Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:10:16.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computing the creativeness of amusing advertisements: A Bayesian model of Burma-Shave's muse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Kevin Burns
Kevin Burns*
Affiliation:
MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA
*
Reprint requests to: Kevin Burns, MITRE Corporation, 202 Burlington Road, Bedford, MA 01730-1420, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How do humans judge the creativeness of an artwork or other artifact? This article suggests that such judgments are based on the pleasures of an aesthetic experience, which can be modeled as a mathematical product of psychological arousal and appraisal. The arousal stems from surprise, and is computed as a marginal entropy using information theory. The appraisal assigns meaning, by which the surprise is resolved, and is computed as a posterior probability using Bayesian theory. This model is tested by obtaining human ratings of surprise, meaning, and creativeness for artifacts in a domain of advertising design. The empirical results show that humans do judge creativeness as a product of surprise and meaning, consistent with the computational model of arousal and appraisal. Implications of the model are discussed with respect to advancing artificial intelligence in the arts as well as improving the computational evaluation of creativity in engineering and design.

Keywords

AestheticsBayesianCreativityInformationSemantics
Type
Regular Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , February 2015 , pp. 109 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science 255, 556–569.Google Scholar
Bayes, T. (1763). An essay toward solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transactions 53, 370–418.Google Scholar
Bense, M. (1965). Aesthetica: Einfürung in die Neue Aesthetik. Baden-Baden: Agis-Verlag.Google Scholar
Berlyne, D. (1957). Uncertainty and conflict: a point of contact between information-theory and behavior-theory concepts. Psychological Review 64(6), 329–339.Google Scholar
Berlyne, D. (1963). Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology 17, 274–290.Google Scholar
Berlyne, D. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics 8(5), 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlyne, D. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar
Besemer, S. (1998). Creative product analysis matrix: testing the model structure and a comparison among products—three novel chairs. Creativity Research Journal 11(4), 333–346.Google Scholar
Besemer, S., & O'Quin, K. (1986). Analyzing creative products: refinement and test of a judging instrument. Journal of Creative Behavior 20(2), 115–126.Google Scholar
Besemer, S., & O'Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal 12(4), 287–296.Google Scholar
Besemer, S., & Treffinger, D. (1981). Analysis of creative products: review and synthesis. Journal of Creative Behavior 15(3), 158–178.Google Scholar
Binstead, K. (2006). Computational humor. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21, 22–32.Google Scholar
Birkhoff, G. (1933). Aesthetic Measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blinderman, C. (1962). T. H. Huxley's theory of aesthetics: unity in diversity. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 21(1), 49–55.Google Scholar
Boden, M. (1991). The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Boden, M. (2009). Computer models of creativity. AI Magazine Fall, 23–34.Google Scholar
Brown, D. (2013). Developing computational design creativity systems. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 1(1), 43–55.Google Scholar
Burns, K. (2005). Mental models and normal errors. In How Professional Make Decisions (Montgomery, H., Lipshitz, H., & Brehmer, B., Eds.), pp. 15–28. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Burns, K. (2006 a). Atoms of EVE′: a Bayesian basis for esthetic analysis of style in sketching. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20(3), 185–199.Google Scholar
Burns, K. (2006 b). Bayesian inference in disputed authorship: a case study of cognitive errors and a new system for decision support. Information Sciences 176(11), 1570–1589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, K. (2011). The challenge of iSPIED: intelligence sensemaking to prognosticate IEDs. International C2 Journal 5(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Burns, K. (2012). EVE′'s energy in aesthetic experience: a Bayesian basis for haiku humor. Journal of Mathematics and the Arts 6, 77–87.Google Scholar
Burns, K. (2014). Entropy and optimality in abstract art: an empirical test of visual aesthetics. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Burns, K. (in press-a). A Computational Basis for ICArUS Challenge Problem Design (MITRE Technical Report MTR140415). McLean, VA: MITRE.Google Scholar
Burns, K. (in press-b). ICArUS Phase 2 Challenge Problem Design (MITRE Technical Report MTR140412). McLean, VA: MITRE.Google Scholar
Burns, K., & Dubnov, S. (2006). Memex music and gambling games: EVE′'s take on lucky number 13. Proc. AAAI Workshop on Computational Aesthetics: Artificial Intelligence Approaches to Beauty and Happiness, WS-06-04, pp. 30–36. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Burns, K., & Maybury, M. (2010). The future of style. In The Structure of Style: Algorithmic Approaches to Understanding Manner and Meaning (Argamon, S., Burns, K., & Dubnov, S., Eds.), pp. 317–332. Berlin: Spinger–Verlag.Google Scholar
