If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:02:44 PM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rhVcq-5RZ8 Stop The Negative Voice And Write Great Stories - Barbara Seymour Giordano [FULL INTERVIEW] Not photography but an interesting life story applicable to other artistic and technical endeavours. Perfect is the enemy of good. Embrace your bad art. Have fun! Discover what you like. Enjoy what you do. Find your own voice. Discover what's in your heart. Avoid the extremes as the story gets warped. What we perceive becomes what we believe and we can get stuck. When something is discordant or wrong we can feel this in our body, and it's important to listen to this. Every time I go online very few photography channels step beyond equipment or technique. There's nothing really new there you wouldn't get out of flipping through a book for five minutes. There's nothing about the art. It's everything but the art. Developing the artistic eye is a process where you fight bad habits and begin to see the potential in the world. Create a new groove and take the pressure off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pa2XgsJS3I Fine Art Photography Walking through this video and addressing the main points as they are made: The world has changed and is changing for my business but not in the end of the world ways some people may have been scared into thinking. Images still have value and they say things emotionally and politically which is something I'm very aware of. People still buy my images and they are good enough for marketing purposes at the level they are at. The discussion this youtube segues into the difference between commercial art and fine art, the fact both are difficult and the requirements and ways of getting noticed in both markets is similar but different. As for galleries the best artists are established and the majority of them are dead. My business, obviously works differently to this. I've been experimenting with black and white and colour, and different compositions and concepts, as well as curating my own work and comparing it to what is available in the market. It's a bit of a balance between narrative in the first video and management in the second video. Yes, I'm starting on the bottom but shooting for the top and because there are so many factors to calculate, which is impossible, developing a feel for what interests me and makes me happy and what has value. Viewing galleries and auctioning work of new artists is effectively the same process I am managing and this is valid. Yes, it can be difficult and competitive and **** stuff unbelievably sells well just like the fine art and movie worlds. The crap you have to put up with is similar but so are the pluses and opportunities. As for closing comments in this video I'm still working through the direction I'm taking and also taking "aspirational" portfolio photos of where I want to be and less about where I have been. In fact a few weeks ago I deleted everything which I had available to make way for my new portfolio collections. Supplementary material covering the directing and high concepts (i.e. "male gaze") and dynamic composition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDvC6tzrJro 96-Minute 'Masterclass' Interview with Alfred Hitchcock on Filmmaking (1976) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il8fSKa5Y5c Kubrick’s Low-Budget Masterpiece: The Cinematography of A Clockwork Orange (1971) -- Melanie van Buren https://sanet.st/blogs/tomorrowland2...y.3610245.html AI can/will probably soon radically transform our concept of art and creativity and culture in general. Personally I enjoy collecting art and creating things as well, but I think we have to reconsider a lot of traditionally held ideas about creativity and originality. One example is the way the digital realm renders the idea of an original artwork untenable. In the sense that any copy is identical to the original digital artwork. Another aspect is the fact that the creations of others can serve as the starting material for your own creations. It would be unthinkable to go into a museum and start modifying some original painting by applying spray paint to create a new artwork, but with digitized versions of existing artworks, people are free to remix them as they please and this adds a whole new interactive dimension to the appreciation of art. https://i.imgur.com/mrosGvK.jpg https://i.imgur.com/5FX6r.jpeg |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
On 20/01/2021 23:58, sobriquet wrote:
On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:02:44 PM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rhVcq-5RZ8 Stop The Negative Voice And Write Great Stories - Barbara Seymour Giordano [FULL INTERVIEW] Not photography but an interesting life story applicable to other artistic and technical endeavours. Perfect is the enemy of good. Embrace your bad art. Have fun! Discover what you like. Enjoy what you do. Find your own voice. Discover what's in your heart. Avoid the extremes as the story gets warped. What we perceive becomes what we believe and we can get stuck. When something is discordant or wrong we can feel this in our body, and it's important to listen to this. Every time I go online very few photography channels step beyond equipment or technique. There's nothing really new there you wouldn't get out of flipping through a book for five minutes. There's nothing about the art. It's everything but the art. Developing the artistic eye is a process where you fight bad habits and begin to see the potential in the world. Create a new groove and take the pressure off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pa2XgsJS3I Fine Art Photography Walking through this video and addressing the main points as they are made: The world has changed and is changing for my business but not in the end of the world ways some people may have been scared into thinking. Images still have value and they say things emotionally and politically which is something I'm very aware of. People still buy my images and they are good enough for marketing purposes at the level they are at. The discussion this youtube segues into the difference between commercial art and fine art, the fact both are difficult and the requirements and ways of getting noticed in both markets is similar but different. As for galleries the best artists are established and the majority of them are dead. My business, obviously works differently to this. I've been experimenting with black and white and colour, and different compositions and concepts, as well as curating my own work and comparing it to what is available in the market. It's a bit of a balance between narrative in the first video and management in the second video. Yes, I'm starting on the bottom but shooting for the top and because there are so many factors to calculate, which is impossible, developing a feel for what interests me and makes me happy and what has value. Viewing galleries and auctioning work of new artists is effectively the same process I am managing and this is valid. Yes, it can be difficult and competitive and **** stuff unbelievably sells well just like the fine art and movie worlds. The crap you have to put up with is similar but so are the pluses and opportunities. As for closing comments in this video I'm still working through the direction I'm taking and also taking "aspirational" portfolio photos of where I want to be and less about where I have been. In fact a few weeks ago I deleted everything which I had available to make way for my new portfolio collections. Supplementary material covering the directing and high concepts (i.e. "male gaze") and dynamic composition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDvC6tzrJro 96-Minute 'Masterclass' Interview with Alfred Hitchcock on Filmmaking (1976) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il8fSKa5Y5c Kubrick’s Low-Budget Masterpiece: The Cinematography of A Clockwork Orange (1971) https://sanet.st/blogs/tomorrowland2...y.3610245.html AI can/will probably soon radically transform our concept of art and creativity and culture in general. Personally I enjoy collecting art and creating things as well, but I think we have to reconsider a lot of traditionally held ideas about creativity and originality. One example is the way the digital realm renders the idea of an original artwork untenable. In the sense that any copy is identical to the original digital artwork. Another aspect is the fact that the creations of others can serve as the starting material for your own creations. It would be unthinkable to go into a museum and start modifying some original painting by applying spray paint to create a new artwork, but with digitized versions of existing artworks, people are free to remix them as they please and this adds a whole new interactive dimension to the appreciation of art. https://i.imgur.com/mrosGvK.jpg https://i.imgur.com/5FX6r.jpeg Digital can be faster and digital can be cheaper but I'm not sure it's all that different. All of what you suggest in one form or another has been done or an equivalent been done before digital arrived on the scene. Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable. The most compelling fake doesn't have the same value as an original work at a neuro-psychological level. So there's issues of economics and perception. Amateurs and crowds may have a happy accident but it's rare and more luck than design. Now my disagreement is out of the way it doesn't mean value cannot be created by your proposal. We're just not there yet and it's unlikely to overturn things. Personal point of view: I've spent most of my life with computers to one degree or another and quite frankly sick of the things. There's a whole analogue world and life to explore and I'm putting more into that. Digital is way off replacing me or my work by a million miles and even if it might I suspect the people who may experience this haven't been born yet. I doubt it's going to replace fine art in a hurry. -- Melanie van Buren |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
In article ,
sobriquet wrote: Personally I enjoy stealing art and creating things as well, ftfy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
In article , Melanie van Buren
wrote: Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable. it is by the person who created the algorithm. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 1:26:19 AM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote:
