Constructing commercially successful art

On 21/01/2021 01:12, sobriquet wrote:
On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 1:26:19 AM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote:

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The bottom line is that money is an outdated invention (because there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

Well hmmm. None of this is discussion is actually anything to do with
the topic.

There are actually plenty of discussions on what is fine art and its
value both intrinsic and merely financial and so on and so forth. I'm
familiar with Banksys work including his first public work on the very
first day of public display now long since destroyed. The real Banksys
work not digital copies. His work has merit because it is original and
succinct and humorous and contains a particular strand of British
philosophy and politics. It's also installation art and removing or
covering it up destroys the work. Banksy does not view his work as
permanent. I have also viewed Da Vinci's work in person. It is actually
different in person. A computer display does not convey its wispiness.
The light is simply different. I have also seen Helmut Newtons original
work in person. Again, it's different being there and I can assure you
different to seeing it on a computer screen. I know because I have
digital copies of work I have viewed in person. They are not remotely close.

There are dozens - hundreds of people far more knowledgeable than me
about art out there and listening to them really is something of itself.

It does help if you respect the topic of art. If you don't you won't get
it and there's no point discussing it.

--
Melanie van Buren

On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 11:58:24 PM UTC-5, nospam wrote:
-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.

In Steve's case, he's using one of his own digital photos, so that nuance
is effectively moot...

....but I'm not necessarily sure that it would be considered a 'modification'
of anothers' work, since I know that there's legal nuances on just what
constitutes a derivative work which does get legal recognition.

IIRC, it has to do with a "how much changed" test...in this case, I believe
that his coding methodology is to functionally deconstruct the scene to
create a pseudo-3D model which then gets rendered back by a process
of thousands of discrete virtual brush strokes to build up a '3D thickness'
on the 2D canvas which isn't homogeneous, but varies based on that 3D
modeling step.

FWIW, he also teaches 'Maker' work, so I'd not be surprised if his software
design methodology is intended to be able to take this to use it to then stick
a physical paintbrush in a robotic hand. The effort got put on hold last spring
when CoVid19 swept through their family, so perhaps when they recover, there
could be some return to work on it this year.

-hh

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.

it is and i have.

On 21/01/2021 13:41, 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.

it is and i have.

Liar.


--
Melanie van Buren

On 1/21/2021 12:56 AM, Savageduck wrote:
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

I was thinking more about nuanced brush strokes,with texture and all that.
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 11:35:25 AM UTC-5, Ron C wrote:
On 1/21/2021 12:56 AM, Savageduck wrote:
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

I was thinking more about nuanced brush strokes, with texture and all that.

On 2021-01-20 19:26, Melanie van Buren wrote:

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.

I find much more satisfaction when I make a thing or repair a thing than
when I buy a thing or have a thing repaired. You always learn something
(from what you did right and what you did wrong...) but nothing replaces
the satisfaction of the doing and having the end result.

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.

Definitions come in handy to both destroy notions of what art is and
isn't. To many art must be driven by some creative impetus - and such
cannot the in the domain if AI. OTOH, using digital tools (including
AI) on the road to creating art is art.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens