I live very simply - no family (fairly young), not many material goods, most of what I have has been inherited from friends or found - I dished out for a laptop a year and a half ago - paid cash. Most of my valuables are memories.
Basically, I attempt (although I am not perfect) to live this way sustainably. It isn't for everyone, but that's completly a different topic.
I think the general model for software is it not having any real value in of itself, but the services that you can provide for it, like support, is where the money is going to be. That's if this whole patent thing stops being so silly.
In this case, it makes sense to work with code that's Open Source - other people may, on the rare day, peep your code and do free work for you. If your code is of any heft, no one's going to be a master at it in an evening. Be friendly and people will join you instead of forking off.
I mean, are you going to hire some guy who's read all of David Foster Wallace's and has a pretty good idea what's going on in his literature for a college level course on him (just go with my little story...), or are you going to hire David Foster Wallace himself?
I work on it three weeks straight and then I don't for three months. My career path, if you can call it that, is being an artist, which doesn't pay much. If a hobby pays for my career, so be it:)
I don't have any official training in this stuff, nor do I have any educational credentials to back myself up. I think they call it being a, "hacker". I don't really immerse myself into the culture of the Nerd, although it's fun to watch:)
I code the project that feeds me eight feet from my bed, both located in a very small studio in a communal warehouse type deal. I don't have customers that come in and chat with me regularly, because my space isn't really set up like that - there's dirty clothes and all my messy art's done in here as well;
I thank my lucky stars that this sort of setup works, as the work environment is optimal for me - no set hours, no boss, right in downtown. Just have to live simply.
Sorry, but this isn't Flamebait - this is important - someone - anyone please read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn or A Language Older Than Words by Derrick Jensen. You may not think it's important, but that's because you're ignoring a lot of things - I repeat:
I'm looking for the technology NOW - not in 30 years that will allow us to live in a mode of sustainability, not of wizbang thingies that make us "enhanced".
Isn't it ironic that we have all this technology that allows us to do more, quicker - and have more free time to loaf about, but we're destroying the world, exploiting resources and people and a whole slew of other things in the process? Seems we can loaf about just as much by living simpler. I don't need implanted anything. I need a tree. Maybe a book. More likely, a loved one.
Not to sound cynical, but there seems to be a lot of smart people in the world - why are they all playing Halo 2?
I'm looking for the technology NOW - not in 30 years that will allow us to live in a mode of sustainability, not of wizbang thingies that make us "enhanced".
Isn't it ironic that we have all this technology that allows us to do more, quicker - and have more free time to loaf about, but we're destroying the world, exploiting resources and people and a whole slew of other things in the process? Seems we can loaf about just as much by living simpler. I don't need implanted anything. I need a tree. Maybe a book. More likely, a loved one.
Not to sound cynical, but there seems to be a lot of smart people in the world - why are they all playing Halo 2?
I think the idea that there is one true school/voice/view on what is good art and what is bad art flew the coop in the 70's with something called, "postmodernism". Your list of art/crap is going to be very different than someone elses list:)
Here's what has to be understood: unless the computer understands a concept of the work, it'll never understand what could be an original, or a fake. That may take a bit of AI:)
Also, I think Campbell's never sued Warhol (or waited a really long time) because his paintings actually helped sales of Campbell's soup.
Warhol got famous on those paintings, and promptly got sued for his poppy paintings by the original photographer.
Sol Lewitt is known mostly for making instructions on how to drawing/paint things - he mostly never did this himself - he would "Sell" basically the blueprint of what he wanted drawn/painted.
LeWitt was sort of a precurser to generative art as we know it today. Anyways, since he would never draw/paint these things, he had no individual style, thus this new tool would be worthless for him.
Cindy Sherman would take photos of herself that look eerly like they're from a movie that you've already seen. From what I understand, she would actually find a still of a movie and appropriate, say, the dress of someone and then make her own setting to photograph.
