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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 The bottom line is that money is an outdated invention (because there is no scarcity in the digital realm) and anyone can make their own money by coming up with their own cryptocurrency.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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. No it is not. Please do check the law before mouthing off. it is and i have. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
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 -- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Constructing commercially successful art
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 |
|
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 |