|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 08:30:26 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
In the meantime, with no sarcasm intended or used, do you feel that any images that can be currently produced on a computer (no use of brush, pencil, charcoal, pastel, ink, etc.); just the CPU, keyboard, and mouse, together with a good program like the current version of Corel Draw, can produce images worthy of consideration or criticism as Art? |
I'll take a stab at this one.
Yes.
In all cases, the tools didn't create the art, the tool user did.
Whether it's good or not is another thing. But that is always the case.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 09:37:17 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
Good to see you, awake and lively!
Let's take the next small step, a gigantic leap for mankind! AI progresses to the point (it may be there now) that a supercomputer is capable of originating the concept and creating the graphic product.
Out of a superprinter emerges a breathtaking image, with respect to composition, color, and content. It may be photorealistic in appearance, but the next image is abstract. Most lay persons agree that both images are stunning!
Would the product of this hypothetical event be analyzed by art critics, would collectors be interested, would the hard, soft, and jelloware that produced the image go down in the art history books?
Ah, these are questions for the ages, but what do you think, Kil?
Or anyone else? |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 10:56:43 [Permalink]
|
Marf.....
I, too, am not interested in the grand philosophical answer to the grand philosophical question "What is Art?"
But we both seem to be interested in offering up opinion on some of the detail associated with the contemplation of certain kinds of graphics. And sculpture!
I misspoke when I asked "Is computer doodling, Art?" My use of the capital A was improper, because you had spoken to that earlier, and I did address the question to you!
I should have said:
Is the graphic product of a computer that resembles other graphic products produced solely by the hand of man, worthy of the same critical and analytical attention given to many of the strictly man-made images? In your opinion?
And if the question appears to be rhetorical, because Art truly cannot be defined, try to apply the intent of the question (small "a")to the next logical extension of the thought, which I offered to Kil,
what if the computer was acting as an autodidact? Hell, what if the art computer had been programmed by another computer, to push the involvement of a human one step further back.
I am trying to relate the perception of art to the humanity of art, because that is part of my odyssey! And one can only read a certain amount in a given time. My time is too short to read dozens of books on one of dozens of subjects. Tutoring from those who truly know is much faster. They don't have to be poobahs, just knowledgable! You are that!
Your answer to the question, should you choose to answer it, is likely to be "it depends on the content". If that is indeed your answer, I would like to go on from that point. If you have another response, I would like to hear that, and go on from that point.
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 11:01:17 [Permalink]
|
I need no distinction, just classifing something as art does not mean, an equal to Leonardo. I will always respect a great painter more than a computer designer, but that doesnt mean I dont respect the great works of CGI,
Personally I find PR to be a marvel of human ability, to tear it down as too photolike is an insult. The skill involved to create such a work is nearly unimaginable. How one could think Pollack is a better artist than a good PR man is beyond me. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 10/23/2007 11:02:07 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2007 : 14:24:28 [Permalink]
|
| AI progresses to the point (it may be there now) that a supercomputer is capable of originating the concept and creating the graphic product. |
No AI ain't there yet, it isn't even in the city where the ball park is.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 15:29:37 [Permalink]
|
Big Papa......
Great triple entendre'!
They say politics is an art, but if Al Gore had had a good PR man, we would have a real president now! Come to think of it, Al does not equal AI, but GW does equal NoI |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2007 : 15:44:35 [Permalink]
|
Furshur.....
| No AI ain't there yet, it isn't even in the city where the ball park is. |
That would be Denver or Boston? Boston has MIT where a good deal of intelligence of both kinds resides, but I come from Denver and am generally recognized as some sort (don't specify!)of genius! Yeah, definitely artificial, I have to admit! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 14:03:22 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox.....
Trying to revive an old, dead, thread of yours!
Back on 10/16/07 you said:bngbuck wrote:
I have seen works out of the Rembrandt school (or contemporary simulations of his style) that have been denounced by critics as the work of hacks or poseurs.
What works? What critics? Frankly, you sound like you are full of it. |
I followed sarcastically with:| Obviously I can name no paintings out of the Rembrandt school. I made that up. There was no Rembrandt school, or group of artists that attempted to paint in his genre. Equally obvious, there were no critics of such non-existent work! |
Missing my sarcasm (because I thought it was unkind to point it out to you publicly) you later stated on 10/17:| I realized that was probably the case, however, you said it to make a point that I thought false. |
Today, I ran across an AP piece that rather illustrates my original post:
Rembrandt Fever over Auctioned Portrait
By Thomas Wagner, Associated Press Writer
Sat Oct 27, 11:10 AM ET
A museum in the Netherlands said the portrait was not by Rembrandt, and the provincial auction house in England was only advertising it as a work by one of his followers — valued at $3,078.
But when 15 minutes of bidding on the painting ended Friday, it had sold for $4.5 million.
"I was shocked," said Philip Allwood, who had conducted the auction in the town of Cirencester, west of London.
"It tells you about the art market today. People are very prepared to pay big money for the right pieces, or what they feel are the right pieces," the auctioneer said in a telephone interview Saturday.
"The Young Rembrandt as Democrates the Laughing Philosopher," a 9.5-by-6.5 inch portrait of a young man, had hung in a local home for years.
The unidentified winning bidder may have concluded that it was a self-portrait by Rembrandt van Rijn, despite expert opinion.
The 17th-century Dutch artist painted a series of self-portraits. About 40 are recognized as his work, but others are believed to have been copies made by his students.
Allwood, the auctioneer for the Moore, Allen & Innocent, said the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and the unidentified owner of the oil painting that was sold Friday had concluded it was not by Rembrandt.
The auction house advertised the work as by a follower of Rembrandt.
Jan Six, a Dutch art expert with Sotheby's auction house in Amsterdam, said Sotheby's was an adviser for a potential buyer — who did not win the painting.
"Nobody pays 2.2 million (pounds, $4.5 million) for a follower of Rembrandt. If this was a known Rembrandt and was published in 20 books and had a great provenance it would go for 10 million (pounds, $21 million)," Six said Saturday.
He said the palette and pose of the painting were very characteristic of Rembrandt, and that the face was clearly his. |
It appears to me that one valid definition of art is:
Art IS what people will buy as Art
Art is created by talent. Talent is defined by what it creates. Money can certainly buy art; therefore money can buy talent!
Is this a valid syllogism?
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 14:08:03 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck, no one argues that Rembrandt had students. What Marf questioned was your assertion that critics have denounced the works of those student as being done by hacks or poseurs. And you are no closer to backing up your statement now than you were then.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/27/2007 14:09:02 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 14:33:45 [Permalink]
|
Hum.....
Okay, I'll buy that! However I said illustrates, not proves!
How about the syllogism?
BTW, are you coming back to the Conspiracy, Bishop in Africa thread? |
|
|
|
recurve boy
Skeptic Friend
Australia
53 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2007 : 01:49:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Recurve boy.....
....
Are you knowledgable as to the world of art in the same way, if not to the same degree, that Marf is?
|
In this particular subject? Nope. My main interest is in life drawing. I am not generally knowledgeable in that area either, as my interest in drawing is producing it. I mean, I've studied classic works but I am only really interested in the rendering techniques and their construction.
On photos not looking like real life. I went to a portrait exhibition recently. Most of the portraits look nothing like their subjects in real life. It was weird. The ones with a good likeness, some had much of the face obscured. Weird. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 20:43:37 [Permalink]
|
Recurve....
Could you post one of your best drawings? I, and I think others, would like to see it! |
|
|
|
DawnNoelle
New Member
USA
1 Post |
|
 |
|
|
|
What is Photorealism?
