=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3255/paper7
|storemode=property
|title=Exploring Embodiment’s Role in Creativity with Live Artistic Performances
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3255/paper7.pdf
|volume=Vol-3255
|authors=Laura M. Herman,Caterina Moruzzi
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/icccrea/HermanM22
}}
==Exploring Embodiment’s Role in Creativity with Live Artistic Performances==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3255/paper7.pdf
Exploring Embodiment’s Role in Creativity with Live
Artistic Performances
Laura Mariah Herman1,2,‡ , Caterina Moruzzi3,*,‡
1
Oxford Internet Institute, 1 St Giles, Oxford, UK OX1 3JS
2
Adobe Inc., 1 Old Street Yard, London, UK EC1Y 1BE
3
Department of Philosophy, University of Konstanz, Universitätsstraße 10, 78464 Konstanz, Germany
Abstract
The paper engages with the role of embodiment in perceptions of creativity, by discussing the aims and
motivations behind the workshop ‘The Role of Embodiment in the Perception of Human & Artificial
Creativity’, organized by the authors in the context of the 13th International Conference on Computa-
tional Creativity, ICCC’22. This workshop pioneered a novel format for the Computational Creativity
community in which artists are on hand to physically share and discuss their process with the research
audience. We describe the structure of the workshop and the methodology followed in designing the
audience survey conducted during the first day. Lastly, we argue for the relevance of more in-field studies
aimed at testing the role played by the interaction with live artistic processes on evaluations of creativity.
Keywords
Embodiment, Creativity, Performance, Strokes, Robotic drawing, Survey
1. Creativity and Embodiment
In the last decades, many programs were designed with the aim to build systems that exhibit
creativity in visual arts [1], music [2, 3, 4, 5], and poetry [6], among other fields [7, 8, 9]. The
rapid technological development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems and the growing use of
the latter in the creative sector asks for a more detailed and overarching analysis of the impact
that the employment of technology in the arts can have on different aspects of the creative
world: from the creative collaboration between humans and technology, to the embodied versus
dis-embodied process of creating art, to the reception of works created and curated by AI
[10, 11, 12]. The question whether, alongside humans and other animals, also artificial systems
can be creative has been object of numerous publications since the 1990s, starting from the
research on computational creativity by Margaret Boden [13]. Still, one aspect of creativity
which has not been addressed in depth, with some exceptions [11, 7, 14, 15], is the role played
by embodiment and physicality in perceptions of creativity [16].
ICCC’22 Workshop: The Role of Embodiment in the Perception of Human & Artificial Creativity, June 27–28, 2022,
Bozen, Italy
*
Corresponding author.
†
These authors contributed equally.
$ laura.herman@oii.ox.ac.uk (L. M. Herman); caterina.moruzzi@uni-konstanz.de (C. Moruzzi)
www.lauramherman.work (L. M. Herman); https://caterinamoruzzi.weebly.com (C. Moruzzi)
0000-0002-5561-4603 (L. M. Herman); 0000-0002-9728-3873 (C. Moruzzi)
© 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Workshop
Proceedings
http://ceur-ws.org
ISSN 1613-0073
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
Yet, it can be argued that the perception of the embodiment of the agent performing the
creative process is a key aspect of the observer’s response to the final outcome and to the
process itself [17]. Findings of the study described in Moruzzi (2022) highlight the relevance of
embodiment for collaborative creative processes among humans and machines. In the study
on perception of creativity in online environments, reported in Herman and Hwang (2022),
artifacts that contained physical manifestations of process (e.g. visible brushstrokes, hand-
drawn sketches) were deemed as more creative by creative professionals. These results are
arguably due to a mimetic approach to judging creativity: professionals, having experienced the
embodied process of making creative pieces, consider the artist’s process via a quasi-embodied
mimetic perception. Upon embodying processes that are more complex or challenging, they
more highly rate the creativity of the resulting piece.
