skip to main content
research-article

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Creativity of Videos

Published:27 January 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This study explored the impact Artificial Intelligence (AI) has on the evaluation of creative elements in artistic videos. The aim was to verify to what extent the use of an AI algorithm (Style Transfer) contributes to changes in the perceived creativity of the videos. Creativity was evaluated in six quantitative items (Likert-type scale) and one qualitative question (qualitative description of the creativity expressed in the video by two words or expressions). Six videos were shown to both control (N = 49) and experimental group (N = 52) aiming at determining possible differences in creativity assessment criteria. Furthermore, both groups contained experts (Experimental, N = 27; Control, N = 25) and non-experts (Experimental, N = 25; Control, N = 24). The first round of videos composed of six videos that were the same for both the experimental and control condition (used to check for bias). No significant differences were found. In a second round, six videos were shown with AI transformation (experimental condition) and without that transformation (control group). Results showed that in two cases the perceived creativity increased in experimental condition, in one case a decrease occurred. In most evaluations no differences were observed. Qualitative evaluations reinforce the absence of a general pattern of improvements in AI transformations. Altogether, the results emphasize the importance of human mediation in the application of AI in creative production: a hybrid approach, or rather, Hybrid Intelligence.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Amabile Teresa M.. 1982. Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. 43:9971013, 1982. DOI: DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Arcas Blaise A.. 2017. Art in the age of machine intelligence. Arts 6, 4 (2017), 18. DOI: DOI: 10.3390/arts6040018Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. [3] Armstrong Richard A.. 2014. When to use Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 34, 5 (2014), 502508. DOI: DOI: 10.1111/opo.12131Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] Audry Sofian and Ippolito Jon. 2019. Can artificial intelligence make art without artists? ask the viewer. Arts 8, 1 (2019), 35. DOI: DOI: 10.3390/arts8010035Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Avdeeff Melissa. 2019. Artificial intelligence & popular music: Skygge, flow machines, and the audio uncanny valley. Arts 8, 4 (2019), 130. DOI: DOI: 10.3390/arts8040130Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. [6] Barbosa Nuno. 2011. Moby - “Be The One”. Video. (2011). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/23435653.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. [7] Barbosa Nuno. 2011. Junip - “Without You”. Video. (2011). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/27365453.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. [8] Barbosa Nuno. 2012. Rouge - "Li Azul". Video. (2012). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/31365267.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] Barbosa Nuno. 2012. MAGNOLIUS - “Selaron”. Video. (2012). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/40001143.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. [10] Barbosa Nuno. 2013. Souq - “Desert Snake Catcher”. Video. (2013). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/63415960.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. [11] Barbosa Nuno. 2013. Algodão - “Eu não sei quando te perdi”. Video. (2013). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/53332710.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Barbosa Nuno. 2013. Amplifying Creativity. Video. (2013). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/195623736.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. [13] Barbosa Nuno. 2014. Emmy Curl - March for Peace. Video. (2014). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/213043420.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Barbosa Nuno. 2015. Emmy Curl - “Come Closer”. Video. (2015). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/113000956.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. [15] Barbosa Nuno. 2018. Quattuor Elementa. Video. (2018). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/248511661.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. [16] Barbosa Nuno. 2018. Júlio Resende - “Fado Cyborg”. Video. (2018). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/281950030.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Barbosa Nuno. 2019. Júlio Resende - “Let's go to the Moon again”. Video. (2019). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/344976038.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. [18] Basalla Marcus and Schneider Johannes. 2020. Creativity of deep learning: Conceptualization and assessment. 2020. arXiv: 2012.02282Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. [19] Bishop Phillip A. and Herron Robert L.. 2015. Use and misuse of the Likert item responses and other ordinal measures. International Journal of Exercise Science 8, 3 (2015), 297302. PMID: 27182418Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Boden Margaret Ann. 2009. Computer models of creativity. AI Magazine 30, 3 (2009), 2334. DOI: DOI: 10.1609/aimag.v30i3.2254Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. [21] Chakrabarti Amaresh and Sarkar Prabir. 2015. Creativity: Generic definition, tests, factors and methods. International Journal of Design Sciences and Technology 21, 1 (2015), 737.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] Chen Liuqing, Wand Pan, Dong Hao, Shi Feng, Han Ji, Guo Yike, Childs Peter R. N., Xiao Jun, and Wu Chao. 2019. An artificial intelligence based data-driven approach for design ideation. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 61 (2019), 1022. DOI: DOI: 10.1016/j.jvcir.2019.02.009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Cohen Harold. Driving the creative machine, September 2010. Lecture. http://www.aaronshome.com/aaron/publications/orcastalk2s.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. [24] Cropley Arthur J.. 2016. Qualitative research methods: an introduction for students of psychology and education. 2016 Jun. https://www.academia.edu/20371271/Qualitative_Research_Methods_An_introduction_for_students_of_psychology_and_education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Dellermann Dominik, Ebel Philipp, Söllner Matthias, and Leimeister Jan M.. 2019. Hybrid intelligence. Business & Information Systems Engineering 61, 5 (2019), 637643. DOI: DOI: 10.1007/s12599-019-00595-Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. [26] Dolese Melissa J.. 2015. Art as Communication: Employing Gricean Principles of Communication as a Model for Art Appreciation. PhD thesis, New York, NY, USA, 2015. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/907/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Elgammal Ahmed, Liu Bingchen, Elhoseiny Mohamed, and Mazzone Marian. 2017. CAN: Creative adversarial networks, generating "art" by learning about styles and deviating from style norms. 