On 20/01/2021 23:58, sobriquet wrote: On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:02:44 PM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rhVcq-5RZ8 Stop The Negative Voice And Write Great Stories - Barbara Seymour Giordano [FULL INTERVIEW] Not photography but an interesting life story applicable to other artistic and technical endeavours. Perfect is the enemy of good. Embrace your bad art. Have fun! Discover what you like. Enjoy what you do. Find your own voice. Discover what's in your heart. Avoid the extremes as the story gets warped. What we perceive becomes what we believe and we can get stuck. When something is discordant or wrong we can feel this in our body, and it's important to listen to this. Every time I go online very few photography channels step beyond equipment or technique. There's nothing really new there you wouldn't get out of flipping through a book for five minutes. There's nothing about the art. It's everything but the art. Developing the artistic eye is a process where you fight bad habits and begin to see the potential in the world. Create a new groove and take the pressure off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pa2XgsJS3I Fine Art Photography Walking through this video and addressing the main points as they are made: The world has changed and is changing for my business but not in the end of the world ways some people may have been scared into thinking. Images still have value and they say things emotionally and politically which is something I'm very aware of. People still buy my images and they are good enough for marketing purposes at the level they are at. The discussion this youtube segues into the difference between commercial art and fine art, the fact both are difficult and the requirements and ways of getting noticed in both markets is similar but different. As for galleries the best artists are established and the majority of them are dead. My business, obviously works differently to this. I've been experimenting with black and white and colour, and different compositions and concepts, as well as curating my own work and comparing it to what is available in the market. It's a bit of a balance between narrative in the first video and management in the second video. Yes, I'm starting on the bottom but shooting for the top and because there are so many factors to calculate, which is impossible, developing a feel for what interests me and makes me happy and what has value. Viewing galleries and auctioning work of new artists is effectively the same process I am managing and this is valid. Yes, it can be difficult and competitive and **** stuff unbelievably sells well just like the fine art and movie worlds. The crap you have to put up with is similar but so are the pluses and opportunities. As for closing comments in this video I'm still working through the direction I'm taking and also taking "aspirational" portfolio photos of where I want to be and less about where I have been. In fact a few weeks ago I deleted everything which I had available to make way for my new portfolio collections. Supplementary material covering the directing and high concepts (i.e. "male gaze") and dynamic composition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDvC6tzrJro 96-Minute 'Masterclass' Interview with Alfred Hitchcock on Filmmaking (1976) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il8fSKa5Y5c Kubrick’s Low-Budget Masterpiece: The Cinematography of A Clockwork Orange (1971) https://sanet.st/blogs/tomorrowland2...y.3610245.html AI can/will probably soon radically transform our concept of art and creativity and culture in general. Personally I enjoy collecting art and creating things as well, but I think we have to reconsider a lot of traditionally held ideas about creativity and originality. One example is the way the digital realm renders the idea of an original artwork untenable. In the sense that any copy is identical to the original digital artwork.. Another aspect is the fact that the creations of others can serve as the starting material for your own creations. It would be unthinkable to go into a museum and start modifying some original painting by applying spray paint to create a new artwork, but with digitized versions of existing artworks, people are free to remix them as they please and this adds a whole new interactive dimension to the appreciation of art. https://i.imgur.com/mrosGvK.jpg https://i.imgur.com/5FX6r.jpeg Digital can be faster and digital can be cheaper but I'm not sure it's all that different. All of what you suggest in one form or another has been done or an equivalent been done before digital arrived on the scene. Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable. The most compelling fake doesn't have the same value as an original work at a neuro-psychological level. So there's issues of economics and perception. Amateurs and crowds may have a happy accident but it's rare and more luck than design. People tend to stick to old habits, so they try to emulate the analogue world by things like limited editions and licensing and nonsense like that. But you might as well license your soul or spend money on an insurance that guarantees satisfaction in the afterlife. The bottom line is that money is an outdated invention (because there is no scarcity in the digital realm) and anyone can make their own money by coming up with their own cryptocurrency. Now my disagreement is out of the way it doesn't mean value cannot be created by your proposal. We're just not there yet and it's unlikely to overturn things. I think the music industry provides a nice example of what is going to happen to all other forms of media. Basically it's all free and people can exchange it as they see fit. The recording mafia are still trying to impose their controls by harassing youtube downloading but they are just making fun of themselves and they know their power is longe gone. We have something like spotify where people have access to more or less