Similarly, I lost interest in chess when computers could beat me at it. Why waste your effort on something a machine can do better?
I honestly did not see this day coming, but as of now, my Mac makes better art than me. I'm hanging up my easel.
This is said (almost) without bitterness, only a bit of relief.
-----------------------------
Example: One of the first paintings I ever sold was quite similar to the picture below. Abstract, flat areas of color... It was a good painting, I was proud of it, people really liked it, and sombody bought it.
And this one, made in seconds by automated software, is better. I'm sorry, it just is. It's more complex and more dynamic.
Update:
This evening I have printed several of these on watercolor paper in A2 size. (That's about 15x20 inches for you deprived Americans who don't use the very useful A system for paper sizes.) I am very happy with the result. Maybe I'll ask the local frame shop if he'll show a couple of them, see if anyone cares to buy them.
----
Here is another artist using the same software. His work is very nice, and very different from mine.
9 comments:
Art is communication. It is used to communicate that which natural language can not convey.
In communication the when is just as important as the what and the how.
Therefore, it is not the computer making the art. The computer makes images at request. The art is still made by a human.
It's not just a matter of selecting an image from many random generated ones. It's also the very act of entering the project in the first place. And presenting the result to the world here and now.
In art galleries you here people saying, "I could do that better". However, they don't. In contrast, the work they are referring to already exists, and has attracted the commentator to view it. That's a big difference.
The "moment of art" happens when you make an image available for the world to see. The tools/technique used is relevant only in the sense that this choice is an artistic statement too.
Finally, there is no such thing as randomness. Our subconscious mind knows more about what's happening around us than we objectively realise. Therefore, I think you should not downplay your role in the process.
I think of the art classes in college and the tales of a close friend of say, a Jackson Pollack, remarking that Jackson had broken up with his current flame just by viewing a painting that was done that night.
Computers can assist in the creation of art, but it takes the human mind to both put that in place and then enjoy the outcome.
Sorry Eolake, you've no excuse to hang up your brushes unless you just don't have the time anymore. :o)
BTW, this being said by an artist, that would be me, who hasn't painted since college even though he/I sold a lot of paintings. Oil and charcoal were my mixed medium favs.
" Jackson had broken up with his current flame just by viewing a painting that was done that night."
How's that?
By the way, "Pollock" was a good movie.
I say, let your computer make art, sign it, sell it, and make a lot of money!
And while at it, why not give me a modest 3% for the idea? ;-)
It's clear you can't compete with a computer when mathematical functions are involved. These machines sure CAN calculate!
TTL said...
"The art is still made by a human."
Or, at the very least, SEEN by a human. Would you trust a computer to decide that this art is better than the one you made? Nope: YOU are the one who saw that.
Besides, that's not certain either. Man-made art has a uniqueness, sometimes precisely because it IS NOT perfect. Any computer with that software installed can make the same "impeccable" graphic. But there's only one Eolake Stobblehouse.
Or... is there?
Naaah, this is TOO MUCH paranoia! ;-)
"I say, let your computer make art, sign it, sell it, and make a lot of money!
And while at it, why not give me a modest 3% for the idea? ;-)"
Sorry, I *just* got that idea five minutes ago.
Eolake updated: "This evening I have printed several of these on watercolor paper in A2 size."
You have a large format printer in your quarters? Which brand/model?
Eolake,
I won't have you doing yourself down this way.
One of the wisest things I heard on a photography course said that the camera is just a tool to take an image, the human operating it takes the photograph.
In a similar way it's not the computer making the art, it's just a tool for you to make art with. You still consciously decide to turn the computer on, open the programme and set it to work. You decide the parameters it works within. You decide if it's any good when it's done.
Take heart my friend, you're still an artist. And a damn good one to boot!
"Sorry, I *just* got that idea five minutes ago."
D'oh! Too slow AGAIN!
I don't think they can program a soul into a computer... yet.
The computer can extend the range of the artist, it can enhance the artist's abilities, but it can never replace the artist.
Post a Comment