RE: Computer generated Art and Story

["Nelson Zagalo" <ntz@ca.ua.pt>]

Joe Andrieu wrote:

>That I think you can do, using modeling and structuralism (my own
>bastardized meaning of that term) to reinterpret classic (or newly
>authored) forms in contemporarily relevant contexts (or interactive
>contexts).

>The challenge is how do you model the humanity and define the structure
in >a way that both produces quality output and allows the
player/audience/hero >some form of engagement/interaction/control.


Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

>We don't sufficiently embrace "our inner cockroach," our triviality.
Of >course, the other problem is we're so elaborate.  The driving
processes may >all be very simple, but they're elaborated into minutiae
of detail that we >have to deal with.  It's mitigating all this detail
that's hard.


The problem of building a story is that we make our reasoning not by
making use of logic only but by making use of logic + emotion. In terms
of story structuring and the possible computation of it we've already
arrived at the point where computers making use of logic can be useful.
However, in order to develop any engaging story, computers or any kind
of automation will need to be able to make use of uncertainty, a matter
not compatible with logic and so dependent of emotion.

We're not so complicated. The big problem is that we're not only a brain
that processes information, but we're also made of flesh, of viscera's,
of fluids that have a great responsibility in everything we are. 

Try modelling this, is maybe impossible. To the innate emotional states
we have from the evolutionary biology, we must add the deep subjective
experiences we build through our life time that will be biological
recorded in us. These emotional states are then responsible for our
response capacity to new situations and uncertain situations. And so for
our capacity of constructing stories, as engaging we believe they should
be.


Nelson
...................................
http://clientes.netvisao.pt/nzagalo