151–160 of 161 posts
I wonder if using a color e-ink display would make the art look more appealing on a wall.
(Covered on HN in 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10900439)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this comment seeded an interesting idea! Many artists and photographers want to get into the NFT space but they don't necessarily have experience in digital art creation. If you could leverage AI to generate digital art based on real artist/photographer inputs, perhaps you could create a nice little marketplace business.. or maybe just a simple AI generator plugin for an existing marketplace..
Most artists (with some exceptions) want to have nothing to do with AI generative art. They will simply continue to produce art the way they do with older technologies such as paints and brushes, musical instruments, film equipment, writing tools, and so on. Art making involves a process, a state of mind and there's always a human behind it who digests everything around them and spit something out. All these imitativ…
Generative art can be a wildly creative process on par with anything a painter works through. It's just a different medium.
The way you express yourself through art is not threatened by people choosing other ways using different tools. Painting did not become obsolete because someone invented art photography.
I do agree with the sentiment about NFT 'artists' though. Copy pasting a colab notebook, replacing a string and selling the result as NFT is just idiotic.
I wonder who the bigger fool is. The one who sells or the one who buys.
Demoscene Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoscene
Wired article about the demo scene from 1995 https://www.wired.com/1995/07/democoders/
Very beautiful. If I trained the network on say, just drawings and painting Mondrian did, do you think they'd converge stylistically? Is a huge (5,000+ items) dataset required to get decent results?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
do you have the code for training ? i wasnt able to find it in your repo. That would be so cool!
I left it out as I wanted people to use their own generative art. Here's the implementation I used: https://github.com/taki0112/StyleGAN-Tensorflow
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in the semiotic tradition of Peirce, everything is a sign, signaling some sort of message or meaning. even if there is no evident or inherent intent being encompassed in some chunk of reality, there is still something being signified, and therefore something being communicated. in cases like this, the art is the interpretant formulated by the interpreter, a personal value judgment, rather than some intended value enc…
>in the semiotic tradition of Peirce, everything is a sign Again, if you interpret changing a tire, spilling milk, or the vomiting after drinking too heavily as art, I disagree with you. Are traffic signs art, in and of themselves? are all signs art? I don't think I agree with you. I've never read peirce and I don't do that 'argument from authority' thing, but given your wording here I don't think I agree with what y…
i get what you're suggesting here, and i would be inclined to say that i don't really appeal to someone I would personally consider authoritative as a means of validating my argument, but that being said, citing someone who was fairly prominent in a specific field of study in order to make a point based on their work in that field of study isn't really appealing to authority. it's like if i were to cite Stephen Hawking to make the claim that black holes slowly radiate out their content over time, that wouldn't necessarily be appealing to authority, it would just be citing someone who happened to be an expert in a specific field for their work in it. granted, there are better, more objective things to refer to than the hypothesis of hawking radiation to demonstrate the accuracy of it, but I think the analogy stands.
>So according to pierce, my interpretation of this as not as art is as valid as you thinking its art, since that's how im interpreting it?
precisely. that's the nature of the relationship between interpreter, signs, and the signified.
>It doesn't seem like a very self consistent idea.
that's because the idea isn't necessarily one specifically used to justify the validity of what constitutes art, it's more about categorizing the relationship between an interpretive entity and that which is being interpreted as a triple, namely as a sign (the conveyed meaning or intent), the signifier (the thing which the sign is referring to), and the intepretant (the personal interpretation formed by the interpreter in response to the sign+signifier.)
(note: apologies to anyone reading this if I haven't represented it fully accurately, im still in the process of integrating it completely, but I am confident my summation of it is generally correct)
the connection I made to the subjective interpretation of what constitutes valid art is just my own invocation of this idea in the specific context of art and the criticism thereof. it definitely is a very generalized approach to things, but it's important to note that this process of semiosis isn't about the specific outcome, but rather about the process that leads to it, and therfore despite our personal experiences with it being contradictory, the process itself that leads to it is self consistent, it's just that you bring something different to the process of interpretation than I do because of your own experience, your own Bayesian Net as it were.
Very beautiful. If I trained the network on say, just drawings and painting Mondrian did, do you think they'd converge stylistically? Is a huge (5,000+ items) dataset required to get decent results?
Really cool that you brought up Mondrian, since I literally implemented a Haskell program that generated art in their signature style during college. No AI required at all, just setting some random parameters. Here are some results: https://imgur.com/a/rtWkTTl