Abstract
Aesthetic preference is a complex puzzle with many subjective aspects. This subjectivity makes it incredibly difficult to computationally model aesthetic preference for an individual. Despite this complexity, individual aesthetic preference is an important part of life, impacting a multitude of aspects, including romantic and platonic relationships, decoration, product choices and artwork. Models of aesthetic preference form the basis of automated and semi-automated Evo-Art systems. These range from looking at individual aspects to more complex models considering multiple, different criteria. Effectively modelling aesthetic preference greatly increases the potential impact of these systems. This paper presents a flexible computational model of aesthetic preference, primarily focusing on generating 3D sculptures. Through demonstrating the model using several examples, it is shown that the model is flexible enough to identify and respond to individual aesthetic preferences, handling the subjectivity at the root of aesthetic preference and providing a good base for further extension to strengthen the ability of the system to model individual aesthetic preference.
References
Birkhoff, G.: Aesthetic Measure. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1933)
Boden, M.A., et al.: The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Psychology Press (2004)
Canaan, R., Menzel, S., Togelius, J., Nealen, A.: Towards game-based metrics for computational co-creativity. In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG), pp. 1–8. IEEE (2018)
Easton, E.: Measuring the impact of subjective and transient aesthetics in the generation and appreciation of 3D virtual artwork. Ph.D. thesis, Aston University, Birmingham, UK (2023)
Easton, E., Bernardet, U., Ekárt, A.: Contributors to the aesthetic judgement of 3D virtual sculptures. In: 2023 Third International Conference on Digital Creation in Arts, Media and Technology (ARTeFACTo). IEEE (2023)
Easton, E., Bernardet, U., Ekárt, A.: Is beauty in the age of the beholder? In: Johnson, C., Rodríguez-Fernández, N., Rebelo, S.M. (eds.) EvoMUSART 2023. LNCS, vol. 13988, pp. 84–99. Springer, Cham (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29956-8_6
Easton, E., Ekárt, A., Bernardet, U.: Axial generation: a concretism-inspired method for synthesizing highly varied artworks. In: Romero, J., Martins, T., Rodríguez-Fernández, N. (eds.) EvoMUSART 2021. LNCS, vol. 12693, pp. 115–130. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72914-1_8
Easton, E., Ekárt, A., Bernardet, U.: Axial generation: mixing colour and shapes to automatically form diverse digital sculptures. SN Comput. Sci. 3(6), 505 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-022-01329-0
Ekárt, A., Joó, A., Sharma, D., Chalakov, S.: Modelling the underlying principles of human aesthetic preference in evolutionary art. J. Math. Arts 6(2–3), 107–124 (2012)
Hayn-Leichsenring, G.U., Chatterjee, A.: Colliding terminological systems-Immanuel Kant and contemporary empirical aesthetics. Empir. Stud. Arts 37(2), 197–219 (2019)
den Heijer, E., Eiben, A.E.: Comparing aesthetic measures for evolutionary art. In: Di Chio, C., et al. (eds.) EvoApplications 2010. LNCS, vol. 6025, pp. 311–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12242-2_32
Johnson, C.G., McCormack, J., Santos, I., Romero, J.: Understanding aesthetics and fitness measures in evolutionary art systems. Complexity 2019, 3495962 (2019)
Koidan, K.: Legal & ethical aspects of using DALL-E, midjourney, & stable diffusion (2023). https://medium.com/@katekoidan/legal-ethical-aspects-of-using-dall-e-midjourney-stable-diffusion-cc5606a76d8e
Leder, H., Goller, J., Rigotti, T., Forster, M.: Private and shared taste in art and face appreciation. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10, 155 (2016)
Leder, H., Nadal, M.: Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: the aesthetic episode-developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. Br. J. Psychol. 105(4), 443–464 (2014)
Leder, H., Tinio, P.P., Brieber, D., Kröner, T., Jacobsen, T., Rosenberg, R.: Symmetry is not a universal law of beauty. Empir. Stud. Arts 37(1), 104–114 (2019)
Li, Y., Hu, C., Chen, M., Hu, J.: Investigating aesthetic features to model human preference in evolutionary art. In: Machado, P., Romero, J., Carballal, A. (eds.) EvoMUSART 2012. LNCS, vol. 7247, pp. 153–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29142-5_14
Johnson, C.G.: Aesthetics, artificial intelligence, and search-based art. In: Machado, P., Romero, J., Greenfield, G. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence and the Arts. CSCS, pp. 27–60. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59475-6_2
Mahmoudi, M., Sapiro, G.: Three-dimensional point cloud recognition via distributions of geometric distances. Graph. Models 71(1), 22–31 (2009)
Matkovic, K., Neumann, L., Neumann, A., Psik, T., Purgathofer, W.: Global contrast factor-a new approach to image contrast. In: Computational Aesthetics 2005, pp. 159–168 (2005)
Monteiro, L.C.P., do Nascimento, V.E.F., da Silva, A.C., Miranda, A.C., Souza, G.S., Ripardo, R.C.: The role of art expertise and symmetry on facial aesthetic preferences. Symmetry 14(2), 423 (2022)
Pelowski, M., Markey, P.S., Lauring, J.O., Leder, H.: Visualizing the impact of art: an update and comparison of current psychological models of art experience. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10, 160 (2016)
Plunkett, L.: AI creating “art” is an ethical and copyright nightmare (2022). https://kotaku.com/ai-art-dall-e-midjourney-stable-diffusion-copyright-1849388060
Radford, A., et al.: Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 8748–8763. PMLR (2021)
Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., Ommer, B.: High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 10684–10695 (2022)
Romero, J., Machado, P., Santos, A., Cardoso, A.: On the development of critics in evolutionary computation artists. In: Cagnoni, S., et al. (eds.) EvoWorkshops 2003. LNCS, vol. 2611, pp. 559–569. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36605-9_51
Sims, K.: Artificial evolution for computer graphics. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 319–328. ACM (1991)
Takagi, H.: Interactive evolutionary computation: fusion of the capabilities of EC optimization and human evaluation. Proc. IEEE 89(9), 1275–1296 (2001)
Taylor, J.: From trump Nevermind babies to deep fakes: DALL-E and the ethics of AI art (2022). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/19/from-trump-nevermind-babies-to-deep-fakes-dall-e-and-the-ethics-of-ai-art
Ventura, D., Gates, D.: Ethics as aesthetic: a computational creativity approach to ethical behavior. In: ICCC, pp. 185–191 (2018)
Wiggins, G.A.: A preliminary framework for description, analysis and comparison of creative systems. Knowl.-Based Syst. 19(7), 449–458 (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Easton, E., Bernardet, U., Ekárt, A. (2024). Modelling Individual Aesthetic Preferences of 3D Sculptures. In: Johnson, C., Rebelo, S.M., Santos, I. (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Music, Sound, Art and Design. EvoMUSART 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14633. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56992-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56992-0_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-56991-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-56992-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)