If embodiment is - as it seems from the results of the mentioned studies - a crucial component
of creativity, this poses interesting challenges for AI systems attempting to generate creative
art, as we are used to thinking about them as disembodied computer programs. There are two
ways that artificial art may approach embodiment: (i) a physical machine may carry out the AI
system’s artistic intent, or (ii) the physicality of the humans interacting with the AI system can
be highlighted, for instance by calling the attention to the embodied experience of coding the
underlying algorithms, of selecting algorithmic outputs from the latent space, and so on.
This paper engages with the role of embodiment in perceptions of creativity, by discussing
the aims and motivations behind the workshop ‘The Role of Embodiment in the Perception of
Human & Artificial Creativity’, organized by the authors in the context of the 13th International
Conference on Computational Creativity, ICCC’22. We describe the structure of the workshop
and the methodology followed in designing the audience survey conducted during the first
day, arguing for the relevance of more in-field studies aimed at testing the role played by the
interaction with live artistic processes on evaluations of creativity.
2. Aims and Structure of the Workshop
The two-day workshop ‘The Role of Embodiment in the Perception of Human & Artificial
Creativity’ took place on 27-28 June 2022 in Bolzano, Italy as part of the program of the
13th International Conference on Computational Creativity, ICCC’22.1 The ICCC conference,
an internationally renowned platform for research on computational creativity, offered an
ideal venue for the workshop, as it allowed to have an audience of participants working in
interdisciplinary fields and coming from different backgrounds: computer and natural sciences,
humanities, art, and design.
The main aim of the workshop was to explore the impact that different kinds of embodiment,
explicated in the collaboration between human and machine for the creation of artistic output,
have on the evaluation of the creativity of the process behind its creation. The workshop is
part of a wider project conducted by the authors and funded by Intersectoral Cooperation
Programme of the Institute for Advanced Study for Junior Researchers, University of Konstanz.
In this project, academic research and the creative technology industry join forces to attempt at
answering the question of how the embodiment of artists affects the perception of creativity of
1
Website of the workshop accessible at: https://lauramariahherman.wixsite.com/workshopiccc22.
the process that they perform. This research complements and expands the studies conducted by
Chamberlain et al. (2018) on how observers’ evaluation of art changes when viewers are given
the opportunity to see robotic artists in action. However, while the latter focus on the perceived
aesthetic value of computer-generated art, we address changes in perception of creativity. The
assumption from which we start, thus, is that creativity and aesthetic value are two distinct and
not necessarily inter-dependable variables.
The first day of the workshop was devoted to two performances by the artist, researcher, and
illustrator Renaud Chabrier.2 and Daniel Berio,3 a researcher and artist working with generative
methods for the procedural generation of graffiti and calligraphy, with applications in robotics.
The two artists had one room each available where to display their performance. After having
engaged with the performances, audience members were invited to fill out two online surveys,
one per artist, aimed at testing how they evaluated creativity and other factors in relation to
the artistic processes they experienced. In this paper we limit at providing details about the
performances and the first impressions deriving from the interaction of the public with them,
while more specific results of the surveys will be published in the near future.
The second day of the workshop consisted of presentations by six researchers interested in
the role of embodiment in the judgment of the aesthetic value of an artifact and in the evaluation
of the creativity of the process behind its creation. These papers are included in the present
Proceedings volume, and they had been chosen through a peer-reviewed selection process from
those submitted to the Call for Papers of the workshop. The workshop ended with a panel
discussion between the speakers, followed by a keynote by Aaron Hertzmann (Adobe Research),
shared with the ICCC’22 conference.
3. Survey on Audience Perceptions
Performance A: Daniel Berio The setup
for Daniel Berio’s performance was minimal:
a single table with a laptop, connected to a
projector on a tripod, a pen plotter (AxiDraw),
and a sheet of white paper (Figure 1). The
room was partially darkened to allow for the
projected lights on the paper to be more vis-
ible.
