Brief/Problem Statement

The goal is to use biologically inspired algorithms and techniques in the creation of art. I think the main challenge and obstacle behind the fantasy of “art x technology” is that any of the algorithm or optimization technique are solving problem according to the “objective function” (or “fitness function”), which are the synonym of “goal” that could be computed only if the objective is represented with mathematics.

A great art work often conveys the message that is emotional expression(e.g., passion, numb). Moreover, it conveys messages that are even hard to discribe by the words. For the simple scientific expression, we can easily define them into the mathematic expression, (e.g, brightness, loudness.) and optimize our solution. But I believe most of the people won’t think adjusting the brightness of the picture is an art. The art should be more than that -- remember that art as experience. Let’s say if the algorithm can find everything in the picture that represent happy, and make it gray-scaled. That might sounds to be kind of art. Because it can figure out what is “happy” base on the its previous training data (or say experience), then manipulate the what “it” think it’s happy. So, I would say art as training in computer’s case. (p.s. How about the case of FLORAFORM: is it an art or just a physical computing)

I conclude the question as two. The first one would be “How can we transform those feeling/experience into the mathematical expression as the objective function?” The second one would be, “What does the information we need, to transform/evoke an expression/feeling?”