This ones a little off kilter concerning the device from the article, but her photos would be unique, but very similar to something you may have seen before. here's a fairly famous photo of hers
Levine would actually go to an art museum, take a picture of a famous photo, and exhibut it as her own work. Even though its a copy of someone elses, it's still her, "original". Thus if you made a device that would test the authenticity of someone's photo taking style, a Levine would fail as her own style? but pass as someone elses? (who knows) example of her work
How would you introduce these random mutations? It's a painting, not a photoshop file;
Most paintings, especially oil paintings before the impressionists (I'm really generalizing here), were painted in layers - there was the underpainting and there was the overpaintings - the many many glazes used to make representaional art... representational. It's very hard to blend in a fix and very easy to spot when someone made a goof in a painting and tried to fix it;
One other tool that is used when trying to see if something is a fake is the actual medium used in the paint. Many masters had, "secret" mediums and recipies for their paints that you could examine and compare. There is also the pigment itself; some pigments have only been around a small time, thus Michelangelo isn't going to be used Cadnium Rd. Other mediums were specific to a certain physical place. Guess were Naples yellow is (probably) from?
So, sure a faked painting may look exactly the same, but there are other tools.
Also, old oil paintings tend to crack. There are ways to crack relatively new paintings, but it's by either issuing some sort of temperture changes or changing the paint medium to be a bit more fugative
Well, the value in art is like anything else - it's because of its scarcity (supply/demand);
Limit the supply of anything that people want and the price of that item goes up considerably. For example, how many Leonardos are in existance right now? How many can you purchase? I don't think you *can* purchase one - thus the price is very high.
I think there's a general lack of art knowledge in the general public about modern/contemporary art. Even though a six year old could paint like Matisse, you still need Matisse to make a Matisse.
There's also the idea that the object deemed as "art" really doesn't need to be anything in particular. For example, Warhol's Brillo boxes were wooden boxes that looked like Brillo boxes, but weren't in fact Brillo Boxes. There was another artist who recreated Warhol's Brillo boxes exactly, except called them, "not Warhol's Brillo boxes"
I guess what I'm getting to is that Cont. art especially deals with the way (the concept) rather than the "what", the actual medium
Actually, I think they did some research on Pollock paintings and found that there was more of a fractal depth to his paintings then there were to people who were basically ripping him off;
I guess so, but that only would answer the, "how" to draw/paint something, not the, "why"
Then again, it would be interesting to see, say, a contemporarily dressed person done in the style of Rembrandt, but I guess we already have a good idea on what that would look like.
Well, I've been working on Dada Mail (formely Mojo) since I started college (graduated last summer)
It's basically fed me for the past three years now; I work on it primarily alone - it's also open source, I make money on a "Pro" distribution, selling an advanced downloadable manual, installation and consultation services.
Very incredibly low overhead for me to run the "shop", and it's still somewhat fun to do.
Oh and I graduated in art - no CS (or math, sans an accounting class) background.
Learn to draw; understand basic design principles, make lots of mistakes. Play. Go slow. Understand and appreciate art. Go to a museum. Pick up a magazine, or a book at a library. Art isn't easy, it's Hard. Very Incredibly Hard. Make time for it, because it will not make time for you,
I don't understand; if it's as easy as modeling in clay, why not use clay? The tactile feedback while using clay has to be much more than using a pen tablet. There is technology that can scan something in 3D.
"The thing you learn is that popular music is easy. The song will play itself. So all you need to do is make it sing a little, make it human, and not fuck it up."
Slashdot Mirror
I live very simply - no family (fairly young), not many material goods, most of what I have has been inherited from friends or found - I dished out for a laptop a year and a half ago - paid cash. Most of my valuables are memories.
Basically, I attempt (although I am not perfect) to live this way sustainably. It isn't for everyone, but that's completly a different topic.
I think the general model for software is it not having any real value in of itself, but the services that you can provide for it, like support, is where the money is going to be. That's if this whole patent thing stops being so silly.
In this case, it makes sense to work with code that's Open Source - other people may, on the rare day, peep your code and do free work for you. If your code is of any heft, no one's going to be a master at it in an evening. Be friendly and people will join you instead of forking off.
I mean, are you going to hire some guy who's read all of David Foster Wallace's and has a pretty good idea what's going on in his literature for a college level course on him (just go with my little story...), or are you going to hire David Foster Wallace himself?