Butcher, S., Trans. (1951). Aristotle Poetics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Cohen, H. (2010). Style as emergence (from what?). In The Structure of Style: Algorithmic Approaches to Understanding Manner and Meaning (Argamon, S., Burns, K., & Dubnov, S., Eds.), pp. 3–20. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Kutas, M. (2001). Getting it: human event-related brain responses to jokes in good and poor comprehenders. Neuroscience Letters 316(2), 71–74.Google Scholar
Coulson, S., Urbach, T., & Kutas, M. (2006). Looking back: joke comprehension and the space structuring model. Humor 19(3), 229–250.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24(1), 87–114.Google Scholar
Danto, A. (2013). What Art Is. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Demaree, H., DeDonno, M., Burns, K., & Everhart, D. (2008). You bet: how personality differences affect risk-taking preferences. Personality and Individual Differences 44(7), 1484–1494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. (1987). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dubnov, S. (2010). Information dynamics and aspects of musical perception. In The Structure of Style: Algorithmic Approaches to Understanding Manner and Meaning (Argamon, S., Burns, K., & Dubnov, S., Eds.), pp. 127–157. Berlin: Spinger–Verlag.Google Scholar
Dubnov, S., McAdams, S., & Reynolds, R. (2006). Structural and affective aspects of music form from statistical audio signal analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57(11), 1526–1536.Google Scholar
Edwards, W. (1982). Conservatism in human information processing. In Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A., Eds.), pp. 359–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, W., Phillips, L., Hayes, W., & Goodman, B. (1968). Probabilistic information processing systems: design and evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 4(3), 248–265.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. (1941). The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. Psychological Review 48(1), 83–92.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. (1942). The experimental study of “good gestalt.” Psychological Review 49(4), 344–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, H. (1957). Sense and Nonsense in Psychology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Finucane, M., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Galanter, P. (2012). Computational aesthetic evaluation: past and future. In Computers and Creativity (McCormack, J., & d'Inverno, M., Eds.), pp. 255–293. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
George, R., & Bruce, J. (2008). Analyzing Intelligence: Origins, Obstacles, and Innovations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Gero, J. (2010). Future directions for design creativity research. In Design Creativity 2010 (Taura, T., & Nagai, Y., Eds.), pp. 15–22. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grabo, C. (2004). Anticipating Surprise: Analysis for Strategic Warning. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Grace, K., Maher, M., Fisher, D., & Brady, K. (2014). Modeling expectation for evaluating surprise in design creativity. In Design Computing and Cognition (Gero, J., Ed.), pp. 201–220. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Grace, K., Maher, M., Fisher, D., & Brady, K. (in press). A data-intensive approach to predicting creative designs based on novelty, value, and surprise. International Journal of Design, Creativity, and Innovation.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, A., & Kuhns, R. (1964). Philosophies of Art and Beauty: Selected Readings in Aesthetics from Plato to Heidegger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, D., & Salvendy, G. (2006). Product creativity: conceptual model, measurements, and characteristics. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 7(4), 395–412.Google Scholar
Hurley, M., Dennett, D., & Adams, R. (2011). Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Huron, D. (2006). Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
IARPA. (2010). Integrated Cognitive-Neuroscience Architectures for Understanding Sensemaking (Broad Agency Announcement, Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, IARPA-BAA-10-04). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Itti, L., & Baldi, P. (2009). Bayesian surprise attracts human attention. Vision Research 49(10), 1295–1306.Google Scholar
Jennings, K. (2010). Developing creativity: artificial barriers in artificial intelligence. Minds and Machines 20(4), 489–501.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. (2006 a). Making sense of sensemaking 1: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21(4), 70–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. (2006 b). Making sense of sensemaking 2: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21(5), 88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, G., Phillips, J., Rall, E., & Peluso, D. (2007). A data-frame theory of sensemaking. In Expertise Out of Context (Hoffman, R., Ed.), pp. 113–155. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kreitler, H., & Kreitler, S. (1972). Psychology of the Arts. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Kullback, S., & Leibler, R. (1951). On information and sufficiency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22(1), 79–86.Google Scholar
Leigh, J. (1994). The use of figures of speech in print ad headlines. Journal of Advertising 23(2), 18–33.Google Scholar
Maher, M. (2010). Evaluating creativity in humans, computers, and collectively intelligent systems. Proc. DESIRE'10: Creativity in Innovation and Design. Aarhus, Denmark.Google Scholar
