Resume of the tutorial with Gareth Polmeer
Date: June 29. 2017
Topics: Abstract and first outcome
It was, in general, a release to talk with Gareth.
My subject for the research paper is still open, but I’m starting to narrow it down to something about the chance operation, control and, lack of control.
In keyword, my draft is about: coincidence, perception, information theory, chance operation, and AI
Gareth mentioned that there is a lot of interesting questions about the relationship between art and science in my first outcome.
He said that I am crossing into a much-debated field when I’m quoting Professor Zimmerman; the idea of speaking about the experience/perception in the kind of the language of information or terms of units of bits and bits this sorts of things are in themselves verily debated by philosophers and scientists. What we can infer from such a connection, and how intelligence works. One can speak about AI as having conciseness; it is related to the thing called the hard problem.
Gareth recomanded me to look at the journal called Leonardo; an American published journal, it’s a journal for the international society for art, science and technology. They publish articles by artist collaborating with scientists. He mentions that because there has been an increasing sense in which the arts and the sciences have come to be conflated in a sense – art and science are come to define itself in a very particular kind of way, it’s having a kind of domain over the art.
The question becomes about how I can make an experiment which connects natural scientist to an artistic question.
In the light of Karl Poppers (philosopher) idea of the function of science, it is hard to speak about that kind of things in relation to art, in the same kind of way.
How can I relate something like a controlled experiment to the contingency nature of artistic experience and something like that? I have to aware about linking the question up to an art question.
According to the information theory, I noticed a work of art made by Louise Nevelson I saw a few days ago. Gareth talked about Sol LeWitt; relating to developing process or questions about chance and contingency in the process and things like that. Artis like that could be interesting.
Gareth asked how far I was into the question about machine learning and creative AI, which I mention in the latest state of my notes.
I had heard two a lectures about AI; one was about AI and ethics; that we have to learn the computer ethic rules because they are on the way to take over the management of our society. The other one I heard had a title “Can AI be creative?” by John R. Smith, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center; it was about how technology can learn creativity. I asked can AI be/learn aesthetic?
Gareth noticed that Google the system that sort of generated images. Exactly what constitutes creativity in that respect. You have to import rules, to make a setup and the outcome will depend on the accuracy. And then there is all the other thing which aren’t things that can be variable input to computers, like emotion and embodied senses.
In the end, Gareth summarised that there is a very big question here but at the same time a couple of people, I mention, provided that I can focus on particular practices and a couple of particular theories. There is a lot of scopes, for it to be both a detail discussion but also still to stay reasonably within the limits of the 4-5 thousands of words, with some selected examples.