Interestingness is an attribute assigned to Flirck photographs based on the ever-illusive “interestingness” algorithm. No one is quite sure how it works, but having a photo make it to the Interestingness page is something that, at one point or another, most Flickrites have aspired to. Although there is much debate over the photos selected by the algorithm, an interestingness raking still seems to be a measure of success in the Flickr world - interestingness has become equated with famousness. Having read several posts of users fretting over their lack of interestingness status, I was please to come across a post with this quote by the graffiti artist Banksy:
The time of getting fame for your name on its own is over. Artwork that is only about wanting to be famous will never make you famous. Any fame is a by-product of making something that means something. You don’t go to a restaurant and order a meal because you want to have a shit.
I’ve always been weary of fame for the sake of fame. Although there are some who have succeeded in becoming famous by wanting to be famous, I wholeheartely agree with Banksy when he says that fame is the result of “making something that means something”. As an artist, I feel that it is my responsiblity to put my artwork out there and as mentioned in the previous post, I may agree or disagree by how it is recieved. In the end, it is up to the audience and not some algorthim to judge my work. An algorithm my be able to determine “interestingness” but only an audience of viewers can determine whether it means something or not.
I think that there is a probability that on average, a computer can figure out what people will find interesting based on a past history of humans telling the computer what they found interesting.
“Interesting” and “meaning” are perhaps two different things but the odds are that if it is interesting to someone, it has meaning. I mean, I think the odds are favoured in that direction. Marketing, etc. is certainly based on principles that our reactions are predictable in general. There are exceptions. But perhaps as exceptions are encountered, they will be factored in leading to less exceptions.
Most people cringe at the thought of a computer telling you what you like and that has led to a slow uptake on personal agents. But they are becoming accepted like stores and music sites recommending related items. Amazon, Del.icio.us, etc. as you are well aware.
I think FlickR is using shapes and colors too in their formula and I assume the parameters are based on what others have favourited. For example, if on average, people have recorded that they like pictures that have the bottom half almost a uniform color and that color is a light color then FlickR will continue to assume that any picture that matches this is interesting. It certainly can be wrong but it is kind of cool to find out why. And if done correctly, it should work most of the time or certainly beat the ods.
If you only have so much time, and you are not going to see every picture, and the pictures are still varied, then I don’t mind seeing a filtered set. Remember that computers are not the only ones who filter.
Dan
I agree with you that a computer can determine what people find interesting based on their viewing habits and that is exactly what the interestingness algorithm does. According to the Flickr site:
As for meaning, I don’t think that interestingness implies meaning in the artistic sense. There are lots of cute pictures of cats and sunsets on the interestingness page but I don’t think that they have meaning as works of art.
Although I think that an algorithm can make recommendations based on previously specified viewing patterns I don’t think that an algorithm can determine aesthetic value or artistic metric due to the subjective nature of both of those qualities. Flickr might be able to extract from my list of favorites that I have a preference for abstract and minimal photographs but I don’t think that it can determine what I would consider to be a good one or not.