Maher, M., & Fisher, D. (2012). Using AI to evaluate creative designs. Proc. 2nd. Int. Conf. Design Creativity, pp. 45–54.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. (1990). The Clockwork Muse: The Predictability of Artistic Change. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: anomalous findings for Berlyne's psychobiological theory. American Journal of Psychology 103(1), 53–80.Google Scholar
McGrayne, S. (2011). The Theory That Would Not Die: How Bayes Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines, & Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, L. (1956). Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meyers-Levy, J., & Malaviya, P. (1999). Consumers' processing of persuasive advertisements: an integrative framework of persuasion theories. Journal of Marketing 63, 45–60.Google Scholar
Moles, A. (1966). Information Theory and Esthetic Perception. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Narmour, E. (1992). The Analysis and Cognition of Melodic Complexity: The Implication–Realization Model. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (2004). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Oatley, K. (2003). Creative expression and communication of emotions in the visual and narrative arts. In Handbook of Affective Sciences (Davidson, R., Scherer, K., & Goldsmith, H., Eds.), pp. 481–502. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O'Quin, K., & Besemer, S. (1989). The development, reliability, and validity of the revised creative product semantic scale. Creativity Research Journal 2(4), 267–278.Google Scholar
Parsons, M. (1987). How We Understand Art: A Cognitive Developmental Account of Aesthetic Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paulos, J. (1980). Mathematics and Humor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, F., Norman, J., & Beers, A. (2010). Fechner's aesthetics revisited. Seeing and Perceiving 23(3), 263–271.Google Scholar
Pollack, J. (2011). The Pun Also Rises: How the Humble Pun Revolutionized Language, Changed History, and Made Wordplay More Than Some Antics. New York: Gotham.Google Scholar
Postrel, V. (2003). The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture, and Consciousness. New York: Harper–Collins.Google Scholar
Rigau, J., Feixas, M., & Sbert, M. (2007). Conceptualizing Birkhoff's aesthetic measure using Shannon entropy and Kolmogorov complexity. In Computational Aesthetics in Graphics, Visualization, & Imaging (Cunningham, D., Meyer, G., & Neumann, M., Eds.), pp. 105–112. Goslar, Germany: Eurographics Association.Google Scholar
Ritchie, G. (2001). Assessing creativity. Proc. AISB Symp. Artificial Intelligence and Creativity in Art and Science, York.Google Scholar
Ritchie, G. (2004). The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, G. (2007). Some empirical criteria for attributing creativity to a computer program. Minds & Machines 17, 67–99.Google Scholar
Roeckelein, J. (2002). The Psychology of Humor: A Reference Guide and Annotated Bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Rowsome, F. (1965). The Verse by the Side of the Road: The Story of Burma-Shave Signs and Jingles with All 600 of the Roadside Rhymes. New York: Plume.Google Scholar
Rozin, P., Rozin, A., Appel, B., & Wachtel, C. (2006). Documenting and explaining the common AAB pattern in music and humor: establishing and breaking expectations. Emotion 6(3), 349–355.Google Scholar
Ruch, W. (1988). Sensation seeking and the enjoyment of structure and content of humor: stability of findings across four samples. Personality and Individual Differences 9(5), 861–871.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2011). Assessing design creativity. Design Studies 32(4), 348–383.Google Scholar
Scherer, K. (1999). Appraisal theory. In Handbook of Cognition and Emotion (Dalgleish, T., & Power, M., Eds.), pp. 637–663. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Silvia, P. (2005). Emotional responses to art: from collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology 9(4), 342–357.Google Scholar
Silvia, P. (2006). Exploring the Psychology of Interest. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivasan, V., & Chakrabarti, A. (2010). Investigating novelty-outcome relationships in engineering design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24(2), 161–178.Google Scholar
Sternthal, B., & Craig, C. (1973). Humor in advertising. Journal of Marketing 37, 12–18.Google Scholar
Suls, J. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: an information processing analysis. In The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues (Goldstein, J., & McGhee, P., Eds.), pp. 81–100. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Temperley, D. (2007). Music and Probability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (2007). Abductive inference: from philosophical analysis to neural mechanisms. In Inductive Reasoning: Experimental, Developmental, and Computational Approaches (Feeney, A., & Heit, E., Eds.), pp. 226–247. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, K. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
van Mulken, M., van, Enschot-vanDijk, R. & Hoecken, H. (2005). Puns, relevance, and appreciation in advertisements. Journal of Pragmatics 37(5), 707–721.Google Scholar
Walvis, T. (2008). Three laws of branding: neuroscientific foundations of effective brand building. Journal of Brand Management 16, 176–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberger, M., & Gulas, C. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising: a review. Journal of Advertising 21, 35–59.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar