Nov. 5--Art that whispers, learns and evolves is on display at Carnegie Mellon University's recently opened Gates Center for Computer Science.

Six of the seven installations that integrate elements of art and computer science were created by students and faculty members inspired by a class called "Art That Learns." The class was jointly taught last spring by Carlos Guestrin, an associate professor of computer science and machine learning at Carnegie Mellon's School of Computer Science, and Osman Khan, a visiting associate professor of art in the College of Fine Arts.

The seventh work, "Generation 243," was created by Scott Draves, a software artist who received his doctorate in 1997 from the computer science department. The department commissioned the work in celebration of the launch of the Gates Center and the Hillman Center for Future-Generation Technologies.

The artificial brain at the heart of Guestrin and Khan's "We Synthesist" surfs the blogosphere for the most frequently discussed topics in the computer and science communities, then whispers the keywords from speakers mounted across from each other on one of the center's main hallways.

Sue Ann Hong's "The Curator" uses the computer technologies developed to detect fraud by recognizing unusual activity in patterns of credit-card usage. Observers are invited to create a drawing. If the computer program recognizes it as novel, it is accepted and dropped into a clear Plexiglas bin. If it's an image the computer has seen before, the computer shreds it.

"It was very successful," Guestrin says. "Children loved it."

With Jim McCann's interactive "Destructure From Motion," observers cause the images to fracture and re-form as they move in front of the installation they're observing.

Draves' "Generation 243" is a small piece of an ever-evolving work called "Electric Sheep" that treats lines of open-source computer code like virtual or electronic DNA to create mesmerizing, swiftly changing abstract patterns -- think screen savers -- that morph continuously.

The most popular designs, chosen by online voters, determine which lines of electronic DNA will survive, mate, reproduce and create new images or "sheep."

Which brings the question: Are the computers working as tools in the creation of the art or as co-creators of the art?

"The computer is running the program I wrote," Draves says. "It's not really doing what it wants, but is a co-creator in its randomness. ... Every day, I see things beyond my comprehension because of the computer's randomness and all these contributions by people."

There's no question that computers can work as tool and as co-creators, says Murray Horne, curator at Wood Street Galleries, Downtown.

"They can be both, for sure," he says. "But given the parameters, the computer only acts on what it's given."

An observer who interacts with a work, either by offering it a drawing for evaluation or by causing the images presented to change, then becomes a participant in the work, he says. "(That's) because you are creating new art forms rather than viewing old ones."

The defining line is somewhat blurry.

"You could be a co-creator or a participant," he says. "There is a moving line as to whether you intend something to be created.

"If the intention is to create art, you are an artist."

Alice T. Carter is the theater critic for the Tribune-Review. She can be reached via e-mail or 412-320-7808.

-----

To see more of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/.

Copyright (c) 2009, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

A service of YellowBrix, Inc.