Reading Exercise: Can computers truly create art?

Human beings are the sole species known for regularly engaging in sophisticated acts of creativity. If we can reduce this process to computer code, what does it imply for human creativity? ‘This question strikes at the very essence of humanity,’ remarks Geraint Wiggins, a researcher in computational creativity at Goldsmiths, University of London. ‘It unsettles many people, as they fear it may strip away something unique from the human experience.’

To a certain extent, we are all familiar with computer-generated art. The question remains: where does the artist's work end and the computer's creativity begin? Consider Aaron, one of the earliest machine artists, a robot whose paintings have been exhibited in prestigious galleries like London’s Tate Modern and San Francisco's Museum of Modern Art. Aaron can independently wield a paintbrush on canvas. While impressive, it remains primarily a tool to manifest the creative ideas of its programmer.

Simon Colton, the creator of the Painting Fool, is determined to differentiate his creation from previous critiques. Unlike earlier ‘artists’ such as Aaron, the Painting Fool requires minimal direction and can generate its own concepts by browsing online content. The software autonomously conducts web searches and scours social media platforms. It is now beginning to demonstrate a form of imagination, producing original artworks like a series of hazy landscapes featuring trees and sky. While some may argue these pieces appear mechanical, Colton contends that such reactions reflect society’s double standards towards computer-generated versus human-generated art. He argues that if a child paints a scene from imagination, it is considered creative; the same should apply to a machine. Additionally, software bugs can lead to unexpected outcomes; for instance, technical glitches caused some of the Painting Fool’s chair paintings to appear in black and white, lending them an eerie, ghostly quality. Human artists such as the esteemed Ellsworth Kelly receive praise for limiting their color palette—why should computers face different standards?

Colton and others argue against directly comparing machine creativity to that of humans, who have developed their skills over millennia. However, some are intrigued by the idea that a computer could produce something as unique and nuanced as our most accomplished artists. So far, only one has come close. Composer David Cope created a program called Experiments in Musical Intelligence, or EMI. Not only did EMI compose in Cope’s style, but also mimicked the styles of revered classical composers such as Bach, Chopin, and Mozart. Audiences were deeply moved, with EMI even deceiving classical music experts into believing they were hearing genuine Bach. Yet not everyone was impressed. Critics like Wiggins dismissed Cope’s work as pseudoscience and criticized his intentionally vague explanations of the software’s workings. Douglas Hofstadter of Indiana University argued that EMI merely replicated the original creative impulses of the artists it imitated. When the truth came out, audiences often reacted with outrage, with one music enthusiast even attempting to physically confront Cope. Faced with such controversy, Cope ultimately destroyed the crucial databases of EMI.

Why did so many people admire the music but recoil upon learning of its origins? A study by computer scientist David Moffat from Glasgow Caledonian University offers a clue. Moffat asked both expert musicians and laypersons to evaluate six compositions. Participants were not informed whether the pieces were composed by humans or computers but were asked to guess and rate their preference for each piece. Those who believed the composer was a computer tended to appreciate the music less than those who thought it was created by a human. This bias persisted even among the experts, who might be expected to offer more objective assessments.

Where does this bias stem from? Yale University’s Paul Bloom proposes an answer: he suggests that part of our enjoyment of art comes from the creative process behind the work. Bloom argues that this process gives art an ‘irresistible essence’. Meanwhile, experiments by Justin Kruger of New York University indicate that people derive greater enjoyment from artwork if they believe it required more time and effort to create. Similarly, Colton believes that when people experience art, they are curious about the artist’s thoughts and intentions. With computer-generated art, this speculative element seems absent—there is nothing to explore. However, as technology continues to advance, it may become possible to uncover deeper layers in computer-generated art. This is why Colton directs the Painting Fool to draw inspiration from online social networks: in the hope that it will select themes that resonate with us.

Questions 27-31

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

Write the correct letter in boxes 27-31 on your answer sheet.

27   What is the writer suggesting about computer-produced works in the first paragraph?

A   People’s acceptance of them can vary considerably.

B   A great deal of progress has already been attained in this field.

C   They have had more success in some artistic genres than in others.

D   the advances are not as significant as the public believes them to be.

28   According to Geraint Wiggins, why are many people worried by computer art?

A   It is aesthetically inferior to human art.

B   It may ultimately supersede human art.

C   It undermines a fundamental human quality.

D   It will lead to a deterioration in human ability.

29   What is a key difference between Aaron and the Painting Fool?

A   its programmer’s background

B   public response to its work

C   the source of its subject matter

D   the technical standard of its output

30   What point does Simon Colton make in the fourth paragraph?

A   Software-produced art is often dismissed as childish and simplistic.

