Computational Aesthetic Evaluation- Phillip Galanter

Computational Aesthetic Evaluation

     First Mr. Galanter adressed the question of "What is Computational Aesthetic Evaluation?" The truth is that it is just an unsolved problem that can not really be measured. Many people believe that this will never be resolved, and others believe that it just won't be resolved in our lifetime. I think that it could be solved, but it is going to be very hard to program a computer to many different opinions, and then having to decide what opinion would pertain to that individual. However, in my opinion, why would we want a computer to do that for us; that is one of the interesting things about humans, we have opinions, all different, so how would a computer be able to please someone with aesthetics every time? Which brought up Mr. Galanter's next question, "Why bother?" He stated that it is a new way to make discoveries about human aesthetics and how to please humans aesthetically, and that it is an important aspect in making truly creative computers. It would be incredible for a computer to retain that kind of information, though it seems to me that it will be very hard to achieve that goal. In relation though, the people that thought of the cell phone were told they were crazy and look at it today, there are just many endless possibilities when it comes to technology.

     He then went in to understanding what Aesthetic really are: color studies, genetic, cultural, specific experience and learning. These seem so personal and different to every human, to try and have a computer be able to generate that kind of information since each individual is unique in every one of those aspects. 

     Different people have tried to measure aesthetics, for example, in the science field, they are researching "complexity." Many other people have researched aesthetics as well. George Birkhoffs (1933) was one of these men; he came up with a formula for measuring aesthetics which was M (aesthetic value)= O (aesthetic order)/C (complexity). Birkhoff believed that measure could only be used to compare like objects, and he also believed that as aesthetic pleasure increased as complexity increased. Daniel Berlyne came along and began thinking about stimulating the nervous system and arousal potential. He believed that the ways to stimulate the nervous system were psychophysical, ecological, and collative. He wanted to measure the amount of surprise. He realized that complexity increases when you move from order to disorder and as arousal increases, pleasure increases, however when stimulation gets too high, pleasure decreases. Then Colin Maritndale, who was studying pro-typicality and neural networks, conducted experiments that contradicted Berlyne's research. Martindale believed that a complex system is a mixture of order and disorder. In order to gain value, you must retain as much information as possible without getting overstimulated; and when you reach aesthetic pleasure, you feel what a reward system is like.

     Even though aesthetics have tried to be measured, they are relative to the individual; their genetics, culture, background, and ideas. That is where they look for stimulation for aesthetic pleasure. Usually, however, aesthetic pleasure falls into a category that lies somewhere between order and disorder, again it is still relative to the individual. This is the main area that will have trouble being duplicated on a virtual system; predicting human pleasure/ stimulation/ satisfaction.