skip to main content
10.1145/2069618.2069650acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesc-n-cConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Computing harmony with PerLogicArt: perceptual logic inspired collaborative art

Published:03 November 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes a new model of perception called Perceptual Logic and applies it to the domain of art to understand artistic style. We describe style in terms of affordances, or ways in which an artist can interact with and contribute to an artwork. Different types of Perceptual Logic are found to influence the perceived affordances of an artwork. We present a computational collaborative art program called PERLOGICART that uses a computational model of Perceptual Logic to learn an artist's style through collaboration. The research is conducted using a practice-based method --- we are working on building an interactive tool to support the making of artworks and the understanding of the creative process at the same time. PERLOGICART is a compelling interactive artwork as well as a valuable research tool that records and categorizes the creative process in a systematic manner.

References

  1. Arnheim, R. Visual thinking. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1969.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Boden, M. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. London, Basic Books, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Beer, R. Dynamical systems and embedded cognition. In K. Frankish and W. Ramsey, eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, In Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Candy, L. and Edmonds, E. Interaction in Art and Technology. Crossings: eJournal of Art and Technology 2, 1 (2002), No Pagination.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity. In Sternberg, R.J. ed. Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999, 313--33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies, J. and Goel, a. Transfer of problem-solving strategy using Covlan. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 18, 2 (2007), 149--164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. Protocol Analysis. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1984.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Finke, R. A., Ward, T.B., Smith, S.M., Creative Cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Gabora, L. Recognizability of Individual Creative Style Within and Across Domains: Preliminary Studies The Recognizability of Creative Style. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, (2010), 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gabora, L. Revenge of the "Neurds": Characterizing Creative Thought in Terms of the Structure and Dynamics of Memory. Creativity Research Journal 22, 1 (2010), 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. 1Gary R. Greenfield. 2005. Computational aesthetics as a tool for creativity. In Proceedings of the fifth conference on Creativity & Cognition (New York, NY, USA, 2005), ACM, 232--235. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Gibson, J.J. The ecological approach to visual perception. Lawrence Earlbaum, Hillsdale, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Goel, V. Sketches of Thought. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldschmidt, G. The Dialectics of Sketching. Creativity research journal 4, 2 (1991), 123--143.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Guilford, J.P. Creativity, American Psychologists 5, (1950), 444--454.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Jennings, P. and Giaccardi, E. Creativity Support Tools for and by the New Media Arts Community. NSF Workshop Report on Creativity Support Tools, (2005), 12--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Karl D.D. Willis and Jacob Hina. 2009. Alchemy: experiments in interactive drawing, creativity, & serendipity. In Proceeding of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition (New York, NY, USA, 2009). ACM, 441--442. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Lloyd, P., Lawson, B., & Scott, P. (1995). Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition? Design Studies, 16(2), (1995), 237--259.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Stacey, M. Psychological challenges for the analysis of style. Ai Edam 20, 03 (2006), 167--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. McCorduck, P. 1991. Aaron's Code. W. H. Freeman & Co., New York, NY, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Suwa, M. and Tversky, B. What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies 18, 4 (1997), 385--403.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., Rosch, E., The Embodied Mind. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Computing harmony with PerLogicArt: perceptual logic inspired collaborative art

    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
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      C&C '11: Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Creativity and cognition
      November 2011
      492 pages
      ISBN:9781450308205
      DOI:10.1145/2069618
      • General Chair:
      • Ashok K. Goel,
      • Program Chairs:
      • Fox Harrell,
      • Brian Magerko,
      • Yukari Nagai,
      • Jane Prophet

      Copyright © 2011 ACM

      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 ACM 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: 3 November 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate108of371submissions,29%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader