Putting the art in artificial: Aesthetic responses to computer-generated art.

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) technology increasingly becomes a feature of everyday life, it is important to understand how creative acts, regarded as uniquely human, can be valued if produced by a machine. The current studies sought to investigate how observers respond to works of visual art created either by humans or by computers. Study 1 tested observers' ability to discriminate between computer-generated and man-made art, and then examined how categorisation of art works impacted on perceived aesthetic value, revealing a bias against computer-generated art. In Study 2 this bias was reproduced in the context of robotic art, however it was found to be reversed when observers were given the opportunity to see robotic artists in action. These findings reveal an explicit prejudice against computergenerated art, driven largely by the kind of art observers believe computer algorithms are capable of producing. These prejudices can be overridden in circumstances in which observers are able to infer anthropomorphic characteristics in the computer programs, a finding which has implications for the future of artistic AI.

Enhanced Associations With Actions of the Artist Influence Gaze Behaviour

“…It has been suggested that while viewing art, perceivers are influenced by the art-making process of the artist (Tinio, 2013). Some recent studies have demonstrated that the actions of the artist can influence aesthetic judgements when observers simultaneously create or familiarise themselves with congruent and incongruent actions (Leder et al., 2012; Ticini et al., 2014), with other studies showing an increase in aesthetic appreciation when the production process is explicitly presented (Chamberlain et al., 2018; McLean et al., 2015). Relationships between the artist and perceiver have been extended to understand eye movement behaviour while viewing art, and it is apparent that gaze is influenced due to the creator of the artwork and having greater knowledge of the creative process (Alvarez et al., 2015; Ishiguro et al., 2016).…”

“…Naïve viewers who attended lectures about art styles (abstract paintings) and gained knowledge about these methods were found to have higher aesthetic ratings for abstract paintings than those who received a lecture on Renaissance art, or no lecture at all (Stojilović & Marković, 2014). Chamberlain et al. (2018) showed how computer-generated artworks are rated as less pleasing than man-made pieces.…”

El estatus de arte del CG-art desde un modo de existencia de tipo-natural

“…El artículo "Putting the Art in Artificial: Aesthetic Responses to Computer-Generated Art" (Chamberlain, Mullin, Scheerlinck, & Wagemas, 2018), demostró empíricamente que existen preconceptos negativos hacia el CG-art. En particular, se evidenció que una obra es considerada estéticamente menos valiosa solo por ser generada por computador.…”

“…Como mencionamos anteriormente, investigaciones recientes han demostrado que este prejuicio negativo es una realidad (Chamberlain, Mullin, Scheerlinck, & Wagemas, 2018). Es más, de manera arbitraria, un determinado grupo podría acordar que el arte debe ser producido por humanos y no por máquinas.…”

What S in a Name Experiment on the Aesthetic Judgments of Art Produced by Artificial Intelligence

“…Over the past few decades, machine-generated art has enhanced its methods and expanded its toolkit to learn and rewrite algorithms capable of generating unique works of art (Chamberlain et al, 2018), most notably in the literature and film industry (Kakoudaki, 2014). Now we can see the new level of connection between AI and art through the advancement of the latest technologies.…”