Art of the Day Thread
- Started
- Last post
- 2,041 Responses
- PhanLo4
Louis Legrand (French, 1863 -1951)
The Apache's Supper - The dinner of the scoundrels 1901
-
- PhanLo1
William Mitchell’s wall mural
for Lee Valley Water Company, Hatfield
-
- Gardener1
'Banana sleeve in fruit bowl' - priceless
- utopian-1
- renderedred2
Biggest Art Heists in History
- renderedred2
Wallace Polsom, Dream House CV (30 Oct 2024), paper collage, 20 x 24.5 cm
https://therepublicofletters.tum…
- PhanLo1
- I remember seeing "The Cremaster Cycle" by Matt Barney at the Guggenheim back in 2003. His work was both deeply disturbing and fascinating.utopian
- https://www.guggenhe…utopian
- Gardener4
Camgirl With a Pearl Earring
- grafician1
The Wedding at Cana (Italian: Nozze di Cana, 1562–1563), by Paolo Veronese - The Louvre museum, Paris, 1957. Photo by John Gutmann
- srhadden0
How is this not just a plotter? A very slow and low-resolution plotter. All its speeches are pre-written mumbo jumbo by the owners. It's just an arm plotting a pencil or dipping a brush in prepared pots of paint.
It's not able to clean brushes between colors, so unless humans switch brushes between colors the marks progressively become sloppier. It can't set up its own paints or choose colors, this all has to be prechosen, laid out and mapped by humans.
There's no decision in mark making. The marks it makes are just the result of how content the programmers are with how they can get the arm to perform, which is then always identical, except maybe for when excess paint acumulates on a brush. But it's also not aware of the amount of paint on the brush, it just mechanistically transfers the brush between the pots and the paper.
The result of this process is then supposedly 'inspired' by expressionism, whereas that is simply the painterly style that closest resembles the best this machine can do.
It doesn't really paint from live models. The computer inside has to be fed a photograph (or captured by the eye camera) which the arm then plots. Any layering or decisions about the styles for each layer are all executed by humans.
There are almost zero process videos of this machine. Certainly no videos of the whole process from start to finish. Because it's all just a bunch of humans creating art, with elements of it plotted by this machine. All the decisions and 'embillishments' and touch-ups that cause the artworks to look like complete objects are man made. The sculptures are even more farcical in that respect.
The owners suggesting that some people find this scary and problematic is obviously just them manipulating the narrative by implying that this machine is somehow cutting-edge.
Not saying that the images are worthless, but they are for the most part created by humans who are using a paint plotter, then placing the plotter front and center trying to convince people the plotter is actually the one who created the artworks.
This machine is the equivalent of smearing some paints on the CMYK heads of a printer, adding a cell phone running chat GPT told beforehand to spew bullshit about dystopic literature and cybernetic art to any question asked, dressing the wole contraption in coveralls and calling it an 'ai artist'.
- grafician0
"Blues Days Dust" - Alicja Kwade