2017. arXiv:1706.07068Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. [28] Ellis Peter. 2014. The language of research (part 1): Research paradigms. Wounds UK 10, 2 (2014), 118119. https://www.wounds-uk.com/journals/issue/38/article-details/the-language-of-research-part-1-research-paradigms.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. [29] Frigotto Maria Laura and Riccaboni Massimo. 2011. A few special cases: Scientific creativity and network dynamics in the field of rare diseases. Scientometric 89, 1 (2011), 397420. DOI: DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0431-9 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Gatys Leon A., Ecker Alexander S., and Bethge Matthias. 2016. Image style transfer using convolutional neural networks. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 24142423, 2016. DOI: DOI: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.265Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. [31] Henriksen Danah and Mishra Punya. 2014. Twisting knobs and connecting things: Rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st century. Tech Trands 58, 1 (2014), 1519. DOI: DOI: 10.1007/s11528-013-0713-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] Hong Joo-Wha and Curran Nathaniel Ming. 2019. Artificial intelligence, artists, and art: Attitudes toward artwork produced by humans vs. artificial intelligence. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications 15, 2s (2019). DOI: DOI: 10.1145/3326337 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. [33] IBM. 2020. Machine learning, 2020. https://www.ibm.com/analytics/machine-learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. [34] Jin Cheng-Bin. 2018. Real-Time Style Transfer. https://github.com/ChengBinJin/Real-time-style-transfer/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. [35] Jing Yongcheng, Yang Yezhou, Feng Zunlei, Ye Yizhou, and Song Mingly. 2019. Neural style transfer: A review. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, pages 11, 2019. DOI: DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2019.2921336Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] Kok Joost N., Boers Egbert J. W., Kosters Walter A., Van der Putten Peter, and Poel Mannes. 2009. Artificial Intelligence, chapter Artificial Intelligence: Definition, Trends, Techniques and Cases. Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. [37] Kumar Chethan. 2018. Artificial intelligence: Definition, types, examples, technologies, Aug 2018. https://medium.com/@chethankumargn/artificial-intelligence-definition-types-examples-technologies-962ea75c7b9b.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. [38] Leech Nancy L. and Anthony J. Onquegbuzie . 2002. On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The Importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8, 5 (2002), 375387. DOI: DOI: 10.1080/13645570500402447Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. [39] Leech Nancy L. and Onquegbuzie Anthony J.. 2009. A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and Quantity 43, 2 (2009), 265275. DOI: DOI: 10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. [40] Lomas Andy. 2018. On hybrid creativity. Arts 7, 3 (2018), 25. DOI: DOI: 10.3390/arts7030025Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. [41] Malina Mary A., Norreklit Hanne S. O., and Frank H. Selto . 2011. Lessons learned: Advantages and disadvantages of mixed method research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 8, 1 (2011), 5971. DOI: DOI: 10.1108/11766091111124702Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. [42] Mazzone Marian and Elgammal Ahmed. 2019. Art, creativity, and the potential of artificial intelligence. Arts 8, 1 (2019), 26. DOI: DOI: 10.3390/arts8010026Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. [43] Natarajan Balas K.. 1991. Machine Learning: A Theoretical Approach. Morgan Kaufmann, Massachusetts, USA, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. [44] Ornes Stephen. 2019. Science and culture: Computers take art in new directions, challenging the meaning of creativity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 11 (2019), 47604763. DOI: DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1900883116Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. [45] Osborne Harold. 1982. Expressiveness in the arts. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 41, 1 (1982), 1926. http://www.jstor.org/stable/430820.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. [46] Park Yeonsook. 2019. Can artworks by artificial intelligence be artworks? AM Journal of Art and Media Studies 20 (2019), 113121. DOI: DOI: 10.25038/am.v0i20.332Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. [47] Prince Simon J. D.. 2012. Computer Vision: Models, Learning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. [48] Runco Mark A. and Jaeger Garrett J.. 2012. The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 24, 1 (2012), 9296. DOI: DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. [49] Shalev-Shwartz Shai and Ben-David. Shai 2014. Understanding Machine Learning: From Theory to Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, London, UK, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. [50] Szeliski Richard. 2011. Computer Vision: Algorithms and Applications. Springer, Cambridge, UK, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. [51] Taylor Simon P.. 2017. What is innovation? A study of the definitions, academic models and applicability of innovation to an example of social housing in England. Open Journal of Social Sciences 5, 11 (2017), 128146. DOI: DOI: 10.4236/jss.2017.511010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. [52] Walia Chetan. 2019. A dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 31, 3 (2019), 237247. DOI: DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2019.1641787Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. [53] Wang Yingxu. 2009. On abstract intelligence: Toward a unifying theory of natural, artificial, machinable, and computational intelligence. International Journal of Software Science and Computational Intelligence 1, 1 (2009), 117. DOI: DOI: 10.4018/jssci.2009010101Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. [54] de Winter Joost C. F. and Dodou Dimitra. 2010. Five-point Likert items: T test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 15, 1 (2010), 11. DOI: DOI: 10.7275/bj1p-ts64Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Creativity of Videos

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications
        ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications  Volume 18, Issue 1
        January 2022
        517 pages
        ISSN:1551-6857
        EISSN:1551-6865
        DOI:10.1145/3505205
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 27 January 2022
        • Accepted: 1 April 2021
        • Revised: 1 March 2021
        • Received: 1 August 2020
        Published in tomm Volume 18, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Full Text

      View this article in Full Text.

      View Full Text

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!