B   The same concepts of creativity should not be applied to all forms of art.

C   It is unreasonable to expect a machine to be as imaginative as a human being.

D   People tend to judge computer art and human art according to different criteria.

31   The writer refers to the paintings of a chair as an example of computer art which

A   achieves a particularly striking effect.

B   exhibits a certain level of genuine artistic skill.

C   closely resembles that of a well-known artist.

D   highlights the technical limitations of the software.

Questions 32-37

Complete each sentence with the correct ending, A-G below.

Write the correct letter, A-G, in boxes 32-37 on your answer sheet.

32   Simon Colton says it is important to consider the long-term view then

33   David Cope’s EMI software surprised people by

34   Geraint Wiggins criticized Cope for not

35   Douglas Hofstadter claimed that EMI was

36   Audiences who had listened to EMI’s music became angry after

37   The participants in David Moffat’s study had to assess music without

List of Ideas

A     generating work that was virtually indistinguishable from that of humans.

B knowing whether it was the work of humans or software.

C producing work entirely dependent on the imagination of its creator.

D comparing the artistic achievements of humans and computers.

E revealing the technical details of his program.

F persuading the public to appreciate computer art.

G    discovering that it was the product of a computer program

Questions 38-40

Do the statements align with the claims made in Reading Passage 3?

In boxes 38-40 on your answer sheet, write

YES              if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer

NO               if the statement contradicts the claims of the writer

NOT GIVEN    if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this

38   Moffat’s research may help explain people’s reactions to EMI.

39   The non-experts in Moffat’s study all responded in a predictable way.

40   Justin Kruger’s findings cast doubt on Paul Bloom’s theory about people’s prejudice towards computer art.

Answers:

27. B (Đoạn 1, “The Painting Fool is one of a growing number of computer programs which, so their makers claim, possess creative talents” → số lượng tăng lên, tạo ra nhiều tài năng → tiến bộ trong lĩnh vực nghệ thuật nhân tạo)

28. C (Đoạn 2, “It scares a lot of people. They are worried that it is taking something special away from what it means to be human.” → các tác phẩm nghệ thuật nhân tạo sẽ khiến con người mất đi khả năng của mình.)

29. C (Đoạn 4, “ only needs minimal direction and can come up with its own concepts by going online for material. … It is now beginning to display a kind of imagination too, creating pictures from scratch.” → The Painting Fool khác với Aaron ở chủ thể)

30. D (Đoạn 4, “Colton argues that such reactions arise from people’s double standards towards software-produced and human-produced art.” → Con người thường đánh giá tác phẩm của người và của máy móc dựa trên những tiêu chí khác nhau.)

31. A (Đoạn 4, “Some of the Painting Fool’s paintings of a chair came out in black and white, thanks to a technical glitch. This gives the work an eerie, ghostlike quality.” → Có được một hiệu ứng đặc biệt.)

32. D (Đoạn 5, “Researchers like Colton don’t believe it is right to measure machine creativity directly to that of humans who ‘have had millennia to develop our skills’.” → So sánh những thành tựu về nghệ thuật của con người và máy móc.)

33. A (Đoạn 5, “ Audiences were moved to tears, … and condemned him for his deliberately vague explanation of how the software worked.” → Tạo ra những tác phẩm không thể phân biệt được đâu là người thực hiện và đâu là máy móc tạo ra.)

34. E (Đoạn 5, “ Some, such as Wiggins, have blasted Cope’s work as pseudoscience, and condemned him for his deliberately vague explanation of how the software worked.” → Tiết lộ những chi tiết về chương trình máy tính này.)

35. C (Đoạn 5, “Meanwhile, Douglas Hofstadter of Indiana University said EMI created replicas which still rely completely on the original artist’s creative impulses.” → tạo ra tác phẩm hoàn toàn dựa trên sự tưởng tượng của tác giả.)

36. G (Đoạn 5, “When audiences found out the truth they were often outraged with Cope, and one music lover even tried to punch him.” → phát hiện ra tác phẩm là do máy tạo ra)

37. B (Đoạn 6, “He asked both expert musicians and non-experts to assess six compositions. The participants weren’t told beforehand whether the tunes were composed by humans or computers” → tìm ra tác phẩm là do người hay chương trình máy tính tạo ra.)

38. YES (Đoạn 6, “ People who thought the composer was a computer tended to dislike the piece more than those who believed it was human. This was true even among the experts → Kết quả của thí nghiệm giúp thấy được phản ứng của con người)

39. NOT GIVEN (Không có thông tin về việc có cách nào phản ứng lại được hay không)