LOL at the signature on the painting
Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
11–20 of 146 posts
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#12Is it an actual painting or a print?
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#13I'd buy art (and listen to music) generated by an AI, but I'll admit that I think some creative products lose a bit of their essence when not created by humans. We know math and science can be found within art: measures and half measures in music, the golden ratio in painting, etc. Optimizing for these mathematical properties seems a bit like cheating for lack of a better word. There are many musicians and artists wi…
I'll never understand a bat and they'll never understand me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_it_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#14The next logical thing is to sell a computer and a large 4K monitor that creates a new painting for you every day
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#15I'd buy art (and listen to music) generated by an AI, but I'll admit that I think some creative products lose a bit of their essence when not created by humans. We know math and science can be found within art: measures and half measures in music, the golden ratio in painting, etc. Optimizing for these mathematical properties seems a bit like cheating for lack of a better word. There are many musicians and artists wi…
>I think some creative products lose a bit of their essence when not created by humans Does they though? I bet in 10 years, if you walked into an art gallery, you'd still be drawn to certain pieces and not others regardless of wether they were created by human or AI. As AI improves it will get ever closer to that "hand-made" look to the point we probably won't be able to tell, especially with something with as much i…
I think there are (at least) two parts to evaluating a creative product. The aesthetics and the context around it. I think AI will do a wonderful job of generating aesthetically pleasing art, but could an AI generate something like Guernica? when you look at Guernica you can feel the pain and trauma behind it, when you learn that Picasso was compelled to create it after Guernica was firebombed it adds something special to the final product.
At it's current state I have doubts about AI's ability to create new movements in art as well, a lot of the AI floating around there is very good at "coloring within the lines". If I watch a video of NFL highlights on YouTube I will be recommended more NFL highlights, where is the discovery? A fundamental challenge for AI art is can it create new genres. Could an AI create Jazz? How about Hip-Hop which has some Jazz elements. Could an AI create cubism? Guess we'll have to see.
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#16The results are so amateurish though. What’s with those nasty deconvolution artifacts?
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#17Related: I know the authors used a DCGAN implementation (a pre-trained model, it looks like), but is it known what their approach for up-scaling the generated images is? In art generation I've seen GAN output of 128x128, e.g. that is then upscaled with a super-resolution network. Is something similar being done for the "final painting", or is the GAN somehow efficient enough to do large-format output in a decent training time?
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#18Color me extremely unimpressed. I just can't believe someone would pay that much for something... so visually mediocre. When you look at how GANs work, they are incredible for what they are (especially StackGAN / GANs conditioned on some input)... but I just don't think there's any real creativity - or for that matter, intelligence - in GANs yet.
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#19Proof that money cannot buy taste
Re: Christie’s sells its first AI portrait for $432k
#20As someone who works in creative coding as an artist and has worked in advertising (where this happens a lot) I feel deeply sorry that someone made so much from this artists work they happily put out into the world, I’ve seen this happen time and time again.
This is a really horrible life lesson that licenses matter and if you create something it’s important to think through yourself how to make money off it and do it yourself (and think hard if you care about that because caring retroactively is too late), before you set it free because if you don’t do it then someone else will and honestly you only have yourself to blame because the reality is you didn’t want to put the small bit of extra effort required to make money off the thing