I work on it three weeks straight and then I don't for three months. My career path, if you can call it that, is being an artist, which doesn't pay much. If a hobby pays for my career, so be it :)
:)
I don't have any official training in this stuff, nor do I have any educational credentials to back myself up. I think they call it being a, "hacker". I don't really immerse myself into the culture of the Nerd, although it's fun to watch
The program has been in development a long time. I wouldn't be surprised. It's got a kitchen sink, I'm fairly certain.
I code the project that feeds me eight feet from my bed, both located in a very small studio in a communal warehouse type deal. I don't have customers that come in and chat with me regularly, because my space isn't really set up like that - there's dirty clothes and all my messy art's done in here as well;
I thank my lucky stars that this sort of setup works, as the work environment is optimal for me - no set hours, no boss, right in downtown. Just have to live simply.
I love it.
Sorry, but this isn't Flamebait - this is important - someone - anyone please read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn or A Language Older Than Words by Derrick Jensen. You may not think it's important, but that's because you're ignoring a lot of things - I repeat:
I'm looking for the technology NOW - not in 30 years that will allow us to live in a mode of sustainability, not of wizbang thingies that make us "enhanced".
Isn't it ironic that we have all this technology that allows us to do more, quicker - and have more free time to loaf about, but we're destroying the world, exploiting resources and people and a whole slew of other things in the process? Seems we can loaf about just as much by living simpler. I don't need implanted anything. I need a tree. Maybe a book. More likely, a loved one.
Not to sound cynical, but there seems to be a lot of smart people in the world - why are they all playing Halo 2?
Cheers,
I'm looking for the technology NOW - not in 30 years that will allow us to live in a mode of sustainability, not of wizbang thingies that make us "enhanced".
Isn't it ironic that we have all this technology that allows us to do more, quicker - and have more free time to loaf about, but we're destroying the world, exploiting resources and people and a whole slew of other things in the process? Seems we can loaf about just as much by living simpler. I don't need implanted anything. I need a tree. Maybe a book. More likely, a loved one.
Not to sound cynical, but there seems to be a lot of smart people in the world - why are they all playing Halo 2?
Cheers,
I think the idea that there is one true school/voice/view on what is good art and what is bad art flew the coop in the 70's with something called, "postmodernism". Your list of art/crap is going to be very different than someone elses list :)
Well, some of the conceptualists of the 60's, 70's and beyond were working on these exact topics: What is an, "original". For example:
:)
Mike Bidlo Not Warhol (Brillo Boxes, 1969), 1991 is basically an exact copy of a piece Warhol made, although Mike specifically says that it's not.
Here's what has to be understood: unless the computer understands a concept of the work, it'll never understand what could be an original, or a fake. That may take a bit of AI
Also, I think Campbell's never sued Warhol (or waited a really long time) because his paintings actually helped sales of Campbell's soup.
Warhol got famous on those paintings, and promptly got sued for his poppy paintings by the original photographer.
OK, OK,
:)
Sol Lewitt is known mostly for making instructions on how to drawing/paint things - he mostly never did this himself - he would "Sell" basically the blueprint of what he wanted drawn/painted.
For example:
His, "Four basic colors and their combinations" would be a group of drawings that someone else did of, well, four basic colors and their combinations.Another example would be, 'Lines from the Sides, Corners and Center of the Page to Specific Points.'
LeWitt was sort of a precurser to generative art as we know it today. Anyways, since he would never draw/paint these things, he had no individual style, thus this new tool would be worthless for him.
Cindy Sherman would take photos of herself that look eerly like they're from a movie that you've already seen. From what I understand, she would actually find a still of a movie and appropriate, say, the dress of someone and then make her own setting to photograph.
