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.
- [1] . 1982. Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. 43:997–1013, 1982.
DOI: DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997Google Scholar - [2] . 2017. Art in the age of machine intelligence. Arts 6, 4 (2017), 18.
DOI: DOI: 10.3390/arts6040018Google ScholarCross Ref
- [3] . 2014. When to use Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 34, 5 (2014), 502–508.
DOI: DOI: 10.1111/opo.12131Google ScholarCross Ref
- [4] . 2019. Can artificial intelligence make art without artists? ask the viewer. Arts 8, 1 (2019), 35.
DOI: DOI: 10.3390/arts8010035Google ScholarCross Ref
- [5] . 2019. Artificial intelligence & popular music: Skygge, flow machines, and the audio uncanny valley. Arts 8, 4 (2019), 130.
DOI: DOI: 10.3390/arts8040130Google ScholarCross Ref
- [6] . 2011. Moby - “Be The One”. Video. (2011). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/23435653.Google Scholar
- [7] . 2011. Junip - “Without You”. Video. (2011). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/27365453.Google Scholar
- [8] . 2012. Rouge - "Li Azul". Video. (2012). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/31365267.Google Scholar
- [9] . 2012. MAGNOLIUS - “Selaron”. Video. (2012). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/40001143.Google Scholar
- [10] . 2013. Souq - “Desert Snake Catcher”. Video. (2013). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/63415960.Google Scholar
- [11] . 2013. Algodão - “Eu não sei quando te perdi”. Video. (2013). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/53332710.Google Scholar
- [12] . 2013. Amplifying Creativity. Video. (2013). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/195623736.Google Scholar
- [13] . 2014. Emmy Curl - March for Peace. Video. (2014). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/213043420.Google Scholar
- [14] . 2015. Emmy Curl - “Come Closer”. Video. (2015). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/113000956.Google Scholar
- [15] . 2018. Quattuor Elementa. Video. (2018). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/248511661.Google Scholar
- [16] . 2018. Júlio Resende - “Fado Cyborg”. Video. (2018). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/281950030.Google Scholar
- [17] . 2019. Júlio Resende - “Let's go to the Moon again”. Video. (2019). April 10, 2020 from https://vimeo.com/344976038.Google Scholar
- [18] . 2020. Creativity of deep learning: Conceptualization and assessment. 2020. arXiv: 2012.02282Google Scholar
- [19] . 2015. Use and misuse of the Likert item responses and other ordinal measures. International Journal of Exercise Science 8, 3 (2015), 297–302. PMID: 27182418Google Scholar
- [20] . 2009. Computer models of creativity. AI Magazine 30, 3 (2009), 23–34.
DOI: DOI: 10.1609/aimag.v30i3.2254Google ScholarDigital Library
- [21] . 2015. Creativity: Generic definition, tests, factors and methods. International Journal of Design Sciences and Technology 21, 1 (2015), 7–37.Google Scholar
- [22] . 2019. An artificial intelligence based data-driven approach for design ideation. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 61 (2019), 10–22.
DOI: DOI: 10.1016/j.jvcir.2019.02.009Google ScholarDigital Library
- [23] . Driving the creative machine, September 2010. Lecture. http://www.aaronshome.com/aaron/publications/orcastalk2s.pdf.Google Scholar
- [24] . 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 Scholar
- [25] . 2019. Hybrid intelligence. Business & Information Systems Engineering 61, 5 (2019), 637–643.
DOI: DOI: 10.1007/s12599-019-00595-Google ScholarCross Ref
- [26] . 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 Scholar
- [27] . 2017. CAN: Creative adversarial networks, generating "art" by learning about styles and deviating from style norms. 2017. arXiv:1706.07068Google Scholar
- [28] . 2014. The language of research (part 1): Research paradigms. Wounds UK 10, 2 (2014), 118–119. https://www.wounds-uk.com/journals/issue/38/article-details/the-language-of-research-part-1-research-paradigms.Google Scholar
- [29] . 2011. A few special cases: Scientific creativity and network dynamics in the field of rare diseases. Scientometric 89, 1 (2011), 397–420.
DOI: DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0431-9 Google ScholarDigital Library
- [30] . 2016. Image style transfer using convolutional neural networks. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 2414–2423, 2016.
DOI: DOI: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.265Google ScholarCross Ref
- [31] . 2014. Twisting knobs and connecting things: Rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st century. Tech Trands 58, 1 (2014), 15–19.