The system used for the performance, the
Graffitizer 2, consists of a computer program
which generates forms that are then drawn
by the plotter on the sheet of paper with a Figure 1. Setup for the performance by Daniel
pen. While the plotter draws abstract forms Berio: a laptop is connected to a projector on a
on the paper, the program gives in real-time tripod and to a plotter which draws in real-time
the command of projecting colored lights over on paper.
the drawing to a projector (Figure 2). The
2
Website accessible at: http://www.renaudchabrier.com/en/home.
3
Website accessible at: https://www.enist.org/post/.
drawing in black and white made by the plotter is permanent, while the coloring is temporary,
and lasts only the time of the performance.4
During the performance, the audience
could observe the process from every angle.
They could decide to focus on either the lap-
top screen with the details of the code of the
program, or on the physical machine, watch-
ing abstract forms taking shape and the inter-
action of the lights from the projector with
the movements of the pen and plotter on the
paper.
More than one participant was confused
by the source of the coloring on the paper,
believing that it originated from the support
below the paper instead. Only after interact-
ing physically with the system, i.e. by placing
a hand under the projector’s lens, they under-
stood that the light was projected on the paper
from above. The interactions of the partici-
pants with Berio were numerous, as many of
Figure 2. The Graffitizer 2 in action: drawings them showed interest in knowing more about
are permanent, while projected lights are tem- the program behind the system and the con-
porary. cept from which the idea for the installation
originated.
Performance B: Renaud Chabrier Re-
naud Chabrier started with a 30-minute in-
troduction of two systems he developed, the
combination of which was at the basis of the
performance given during the workshop. The
first system consists in a computational sys-
tem which gives artists the possibility to an-
imate sequences of hand-drawn strokes. This
system was developed in the early 2000s by
Chabrier with the aim of simplifying the task
of developing movement in hand-drawn an-
imations, a process which requires a lot of Figure 3. Setup for the stroke animation sys-
time and paper from practitioners working in tem by Chabrier. The hand-drawn strokes are
the animation industry.5 animated by the system and displayed on the
The second system was developed in 2016 screen.
by Chabrier to create an animation sequence
4
More information on the installation available at https://www.enist.org/post/drawing_machines/graffitizer-2/.
5
Video of the system accessible at https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x21lww.
of sea waves for the musical ‘Peter Pan’ directed by Guy Grimberg. The system animates
drawing patterns, in this case sea waves, allowing the artist to control the speed at which
animations are displayed.
The performance given by Chabrier during the workshop, the “Dance of the Stroke", consisted
in a combination of the stroke animator and the sea waves generator systems. The human
(Chabrier or a member of the audience) starts by drawing a stroke on a piece of paper, and the
projection of the actor’s hands in the process of drawing is displayed on a screen (Figure 3).
As soon as the artist adds more strokes to the paper, the computational systems animates the
sequence of strokes. The animation movement is then displayed on the same screen.
The strokes generated during the first
phase of the performance, are then elaborated
by the second system, the sea waves genera-
tor, to create an animation that is displayed on
a larger screen (Figure 4). In his introduction,
Chabrier was explicit in saying that the perfor-
mance had the aim of inducing movement in
the audience. Participants were not forced to
be mere external observers, rather they were
encouraged to walk in front of the screens and
see how the projections moved them. After
the first demo, performed by Chabrier him-
Figure 4. The strokes drawn on paper are elab- self, participants to the workshop were also
orated by the second system to create patterns invited to be involved first-hand in the perfor-
in movement. mance, by drawing on paper the initial strokes
that were later animated by the system.
3.1. Survey Process and Methodology
After experiencing each live artist performance, the attendees were asked to fill out a brief survey,
accessible via QR code. The survey was hosted on Qualtrics, and all participants completed
and signed an Informed Consent form prior to entering the questionnaire. The survey included
background questions on the attendee’s demographics, education level and area of study, as
well as their previous artistic, technical, and research experiences. The attendees were asked
about their observation of the artist’s process and their level of interaction with the artist.
