Slashdot Mirror
Computer Created A 'New Rembrandt' After Analyzing Paintings (bbc.com)
TechnoidNash quotes a report from Techie News: Rembrandt van Rijn was one of the most influential classical painters, and the world lost his amazing talent when he died nearly four centuries ago. And yet his newest masterpiece was unveiled only yesterday. How? By scanning and analyzing Rembrandt's works, a computer was able to create a new painting in near-perfect mimicry of Rembrandt's style. It has been named, appropriately, "The Next Rembrandt."
The computer used machine-learning algorithms to create the portrait, which was then 3D-printed to give it the same texture as an oil painting. "The Next Rembrant," was a collaboration between Microsoft, ING, Delft University of Technology and two Dutch art museums -- Mauritshuis and Rembrandthuis.
Gimme the pic, let me look at it for the 3.4 seconds I'm interested in it, and let me get the hell out of there. The site linked from TFA (www.nextrembrandt.com) felt like a throwback to the days when people actually built "sites" with Flash. Yeech!
Computer Created A "Rembrandt-Themed" Graphic After Analyzing Paintings
Why? Because art is all about the artist attempting to elicit an emotional response from the person experiencing their work, and since no so-called 'AI' has actual emotions, it can't understand art, and therefore can't 'create' art.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
The brilliance of a painter like Rembrandt can not be reproduced digitally. The talent of a painter is only partially based on color and space utilization, but primarily based on brush strokes.
Build me a robot that uses a mechanical brush with the same finesse, then we will talk.
Digital mimicry is interesting, but it's not painting.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
A more complex staging and ideally of something that could not have existed in his time.
I don't know... a dutch programmer riding a t-rex. In Rembrandt's style.
The point is not to make a Rembrandt forgery I would hope. The point should rather be to capture the style of the artist and give the computer or other artists the ability to generate works in that style.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The only reason to put this information into a video format is to disguise how little information you're providing. Don't give me a vapid human interest story, tell me who made it, how it was made, the significant similarities and differences of the output, and the implications for future AI projects. I want to know system requirements, how much human input went into it, whether you can do it again, and how well it extends to other painters and other kinds of art. But you don't want to tell me those things. Which means you're embarrassed about them.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
until computer has the same individual personality ,memory, intelligence , and emotions( including troubling ones with all the psychological complexes that come with experiencing life ) as Rembrandt, the painting created by it is not a Rembrandt.
one has to wonder why they chose painting to demonstrate this computer abilities (with added complexity of physical creation of painting which is mostly dependent on other technologies), when poetry would have been a better way to demonstrate the computer's machine-learning.
why didn't they scan and analyze some famous poet (Shakespeare, Dante, Pope, Milton, Wordsworth, Eliot, Pushkin, Pound, Dickinson, etc etc ) and create new poems?
is it because falseness of this claim can be more easily spotted by even ordinary people if it is a poem? while it takes more experience and training to spot the deficiencies in painting?
if you insist a machine cannot create art, then in this case the hand holding the paintbrush is the person(s) who pulled the 'go' switch, and/or the software author(s)
also, humans with complete apathy and/or completely flat affect (the two things laymen could consider "no emotions", normally due to brain damage) can understand and create art
something less clear: does that dog that likes colour combinations and does actually, weirdly, compose paintings[1] - does it count as art? what if it were a chimp?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's funny. This research spent a great deal of effort to identify the artist's "typical" approaches to individual and compound features; it then averages them to produce a work that feels like a Rembrandt.
But the only reason that it feels like a Rembrandt at all is because it is the centroid of all of his stylistic approaches -- a perfect average.
As in most cases, an "average" of many details is precisely not what an artist does. An artist's real work is in the details that defy their own averages and typical approaches. Listen to any artist analysis, and you'll hear words like "unlike in his other works...", "for the first time at that point..", "never before...", "...and yet in this painting...".
This work is very impressive, a perfect way to fool viewers and a perfect way to pay respect to Rembrandt's approach. That said, however, it is precisely the definition of not a Rembrandt. It is not the work of an artists. It is the work of a business -- which has always been the ability to reproduce copies of something (product or service) in a replicatable and bulk manner.
because that's what it is. "here's a line with a little curl, so it has to have a thick edge here" is all they were doing.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
This is like hitting pause half way through a face morph on the "Black or White" video from the early '90s.
Over the past 12 months, one of the AI-hipster themes has been combining lots of faces to make a new face, and marvelling over how REAL the face looks. Well, yeah, an average of many numbers of palatable size is also a number of palatable size. Woohoo!
What they have done is Art, but what they have produced is just a beautiful artefact. It is the act of pushing the envelope in visual communications that is the artistic act, the Next Rembrandt is just the evidence, in the same way a video recording is the evidence, a document, that records a performance art event.
a conglomeration of everything into one hideous pile of crap.
It's interesting the end quote was:
"The next Rembrandt makes us think about where innovation can take us."