everything that has ever been produced and people 'pay' for free access by being harassed by force-fed ads, or they can just download all stuff for free via p2p filesharing and the chances of running into legal issues over that are virtually none. So the end result is that our computers have now become a celestial jukebox. https://torrentfreak.com/how-the-mp3...dustry-210117/ Personal point of view: I've spent most of my life with computers to one degree or another and quite frankly sick of the things. There's a whole analogue world and life to explore and I'm putting more into that. Digital is way off replacing me or my work by a million miles and even if it might I suspect the people who may experience this haven't been born yet. I doubt it's going to replace fine art in a hurry. The concept of fine art is bunk. Who gets to decide what fine art is? Is this fine art because it hangs in a museum or because people are willing to pay a lot for it at an auction? https://i.imgur.com/wk1h00R.jpg Is Banksy fine art because he's a famous anonymous artist and his works gets protected by putting it behind a protective cover against other street artists that might want to put their art on top of it? https://i.imgur.com/MoQTm24.jpg -- Melanie van Buren |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 7:37:13 PM UTC-5, nospam wrote:
In article , Melanie van Buren wrote: Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable. it is by the person who created the algorithm. A friend has been working on an algorithm that IIRC he calls his “De Vinci” code...or something like that. It takes a digital photo and stylistically “reprints” it in digital brush strokes that mimic the style of an old master oil painting. The beta test runs I saw a year ago were quite impressive...blew away the PS paint filter. -hh |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
In article ,
-hh wrote: Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable. it is by the person who created the algorithm. A friend has been working on an algorithm that IIRC he calls his De Vinci code...or something like that. It takes a digital photo and stylistically reprints it in digital brush strokes that mimic the style of an old master oil painting. The beta test runs I saw a year ago were quite impressive...blew away the PS paint filter. i read the original statement as a new work created by an algorithm. what you describe is a modification of an existing work, one which is likely copyrighted by someone other than who created the algorithm. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
On 1/20/2021 10:49 PM, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 7:37:13 PM UTC-5, nospam wrote: In article , Melanie van Buren wrote: Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable. it is by the person who created the algorithm. A friend has been working on an algorithm that IIRC he calls his De Vinci code...or something like that. It takes a digital photo and stylistically reprints it in digital brush strokes that mimic the style of an old master oil painting. The beta test runs I saw a year ago were quite impressive...blew away the PS paint filter. -hh Next Gen: A mechanical engine to oil paint the output of that algorithm. ~~ Are we all that far from creating such a device? -- == Later... Ron C -- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
On Jan 20, 2021, Ron C wrote
(in ): On 1/20/2021 10:49 PM, -hh wrote: On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 7:37:13 PM UTC-5, nospam wrote: In , Melanie van Buren wrote: Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable. it is by the person who created the algorithm. A friend has been working on an algorithm that IIRC he calls his “De Vinci” code...or something like that. It takes a digital photo and stylistically “reprints” it in digital brush strokes that mimic the style of an old master oil painting. The beta test runs I saw a year ago were quite impressive...blew away the PS paint filter. -hh Next Gen: A mechanical engine to oil paint the output of that algorithm. Are we all that far from creating such a device? We are long past creating such a device. All you have to do is look at modifying the robotic paint systems used in the automotive, and other manufacturing industries. All it should take is some imaginative programing. https://www.graco.com/us/en/in-plant-manufacturing/products/liquid-coating/paint-line-automation/automated-paint-systems.html https://www.mwes.com/robotic-painting-system-1 -- Regards, Savageduck |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
On 21/01/2021 00:37, nospam wrote:
In article , Melanie van Buren wrote: Also algorithmically produced work is not copyrightable. it is by the person who created the algorithm. No it is not. Please do check the law before mouthing off. -- Melanie van Buren |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodak DCS-100 was the first commercially available digital camera | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | October 17th 07 11:26 AM |
Color Slide Film First Available Commercially? | Dan Wenz | Film & Labs | 10 | May 25th 06 09:06 PM |
Questions for People Who Get 4x6 Prints Commercially -- a little long | HeritageMom | Digital Photography | 0 | February 11th 06 03:06 AM |
Boric Anhydride in Kodak D-76 commercially developer. | Keith Tapscott | Film & Labs | 1 | December 26th 04 09:44 PM |
Constructing a AF Assist IR illuminator | Siddhartha Jain | Digital Photography | 28 | November 18th 04 09:39 AM |