress in computational creativity research. In Proceed- ings of the second international conference on computa- tional creativity (ICCC-11). Mexico City, Mexico, 102– 107.
Kowaliw, T.; Dorin, A.; and McCormack, J. 2012. Pro- moting creative design in interactive evolutionary compu- tation. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation 16(4):523.
Lehman, J., and Stanley, K. 2011. Abandoning objectives: Evolution through the search for novelty alone. Evolu- tionary Computation 19(2):189–223.
Nature. 2005. In praise of soft science. Nature 6(23):1003.
Newman, G. E., and Bloom, P. 2012. Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in judgments of value. Jour- nal of Experimental Psychology: General 141(3):558.
Pereira, F. C.; Mendes, M.; Gerv ́as, P.; and Cardoso, A. 2005. Experiments with assessment of creative systems: an application of Ritchie’s criteria. In Proceedings of the workshop on computational creativity, 19th international joint conference on artificial intelligence.
Plotkin, R. 2009. The genie in the machine: how computer- automated inventing is revolutionizing law and business. Stanford University Press.
Ritchie, G. 2001. Assessing creativity. In Wiggins, G. A., ed., Proc. of AISB’01 Symposium.
Ritchie, G. 2006. The transformational creativity hypothe- sis. New Generation Computing 24(3):241–266.
Ritchie, G. 2007. Some empirical criteria for attributing creativity to a computer program. Minds and Machines 17(1):67–99.
Rogers, Y.; Preece, J.; and Sharp, H. 2007. Interaction design.
Salganik, M. J.; Dodds, P. S.; and Watts, D. J. 2006. Ex- perimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. science 311(5762):854–856.
Smith, K. 2012. From dividual and individual selves to porous subjects. The Australian Journal of Anthropology 23(1):50–64.
Thompson, D. W. 1992. On Growth and Form. Dover.
Ventura, D. 2008. A reductio ad absurdum experiment in sufficiency for evaluating (computational) creative sys- tems. In Proceedings of the 5th international joint work- shop on computational creativity. Madrid, Spain, 11–19.
Wiggins, G. A. 2006. Searching for computational creativ- ity. New Generation Computing 24(3):209–222.
Links
Full Text
http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2014/wp-content/uploads/2014/06//8.1_Bown.pdf