This ones a little off kilter concerning the device from the article, but her photos would be unique, but very similar to something you may have seen before. here's a fairly famous photo of hers
Levine would actually go to an art museum, take a picture of a famous photo, and exhibut it as her own work. Even though its a copy of someone elses, it's still her, "original". Thus if you made a device that would test the authenticity of someone's photo taking style, a Levine would fail as her own style? but pass as someone elses? (who knows) example of her work
Art gets a little weird in the 20th century
Yes I know of Cage's work and what you're refering to; but your joke still doesn't make sense;
Or they could use Pollock's titles, as most of them have the dates in them :)
For example, Number 8, 1949
How would you introduce these random mutations? It's a painting, not a photoshop file;
:)
Most paintings, especially oil paintings before the impressionists (I'm really generalizing here), were painted in layers - there was the underpainting and there was the overpaintings - the many many glazes used to make representaional art... representational. It's very hard to blend in a fix and very easy to spot when someone made a goof in a painting and tried to fix it;
One other tool that is used when trying to see if something is a fake is the actual medium used in the paint. Many masters had, "secret" mediums and recipies for their paints that you could examine and compare. There is also the pigment itself; some pigments have only been around a small time, thus Michelangelo isn't going to be used Cadnium Rd. Other mediums were specific to a certain physical place. Guess were Naples yellow is (probably) from?
So, sure a faked painting may look exactly the same, but there are other tools.
Also, old oil paintings tend to crack. There are ways to crack relatively new paintings, but it's by either issuing some sort of temperture changes or changing the paint medium to be a bit more fugative
Oh, there's also carbon dating, no?
Well, the value in art is like anything else - it's because of its scarcity (supply/demand);
Limit the supply of anything that people want and the price of that item goes up considerably. For example, how many Leonardos are in existance right now? How many can you purchase? I don't think you *can* purchase one - thus the price is very high.
I think there's a general lack of art knowledge in the general public about modern/contemporary art. Even though a six year old could paint like Matisse, you still need Matisse to make a Matisse.
There's also the idea that the object deemed as "art" really doesn't need to be anything in particular. For example, Warhol's Brillo boxes were wooden boxes that looked like Brillo boxes, but weren't in fact Brillo Boxes. There was another artist who recreated Warhol's Brillo boxes exactly, except called them, "not Warhol's Brillo boxes"
I guess what I'm getting to is that Cont. art especially deals with the way (the concept) rather than the "what", the actual medium
Actually, I think they did some research on Pollock paintings and found that there was more of a fractal depth to his paintings then there were to people who were basically ripping him off;
John Cage is mostly known as a composer of music, not as a drawer/painter;
What? When have you *ever* heard of a moody artist?
I guess so, but that only would answer the, "how" to draw/paint something, not the, "why"
Then again, it would be interesting to see, say, a contemporarily dressed person done in the style of Rembrandt, but I guess we already have a good idea on what that would look like.
Boy!
Now we'll *finally* know if that Sol Lewitt I have in the living room is legitimate!
Will the next version work on Film Stills? I have a few Cindy Shermans I'm not too sure about...
And, so wait, does that mean that the Sherrie Levines that come out as copies are real Sherrie Levines???
Well, I've been working on Dada Mail (formely Mojo) since I started college (graduated last summer)
It's basically fed me for the past three years now; I work on it primarily alone - it's also open source, I make money on a "Pro" distribution, selling an advanced downloadable manual, installation and consultation services.
Very incredibly low overhead for me to run the "shop", and it's still somewhat fun to do.
Oh and I graduated in art - no CS (or math, sans an accounting class) background.
Here's my advice:
Learn to draw; understand basic design principles, make lots of mistakes. Play. Go slow. Understand and appreciate art. Go to a museum. Pick up a magazine, or a book at a library. Art isn't easy, it's Hard. Very Incredibly Hard. Make time for it, because it will not make time for you,
Cheers,
From the deluge of comments this story has had, perhaps there's been too much fun goin' down...
I don't understand; if it's as easy as modeling in clay, why not use clay? The tactile feedback while using clay has to be much more than using a pen tablet. There is technology that can scan something in 3D.
Perhaps I'm old fashioned...
"The thing you learn is that popular music is easy. The song will play itself. So all you need to do is make it sing a little, make it human, and not fuck it up."
Lou Reed
Ex Girlfriend that is, Tracy Emim.
I wonder why there's no,
"The dude that dresses as a goat and tapdances,",