Since both are undoubtedly created by hoaxes and frauds, that's an interesting observation. I guess all artwork really is derivative.
It would be neat to trace that artistic lineage back to its sources.
Then again, there is a commenter on here claiming they look like circuit diagrams (whereas I look at schematics on a daily basis and see no resemblance). So stupid.
If these images were painted by hand, they would also be derivative.
But technologists insist that since one step in the chain of creation was algorithmic, the technologist gets all the credit and the original artist gets none.
Not the same thing. You're comparing the relationship between a fake version of an artwork and the artwork itself to that between two digital objects both of which are derivative of a third thing. The third thing is the analog to the artwork, making the metaphor unusable
It's very similar, but the design elements are definitely spun in a different direction. For example, the airplane graphic - the design on the tail is the same, but it's a different plane from a different angle with a different backdrop.
This is riffing, not stealing. It's a trend throughout art as long as art has been a thing.
Reminds me of all those court cases of 'stolen' logos, using a small and fixed set of geometric primitives, the probability of coincidences is just high that way. Of course, some people believe all art is immitation and nothing ever gets created from first principles.
This doesn’t hold water. Most if not all art is derivative at this point. There’s only so many things you can do on a 2D surface and there’s more than enough material for new derivations.
"one is painted by a human and another one is generated by artificial intelligence based on a photo and a style of a painter."
I find this to be easily "beatable" by simply judging which one is most likely to have its origin in a photo (vanity, and such) with a fallback on the one with a lot of repeating patterns.
If it’s a visual derivative, whatever that means, then how does the reviewer know it matches the source image? Sounds like there’s a lot of non determinism in there.
Can you explain how this is a whole different ballgame?
It seems to me that making art that people like is a combination of pattern matching, luck, the zeitgeist, and other factors. However it doesn't seem like there's some kind of unknowable gap between "making similar art" and "making innovations in art that people like". I'm of the opinion that all art is in some sense derivative in that the human mind integrates everything it has seen and produces something based on those inputs.
Interesting stuff. All works of art tend to build on what came before, this does so in a much more direct way. At what point is something a derivative work rather than original?
It's not same thing. I used be amazed by many of these works because I would try to think if I would have drawn that and why and how. It took me a while that lot of these works have no reasoning and rational or even internal representation or mystery whatsoever. Many of these works even stem directly due to mental health conditions.
While working in AI research, we have known that many of the similar works gets generated when you accidently wire networks differently or if network has short of schizophrenia and works on a region and then sort of randomly but still somehow similar way does something else on other region. There is no rhym or reason except that our brains gets surprised by patterns that it hadn't expected.
I feel people who appreciate this art and put down others for not seeing things are in same category as wine testers. As one of the commentor said, if you didn't knew if this was from Picaso, your level of appreciation would be much less.
The inaccuracy or weirdness of the resulting images has no bearing on how good or bad it is as art. Art has nothing to do with that. I would argue this is a shitty tech demo more than anything else.
I do not mean to discount the creator as it’s cool regardless, it just doesn’t really have anything to do with art. They’re literally just running some old computer images through a technology. That’s it.
There will probably be good art conceived of good artists that uses this style and these techniques at some point, though.
It would be neat to trace that artistic lineage back to its sources.
Then again, there is a commenter on here claiming they look like circuit diagrams (whereas I look at schematics on a daily basis and see no resemblance). So stupid.
reply