The main portion of the survey was constructed primarily of 5-point Likert scale rating
questions. The attendees were asked to rate the piece’s overall creativity, originality, aesthetics,
value, and surprisingness. Then, they were asked to rate the process’ complexity, creativity,
originality, embodiment, and humanity, as well as the outcome’s aesthetics, surprisingness, orig-
inality, creativity, value, and humanity. Finally, they were asked to rate the level of embodiment
of the piece, of the artist, and of the viewer. They were also asked about perceived agency,
ownership, and authorship on behalf of the artist, their software, and their hardware.
We received 32 survey responses from the workshop attendees across the two art pieces.
Here, we share some initial, directional findings that we hope to expand upon in future research.
For Daniel Berio’s piece, the majority of participants said ‘the creator’ was the human
+ software + hardware, though some people said it was only the human. No one said the
software and/or hardware alone was the artist. Though participants rated the experience as
highly creative, it was not deemed very embodied. The outcome was perceived as far more
‘creative’ and ‘original’ than Renaud Chabrier’s piece, but far less ‘human’. Berio’s process,
in particular, was rated as highly creative and complex; however, it was not considered very
human or embodied. The outcome, in particular, received its highest ratings for its aesthetics.
Interestingly, those who reported more interaction with the artist gave higher ratings across
the board. In terms of agency, some participants said only the human had agency, some said
only the machine had agency, and a few said that both the human and the machine had agency.
As for Renaud Chabrier’s piece, participants deemed it highly ‘creative’ and ‘valuable’. They
indicated that Chabrier’s process was very ‘human’ and ‘embodied’, albeit less complex. Fur-
thermore, the outcome was very aesthetically pleasing to the participants. Interestingly, nearly
all participants said that the ‘creator’ was the human + software + hardware. In the ratings
of the overall experience, participants said that it was both ‘embodied’ and ‘creative’. Every
participant indicated that Chabrier had exhibited human agency; a few said that the machine
had also exhibited agency. Those who had more interaction with the artist gave higher ratings
for the ‘process’, but interacting with the artist did not seem to impact overall ratings or outcome
ratings.
Of course, the results of this survey are limited by both quantitative significance and the
participant makeup. As opt-in attendees of a workshop on creativity and embodiment, it is likely
that participants have unique and/or expert views on this topic that may not be representative
of the broader population of art-viewers. Indeed, all but one respondent to our survey identified
themselves as researchers in the field (the other respondent was a self-identified artist).
4. Conclusions
This workshop pioneered a novel format for the Computational Creativity community in which
artists are on hand to physically share and discuss their process with the research audience. In the
academic talks on the following day (which represented a broad range of disciplines, including
philosophy, art, human-computer interaction, computer science, etc.), speakers often referenced
the audiences’ shared experience of the previous day’s artistic performances. By situating the
scholarly conversation within real artists’ processes, the implications of the academic research
became immediately apparent.
Furthermore, this workshop format enabled the authors to pilot a questionnaire on the relevant
topic areas before sharing it with a broader audience. Initial survey results revealed that the piece
physically drawn by a human was indeed perceived as more ‘human’ and ‘embodied’, validating
initial assumptions. Furthermore, the ‘outcome’ of that piece was deemed significantly more
creative. Though we can not infer a causal relationship, this initial finding indicates that it
is worth further investigating the role of perceived embodiment in creative judgments. On
the other hand, the piece that was created using a robot/plotter was perceived as having a
more complex process; this also raises interesting questions regarding the role of technology in
artistic processes. Finally, the audience perceived the artworks as being created by humans in
conjunction with both software and hardware, giving authorship to both physical and virtual
technologies.
In the future, we plan to conduct a large-scale version of the same survey experience, targeting
a wider array of participants through advertisements and compensation. In this public-facing
survey, we will show our participants two videos: first, they will see a video of a digital illustrator
physically drawing a hand-drawn illustration using a tablet. Then, they will see a video of
Daniel Berio coding, calibrating, and running his robotic sketching artwork. After each video,
participants will be asked to answer the same set of survey questions, covering their perceptions
of the piece’s creativity as well as the artist’s embodiment. We plan for the questions to be
nearly identical to the survey questions piloted in this workshop.
