Computational Evolutionary Art: Artificial Life and Effective Complexity

  • Tiago Barros Pontes e SilvaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11584)


On the field of Evolutionary Computational Art, artists frequently adopt a top-down process of creation, employing the algorithms only as a mean to express a previously conceived composition. In this sense, the present paper aims to discuss the use of Genetic Algorithms for the development of systems with greater level of emergence, running towards the increase of its effective complexity, understood as suggested by Gell-Mann. In this context it is presented the system Morphogenesis. It was developed as a Multi-Agent Adaptive System, built with Genetic Algorithms to generate movement, feeding, fighting and reproductive behaviors. All these behaviors are programed at the individual level, from which emerge the macro patterns of the groups, simulating the evolutionary process. The system analysis suggests that the fitness function should not be focused at the arrangements of the agents’ genotype, but at the adaptation of the phenotype itself. It is expected that the use of algorithms that allow expressions closer to the evolutionary process has a greater affinity with the aesthetic notion proposed for the field of Evolutionary Computational Art. Hereupon, a qualitative exploratory study was conducted to compare the perception of the high effective complexity arrangements against random arrangements. Preliminary results show that the evolutionary process could be associated with a greater evaluation of intentionality of the compositions and could be also related with a deeper aesthetic evaluation.


Computational Art Artificial Life Effective complexity 


  1. 1.
    Galanter, P.: Truth to process – evolutionary art and the aesthetics of dynamism. In: International Conference on Generative Art. Generative Design Lab, Milan Polytechnic, Milan (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Galanter, P.: What is generative art? Complexity theory as a context for art theory. In: International Conference on Generative Art (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Galanter, P.: The problem with evolutionary art is… In: EvoCOMNET 2010: The 7th European Event on the Application of Nature-inspired Techniques for Telecommunication Networks and other Parallel and Distributed Systems (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Takagi, H.: Interactive evolutionary computation: fusion of the capabilities of EC optimization and human evaluation. Proc. IEEE 89(9), 1275–1296 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Werner, G.M., Todd, P.M.: Frankensteinian methods for evolutionary music composition. In: Griffith, N., Todd, P.M. (eds.) Musical Networks: Parallel Distributed Perception and Performance. MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galanter, P.: Complexism and the role of evolutionary art. In: Romero, J., Machado, P. (eds.) The Art of Artificial Evolution: A Handbook on Evolutionary Art and Music, pp. 311–332. Springer, Berlin (2008). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gell-Mann, M.: What is complexity? Complexity 1, 16–19 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dawkins, R.: The Blind Watchmaker. Norton & Company, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gardner, M.: Mathematical games: the fantastic combinations of John Conway’s new solitaire game “Life”. Sci. Am. 223, 120–123 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silva, T.B.P.: Thoughts upon the morphogenesis. In: Fragoso, M.L.P.G., Silva, T.R.F., Nobrega, C.A.M. (eds.) Computer Art & Design for All, 1st edn., vol. 1, pp. 159–167. EBA - Escola de Belas Artes de UFRJ/RioBooks, Rio de Janeiro (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holland, J.H.: Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Helix, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Konar, A.: Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing - Behavioral and Cognitive Modeling of the Human Brain. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., Theraulaz, G.: Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial System. Oxford University Press, New York (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Turing, A.M.: The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 237(641), 37–72 (1952)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Einstein, A.: On the motion of small particles suspended in a stationary liquid, as required by the molecular kinetic theory of heat. Ann. Phys. 17(8), 549–560 (1905)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Michalewicz, Z.: Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Russel, S.J., Norvig, P., Davis, E.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glover, F., Kochenberger, G.A.: Handbook of Metaheuristics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lehman, J., Stanley, K.O.: Exploiting open-endedness to solve problems through the search for novelty. In: ALIFE, pp. 329–336 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lehman, J., Stanley, K.O.: Abandoning objectives: evolution through the search for novelty alone. Evol. Comput. 19(2), 189–223 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Silva, T.B.P.: Morfogênese: sistema autopoiético emergente de vida artificial 293, [13] p. Thesis (doctorate) - University of Brasília, Institute of Arts, Postgraduate Program in Art (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moore, D.S.: The Basic Practice of Statistics, 5th edn. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Silva, T.B.P.: Intentionnalité & perception esthétique dans le système de l’art computationnel. In: D’Angelo, B., Soulages, F., Venturelli, S. (eds.) Esthétique & Connectivité, 1st edn., vol. 1, pp. 105–118. L’Harmattan, Paris (2018)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Birkhoff, G.D.: Aesthetic Measure. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1932)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eysenck, H.J.: The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. Psychol. Rev. 48, 83–92 (1941)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Berlyne, D.E.: Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Educational Division, Meredith Corporation (1971)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Martindale, C.: Aesthetics, psychobiology, and cognition. In: Farley, F., Neperud, R. (eds.) The Foundations of Aesthetics, Art, and Art Education, pp. 7–42. Praeger, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nadal, M.R.: Complexity and aesthetic preference for diverse visual stimuli. Doctoral Thesis, Department de Psicologia, Universitat de les Illes Balears (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nadal, M.R., Munar, E., Marty, G., Cela-Conde, C.J.: Visual complexity and beauty appreciation: explaining the divergence of results. Empir. Stud. Arts 28(2), 173–191 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schrödinger, E.: What is life? The physical aspect of the living cell. Based on lectures delivered under the auspices of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies at Trinity College, Dublin (1943)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Galanter, P.: Against reductionism: complexity science, complexity art, and complexity studies. Institute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence, Complexity and Philosophy Workshop (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brasília UniversityBrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations