Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pikazo

pikazoapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: Pikazo

#61

Post by romaniv »

ramblerman wrote: post #49
alexandrerond wrote: post #42

There seems to be a bit of confusion here between art and beautiful compositions. Art is not art because it looks nice or because it looks like something else that is widely accepted as "art". I see art as something produced by an artist combining genius + technique. Genius usually implies being original, but also stating what the piece of art represents in contrast to the existing ones (what boundaries it breaks, wh…

If a computer makes up a joke and it's funny does it count? I think it does. Art is a lot like humor, it works for people because it just 'works'. That is what matters. Not the hard work, and 'genius' of the creator behind it, that's just vanity. Would bohemian rhapsody not count as art if it was made up by a machine?

If a computer generates 100000000 unfunny jokes and one that seems funny, does that count?

Re: Pikazo

#62

Post by cdubzzz »

alexandrerond wrote: post #55
cdubzzz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always Sunny's latest episode actually looks at this, haha. The decision of what constitutes art is up to the individual. What you have described is commonly accepted great art/ists, not art itself.

Well, yes you can see it that way. But then absolutely everything is art, which is not a very useful definition for it.

Per my comment, this would only be true if you feel that absolutely everything is art. That sounds kind of nice, actually (:

And how would you decide if a definition (of anything) qualifies as "useful"?

Re: Pikazo

#63

Post by scoot »

kidzik wrote: post #17
ins0 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for all who don't know about the submission months ago. http://www.deepart.io/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10511572

And now at http://deepart.io/ we have hi-resolution and the authors of the algorithm on-board. Thanks for mentioning us :)

Just some UI/UX observations:

The "Use style" wording didn't immediately register for me that the images were clickable. I wondered why the gallery images all had the same description when they were clearly different styles!

Perhaps "Use this style" would be more expressive?

When you do click through, it shows the same image (with face) to be used as the style image, leaving me wondering if a user provided style image should just be a texture (newsprint, vegetables etc.), or an already styled image.

The "Buy a painting" button is deceptive, since it's a canvas print, not a painting. I was going to suggest teaming up with instapainting, but I see they beat you to it [1]. I guess you could always go to the source [2].

The resulting modal dialog on clicking "Buy a painting" barely fits in the browser on a 15" retina MBP, even then, the cookie info bar clips the button, so I suspect you may be loosing sales from people who can't figure out how to get to the button, especially on smaller screens (you'd be surprised!).

Clicking through that dialog brings me to an ebay page, but not for the image I selected to buy. There are a range of other images shown, but it doesn't seem to be possible to choose one, never mind the one I wanted. I have no idea what I'm buying, or how to buy what I want.

Finally I can't "Buy", I can only bid, as it's an auction, not a "Buy it now".

Oh, and please tell Michael to change his name to Andy. :) [3]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10162121 [2] http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/oil-painting-on-demand.html [3] http://deepart.io/page/about/

Re: Pikazo

#64

Post by johnchristopher »

kidzik wrote: post #17
ins0 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for all who don't know about the submission months ago. http://www.deepart.io/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10511572

And now at http://deepart.io/ we have hi-resolution and the authors of the algorithm on-board. Thanks for mentioning us :)

There is 30 characters limit for the mail field :(.

Re: Pikazo

#65

Post by alexandrerond »

romaniv wrote: post #61
ramblerman wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a computer makes up a joke and it's funny does it count? I think it does. Art is a lot like humor, it works for people because it just 'works'. That is what matters. Not the hard work, and 'genius' of the creator behind it, that's just vanity. Would bohemian rhapsody not count as art if it was made up by a machine?

If a computer generates 100000000 unfunny jokes and one that seems funny, does that count?

:D only if its really really funny

Re: Pikazo

#66

Post by romaniv »

GraffitiTim wrote: post #7

I wonder if this could be the beginning of many artists being replaced by AI.

If art for you can be replaced by this kind of mimicry, it begs the question of whether you really need or care about art in the first place.

Re: Pikazo

#67

Post by romaniv »

Question for someone who has this app. Can this convert a photo to anime-like or cartoon-like rendering a-la A Scanner Darkly?

Re: Pikazo

#68

Post by [deleted] »

romaniv wrote: post #67

Question for someone who has this app. Can this convert a photo to anime-like or cartoon-like rendering a-la A Scanner Darkly?

[deleted]

Re: Pikazo

#69

Post by emerongi »

alexandrerond wrote: post #46
fiatjaf wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Being original"? That's what art is for you?

Name an art current which hasn't revolted against what was previously done. Every generation of artists tried to grasp things which were left out by the previous ones. As I said, genious, but also technique. What's art for you?

Producing art with a computer does not go against what has been previously done?

You can't even recognize "genius", which this is. It directly challenges the definition of "art", which is pretty wonderful.

Re: Pikazo

#70

Post by such_a_casual »

alexandrerond wrote: post #42

There seems to be a bit of confusion here between art and beautiful compositions. Art is not art because it looks nice or because it looks like something else that is widely accepted as "art". I see art as something produced by an artist combining genius + technique. Genius usually implies being original, but also stating what the piece of art represents in contrast to the existing ones (what boundaries it breaks, wh…

I've always found the "what is art?" question to be pretty hilarious. It doesn't matter if the medium is a picture, a book, a movie, or a game. Great media has a thesis and does a great job of convincing the recipient that their thesis is true using Show-Not-Tell.
Post reply on HN