I’m still reading Cloninger’s book, and just read a section on Generative Software (GS) – software used by contemporary designers to “… automate an increasingly large portion of the creative process.” As implied by the name, GS can produce a tremendous amount of output. It’s then up to the designer to be creatively stimulated as they sift through the GS output.

As I was reading Cloninger’s description, I couldn’t help but make my own connections with Genetic Algorithms (GAs). I’ve seen GAs applied in the physical sciences. For example, GAs can be used to generate models to fit data. The scientist provides an ancestor (a starting model), and then variations are derived through genetic processes such as mutation. Only the models with appropriate levels of fitness survive subsequent generations. Ultimately, what results is the best (i.e., most fit) model that explains the data according to the GA process.

In an analogous way, this is also what happens with the output from GS. Of course, in the GS case, it is the designer her/himself who determines what survives according to their own criteria.

The GS-GA connection is even stronger than my own association may cause you to believe.

In interviewing Joshua Davis for his book, Cloninger states:

At one point, you talked about creating software that would parse through the output of your generative software and select the iterations you were most likely to choose.

Davis responds:

That’s something [programmer] Branden Hall and I worked on called Genetic Aesthetic. It uses a neural network and genetic algorithms to create a “hot or not” situation. It says, “Rate this composition I generated on a scale from 1 to 10.” If I give it a 1, it says, “This isn’t beautiful. I should look at what kind of numbers were generated in this iteration and record those as unfavorable.” You have to train the software. Because the process is based on variables and numbers, over a very short period of time it’s able to learn what numbers are unsatisfactory and what numbers are satisfactory to that individual human critic. It changes per individual.

That certainly makes the GS-GA connection explicit and poetic, Genetic Aesthetic – I like that!

I’ve never worked with GAs. However, I did lead a project at KelResearch where our objective was to classify hydrometeors (i.e., raindrops, snowflakes, etc.). The hydrometeors were observed in situ by a sensor deployed on the wing of an airplane. Data was collected as the plane flew through winter storms. (Many of these campaigns were spearheaded by Prof. R. E. Stewart.) What we attempted to do was automate the classification of the hydrometeors on the basis of their shape. More specifically, we attempted to estimate the fractal dimension of each observed hydrometeor in the hopes of providing at automated classification scheme. Although this was feasible in principle, the resolution offered by the sensor made this impractical. Nonetheless, it was a interesting opportunity for me to personally explore the natural Genetic Aesthetics afforded by Canadian winter storms!