DOI: DOI: 10.1007/s11528-013-0713-6Google ScholarCross Ref
- [32] . 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 ScholarDigital Library
- [33] 2020. Machine learning, 2020. https://www.ibm.com/analytics/machine-learning.Google Scholar
- [34] . 2018. Real-Time Style Transfer. https://github.com/ChengBinJin/Real-time-style-transfer/.Google Scholar
- [35] . 2019. Neural style transfer: A review. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, pages 1–1, 2019.
DOI: DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2019.2921336Google Scholar - [36] . 2009. Artificial Intelligence, chapter Artificial Intelligence: Definition, Trends, Techniques and Cases. Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK, 2009.Google Scholar
- [37] . 2018. Artificial intelligence: Definition, types, examples, technologies, Aug 2018. https://medium.com/@chethankumargn/artificial-intelligence-definition-types-examples-technologies-962ea75c7b9b.Google Scholar
- [38] . 2002. On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The Importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8, 5 (2002), 375–387.
DOI: DOI: 10.1080/13645570500402447Google Scholar - [39] . 2009. A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and Quantity 43, 2 (2009), 265–275.
DOI: DOI: 10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3Google ScholarCross Ref
- [40] . 2018. On hybrid creativity. Arts 7, 3 (2018), 25.
DOI: DOI: 10.3390/arts7030025Google ScholarCross Ref
- [41] . 2011. Lessons learned: Advantages and disadvantages of mixed method research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 8, 1 (2011), 59–71.
DOI: DOI: 10.1108/11766091111124702Google ScholarCross Ref
- [42] . 2019. Art, creativity, and the potential of artificial intelligence. Arts 8, 1 (2019), 26.
DOI: DOI: 10.3390/arts8010026Google ScholarCross Ref
- [43] . 1991. Machine Learning: A Theoretical Approach. Morgan Kaufmann, Massachusetts, USA, 1991. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- [44] . 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), 4760–4763.
DOI: DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1900883116Google ScholarCross Ref
- [45] . 1982. Expressiveness in the arts. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 41, 1 (1982), 19–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/430820.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- [46] . 2019. Can artworks by artificial intelligence be artworks? AM Journal of Art and Media Studies 20 (2019), 113–121.
DOI: DOI: 10.25038/am.v0i20.332Google ScholarCross Ref
- [47] . 2012. Computer Vision: Models, Learning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2012. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- [48] . 2012. The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 24, 1 (2012), 92–96.
DOI: DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2012.650092Google ScholarCross Ref
- [49] 2014. Understanding Machine Learning: From Theory to Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, London, UK, 2014. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- [50] . 2011. Computer Vision: Algorithms and Applications. Springer, Cambridge, UK, 2011. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- [51] . 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), 128–146.
DOI: DOI: 10.4236/jss.2017.511010Google ScholarCross Ref
- [52] . 2019. A dynamic definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 31, 3 (2019), 237–247.
DOI: DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2019.1641787Google ScholarCross Ref
- [53] . 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), 1–17.
DOI: DOI: 10.4018/jssci.2009010101Google ScholarCross Ref
- [54] . 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 Scholar
Index Terms
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Creativity of Videos
Recommendations
Can Artificial Intelligence Make Art?: Folk Intuitions as to whether AI-driven Robots Can Be Viewed as Artists and Produce Art
In two experiments (total N = 693), we explored whether people are willing to consider paintings made by AI-driven robots as art, and robots as artists. Across the two experiments, we manipulated three factors: (i) agent type (AI-driven robot vs. human ...
Artificial Intelligence, Artists, and Art: Attitudes Toward Artwork Produced by Humans vs. Artificial Intelligence
Special Section on Cross-Media Analysis for Visual Question Answering, Special Section on Big Data, Machine Learning and AI Technologies for Art and Design and Special Section on MMSys/NOSSDAV 2018This study examines how people perceive artwork created by artificial intelligence (AI) and how presumed knowledge of an artist's identity (Human vs. AI) affects individuals’ evaluation of art. Drawing on Schema theory and theory of Computers Are Social ...
A creative artificial intelligence system to investigate user experience, affect, emotion and creativity
EVA '15: Proceedings of the Conference on Electronic Visualisation and the ArtsIs it possible using photographs as source (e.g., selfies of users) to affect and enhance mood, emotion and creativity by creating AI based "digital painters" that can create art painting output that is deemed to convey a certain mood from any source ...






Comments