Yet the description from the video (albeit a bit glib) seems to focus on how technology can be used to create something that's a statistical average of an artist's style. The subject is an average subject of Rembrandt - specifically "a Caucasian male between the ages of 30 and 40, with facial hair, wearing black clothes with a white collar and a hat, facing to the right".
It seems that, with all these constraints, they were striving to create something that was - while presented using a very convincing simulation of Rembrandt's style - no more than what could literally be called an average portrait.
Average for Rembrandt, anyway.
So by definition, not really a "masterpiece", is it? All that work to create something that's just "average."
And what's with the breathlessly hyperbolic question at the beginning of the video - "Can the great master be brought back to life to create a new painting?"
Did I miss the part where data mining can somehow bring someone "back to life?" Do I magically *become* Bach if I decide to write a fugue in his style?
If they did a picture of me, or someone he may have painted if he was alive today with all the technique and insight of the master then that would be impressive
Otherwise it just a clever merge copy of his previous works
I clicked on it and something animated is happening on my screen, but it definitely isn't a painting. What gives? Microsoft and all these brilliant computer experts can duplicate Rembrandt, but they can't distribute a digital image in a standard, easy to download format?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
If an AI meshes together some bits and pieces of a painter it's news and maybe even art, but if a musician meshes together some bits and pieces of another musician it's a lawsuit?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Filters->Artistic->Rembrandt ???
Something I often wonder is why we don't hear about 'new' geniuses in art. It's always the same guys from the 1700 and 1800s (once in a while an author from the 1900s sneaks in). Maybe they're all doing hard science now that it's a thing.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Where have I seen this before?
It scanned, and randomized it a bit, but still a copy.
By artist, of course, I mean anyone in a creative field- painter, writer, musician, architect...
This is another quantum (incremental) step toward computer generated art. Music has been done, writing, some graphic art. As in this example a study of a technique, a style, a mood is enough for clever software to imitate originals. For instance *your* style of writing, as revealed in term papers or creative writing, can be identified accurately and that ransom note will expose you to the authorities.
The hope for human artists is that creativity can't yet be imitated. Pulp novelists, artistic 'Kinkades' and 'Worhols', musical bimbos and architectural clones - be gone - software can do it better. Nobody can imitate the style of Itzhak Perlman's violin better than Commander Data, but he can not create new music that goes beyond what already exists. (The fool can't even do grammatical contractions!)
My grandmother, and many friends studied painting, drawing, sculpture, and/or photography. I doubt any of them intended to advance the art. They just wanted to create an acceptable image that they could be proud of. Something to hang on the wall and show their friends. I hope that they continue to do so, despite the coming commonality of such simple images. It is remotely possible that among them is one who will do something radical, something new. Something that no computer can do. That's art.
...omphaloskepsis often...
The value of a art piece does not lies in the virtosity of the maker but in the Name of the artist signature and the context in which it was produced. Contemporary art goes well beyond the objet itself since Duchamp in the beginning of the 1900. These news make sensationalist headlines, but I dont think that the likes of Jeff Koons who uses Legion of assistants and dont even touch his pieces really care. They are more akin to entrepeneurs and managers of their brand.
What was the racial and ethnic identities of these AI's. I want to know (and I suspect they are) if these AI's are coming from a primarily Eurocentric white male background. If they are I demand that these AI's be destroyed so that we can cancel out all the AI Racism and hatred before it gets a chance to take hold.
If you do not agree with me you are a racist. Hell even if you do agree with me and you chose to be white you are still a racist. Racism is inherent in someone’s being. Just because you do not hate someone of a different race does not mean your not a racist (if you are white). Racism transcends sentient boundaries. Just because a computer can not pass the turning test does not mean it isn't a racist.
End Racism now. Kill Whitely
If you are not in art you may not have heard of them, but what if we look at the 20th century?
The next big question is: who owns the copyright of a computer-generated painting?
I'll know who the big guys are. But everybody knows who Rembrandt is. Same with Van Goh and Michelangelo. I don't think I could name one painter from the last century...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
To relay artist's PERSONAL experience to another person.
That's why the goal is to UNDERSTAND art - not to love it or hate it, as it would be if the goal of art was an emotional response.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I took a shower.
This is a classic case of name dropping to make the software seem more amazing than it actually is.
Lots of students in art classes can copy the work of a famous painter, and even imitate the style. Some can even do so convincingly. But that doesn't make the student a "new Rembrandt," in fact, most such students will never be recognized as brilliant. There is much more to being a master artist than just imitating the style of a great painter.
You are not the clever subversive you're so desperately trying to appear to be.
>The final result is a painting that looks similar to an original Rembrandt.
really? computer generated? wow
From the short description I was expecting computer AI to completely construct the images, whereas in actuality a lot of the steps were manually processed. Even isolating eyes and other features and finding similar images was completed by a human.