Acknowledgments
The workshop is part of the project ‘The Role of Embodiment in the Perception of Human
& Artificial Creativity’, led by the two authors, and funded by the Intersectoral Cooperation
Programme of the Institute for Advanced Study for Junior Researchers, University of Konstanz.
We thank all the artists, speakers, and participants to the workshop for the fruitful discussions
and for having made this workshop possible. We also thank the organizers of ICCC’22 for
hosting us in the program of the conference.
References
[1] S. Colton, The painting fool: Stories from building an automated painter, in: J. McCormack,
M. d’Inverno (Eds.), Computers and Creativity, Springer, Berlin, New York, 2012, pp. 3–38.
[2] A. Eigenfeldt, P. Pasquier, Negotiated content: Generative soundscape composition by
autonomous musical agents in coming together: Freesound, in: Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Computational Creativity, 2011, pp. 27–32.
[3] C. Moruzzi, Creative AI: Music composition programs as an extension of the composer’s
mind, in: 3rd Conference on" Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence, Springer,
2017, pp. 69–72.
[4] C. Moruzzi, Can a computer create a musical work? : Creativity and autonomy of ai
software for music composition, in: S. S. Gouveia (Ed.), The Age of Artificial Intelligence :
An Exploration, Vernon Press, Wilmington, 2020, pp. 161–176.
[5] C. Moruzzi, Learning through creativity: how creativity can help machine learning
achieving deeper understanding, Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio 14 (2020).
[6] L. Gatti, M. Guerini, C. B. Callaway, O. Stock, C. Strapparava, Creatively subverting
messages in posters., in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computational
Creativity, 2012, pp. 175–179.
[7] A. Hertzmann, Computers do not make art, people do, Communications of the ACM 63
(2020) 45–48.
[8] S. Mednick, The associative basis of the creative process., Psychological Review 69 (1962)
220.
[9] A. I. Miller, Insights of Genius: Imagery and Creativity in Science and Art, Springer, New
York, 2012.
[10] R. Chamberlain, C. Mullin, B. Scheerlinck, J. Wagemans, Putting the art in artificial:
Aesthetic responses to computer-generated art., Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and
the Arts 12 (2018) 177.
[11] E. Edmonds, Introduction: Computer-based systems that support creativity, in: Artificial
intelligence and creativity, Springer, 1994, pp. 327–334.
[12] Artnet, Will a.i. remake the art business?, Spring 2020. URL: https://news.artnet.com/
market/introducing-artnet-intelligence-report-spring-2020-edition-1791258.
[13] M. A. Boden, Creativity and artificial intelligence, Artificial intelligence 103 (1998) 347–356.
[14] K. Ogawa, K. Taura, H. Ishiguro, Possibilities of androids as poetry-reciting agent, in: 2012
IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive
Communication, IEEE, 2012, pp. 565–570.
[15] M. Sharples, Cognitive support and the rhythm of design, in: Artificial intelligence and
creativity, Springer, 1994, pp. 385–402.
[16] C. Guckelsberger, A. Kantosalo, S. Negrete-Yankelevich, T. Takala, Embodiment and
computational creativity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.00949 (2021).
[17] D. Freedberg, V. Gallese, Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience, Trends in
cognitive sciences 11 (2007) 197–203.
[18] C. Moruzzi, The (artificial) physicality of creativity: How embodiment influences per-
ceptions of creativity, in: Proceedings of 13th Int. Conf. Computational Creativity, 2022.
Bolzano, Italy. ICCC’22, 2022.
[19] L. M. Herman, A. H.-C. Hwang, In the eye of the beholder: A viewer-defined conception
of online visual creativity, New Media & Society (2022) 14614448221089604.