11–20 of 65 posts
youtube video showing the process https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuygOYZ1Ngo
If it were a -human- painting a fake Rembrandt, no matter how perfect an imitation, it would be called "a very very good imitation of Rembrandt" and nobody would claim that they'd in any sense brought Rembrandt back to life. Calling a very good forged Rembrandt a "new Rembrandt" would be pretty silly. Calling one generated by a computer a "new Rembrandt" seems just as silly. Just because it was composed by an algorit…
http://www.getty.edu/education/teacherartexchange/archive/No...
Not to say that rembrandt = abstract impressionism. Still, the humans tagging features is kind of a copout. The 'grain of salt' for these projects is to look at the variation of outputs when you tweak the model inputs. In this case it's going to be a head with oil paint texture 9 times out of 10 (and the tenth will be cecilia jimenez 'I fix').
It won't be long until a computer can 'participate' in a genre and really contribute to art. This project, while cool, isn't there yet.
If it were a -human- painting a fake Rembrandt, no matter how perfect an imitation, it would be called "a very very good imitation of Rembrandt" and nobody would claim that they'd in any sense brought Rembrandt back to life. Calling a very good forged Rembrandt a "new Rembrandt" would be pretty silly. Calling one generated by a computer a "new Rembrandt" seems just as silly. Just because it was composed by an algorit…
Here they went to great lengths to try to make it very accurate. Everything from the shape of eyes and faces and the patterns of brush strokes.
If it were a -human- painting a fake Rembrandt, no matter how perfect an imitation, it would be called "a very very good imitation of Rembrandt" and nobody would claim that they'd in any sense brought Rembrandt back to life. Calling a very good forged Rembrandt a "new Rembrandt" would be pretty silly. Calling one generated by a computer a "new Rembrandt" seems just as silly. Just because it was composed by an algorit…
Computers are our new babies. We applause and cheer for anything trivial they come up with.
After having watched the YouTube video, I fell like actually the picture was more or less photoshopped together from existing Rembrandt paintings. The role of the algorithms was "only" to generate the most average / representative of his works.
youtube video showing the process https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuygOYZ1Ngo
How did they obtain them? Do museums/galleries/owners let scientists or engineers study the layers of paint of the physical paintings?
If it were a -human- painting a fake Rembrandt, no matter how perfect an imitation, it would be called "a very very good imitation of Rembrandt" and nobody would claim that they'd in any sense brought Rembrandt back to life. Calling a very good forged Rembrandt a "new Rembrandt" would be pretty silly. Calling one generated by a computer a "new Rembrandt" seems just as silly. Just because it was composed by an algorit…
I think the goal of the project was to make a painting that is statistically indistinguishable from his other paintings. Another painter painting in his style would still inject some of their own style and technique into it. If you looked closely or took statistics from two painters trying to mimic the same style, you would be able to distinguish them. Here they went to great lengths to try to make it very accurate.…
An expert forger would be trying to make a painting that is literally indistinguishable from an actual Rembrandt, which is much harder. The GP's point was that something that can fool an algorithm is no more deserving the label "new Rembrandt" than something that can fool a human.