When deep blue beat kasparov there was a gasp and then an explaination which seeks to minimise to achievement. Computers are good processors, chess is a simple game it can be reduced to processing, of course computers will win.
In a smiliar way here you have with regard to this beauty project mimimised the achivement ("geeky and trivial").
As computer programs model or partially model aspects of human thinking (computational creativity, understanding of beauty, etc, etc) they make a contribution to the overall project of Artificial Intelligence.
From: Ranulph Glanville <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 23:33:41 +0000
Subject: Re: Beauty - a mathematical aesthetic
Yes, this research tells us that we can model something, based on
simplified determinations of the averaged decision of a collection of
humans, that will allow us to change images of faces so that the
better match the model built. That means precisely that all the
beauty (if that's what it is) is in the eyes of the (collective of)
beholders. It also means the outcome is not aesthetic but the outcome
of a crude psychological sampling technique. Is this beauty? It's
certainly not aesthetics.
Of course, tricks like this are fascinating and create possibilities
we'd not previously had. But understanding? I don't think there's
much there: it's sort of geeky and trivial, but with the usual
inflation of the computer world, and the usual blindness of the
mechanist to what designers actually do.
Reminds me a bit of a charming mathematician who told me that
Hundertwasser was the only decent architect: he wasn't prepared to
listen when I explained that what Hundertwasser does is about as far
removed from architecture as anything I can imagine.
Goodnight, my beauties!
Senior Lecturer in Design
School of Creative Arts
University of Ulster
Mobile +44 (0)7813 780316
[log in to unmask]