http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/06/473265273/a-new-rembrandt-from-the-frontiers-of-ai-and-not-the-artists-atelier
>A new Rembrandt painting unveiled in Amsterdam Tuesday has the tech world buzzing more than the art world. That's because the painting is the creation of a 3-D printer — and not the Dutch master Rembrandt van Rijn himself, who has been dead for almost 450 years. "The Next Rembrandt," as it's been dubbed, was the brainchild of Bas Korsten.
>"I thought, well, if you can basically take historical data and then create something new out of it, why can't we distill the artistic DNA of a painter out of his body of work and create a new artwork out of that?" Korsten tells NPR's Audie Cornish. "And that's how the idea was born."
>A computer learned, with artificial intelligence, how to re-create a new Rembrandt right eye. The statistical data even determined the type of painting — a portrait, which was the most significant portion of the artist's work, and were most common between 1632 and 1642.
>The portrait looks like an actual Rembrandt, right down to the texture of the brushstrokes, which the 3-D printer mimicked. Korsten will be the first to say that it won't fool experts. "I wish it was that good, and it isn't," he says. "I think the expert eye sees that this isn't a real Rembrandt. And it's also got to do with the state of technology that we're in, the amount of time that we had for the process," he says.
>Even a better painting will never be the same as one by the actual artist. But Korsten says the program — which started as a project for ING, the Dutch bank — could be used to help restore lost or damaged art. "If a piece of a painting is lost, if it's burned and you're left with only 20 percent of a painting, you could, with this technique, maybe re-create the other 80 percent," he says.
Well /ic/, this is the end.
>>2477072
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuygOYZ1Ngo
>>2477072
End of what? They said the same when photographs became common.
Honestly these videos scare the shit out of me, even though they don't mean much now, but could mean a lot in the long term.
I'm scared that some day you will be able to make drawing easier, painting's already been made easier with the digital age, but you can't fool drawing. And what if in the near future someone with little to no knowledge will be able to feed specifications into a computer and get exactly the artwork he imagined? rip
>>2477086
Then you move on to higher-level and more abstract things, like composition and directing animation. I mean, if you have a machine that can pump out drawings you might as well take advantage of it.
Art has always been a practice enabled by technology. New, more efficient mediums always dominated commercial spaces in favour of more traditional approaches. Regardless of the medium, however, they always required a person behind the wheel with strong classical understanding operate efficiently.
This technology doesn't change that, much the day digital art doesn't change the traditional space. They each require a competent individual with the skills I mentioned previously. The only difference with this tech is that the person in question is dead, and thus that limits this tech's application to mimicry, not synthesis.
I wouldn't lose sleep about it, cool stuff though definitely.
>>2477086
It's a scary thing to imagine, but its today and i don't see that coming in more 20 - 50 years, and even if this happens i m sure we artists will find some way to get out of it, to start something new.
Or maybe we will be the one's operating those machines.
And even they cannot create a good piece of art which a human can make. So, unless they make something like that, worring is just a waste of time.
there just won't be art made completely by AI until there is AI advanced enough to actually be sentient. Until then, all these "computer" created images have a person behind them feeding the program data.
at some point yes human artists will be nothing more than a novelty. Like all those natives that make crafts and sell them.
>>2477113
To be fair, once we get to that point humans will be a novelty altogether. That's if we allow AI to become sentient in the first place.
Chances are we'll say 'fuck this' and turn ourselves into godlike, genetically engineered immortal cyborgs by that point though.
>>2477115
basically by the time it happens any of us will be dead.
There are going to be programs that allow for a shit ton of shortcuts though in a few more decades. But the artist will be the ones doing it.
>>2477082
Well, photography was the end for lots of professional painters. People were willing to buy things as city scenes or landscapes much more before photos were around.
>>2477139
photography and film also created a shit ton more illustration jobs afterwards. Like.. a lot more. Before photoshop they had to retouch that shit manually for photography. And then for film you have a team of artists working on storyboards, designs, and matte paintings.
Printing brought in visual novels and comic books and the like. More tech usually means more artists.
also wanted to add as an artist you adapt or die. That's just the way it is. 2d animators shifted to 3d. Pre-production artists shifted to digital and photobashing to create concepts. Photographers now all shoot digitally unless they are pretentious hipster cunts.
training in the traditional methods are a means to get better at modern production tools.
>>2477072
That's pretty great. I hope this pushes people to embrace more stylized art and praise good gesture and simplification rather than just photorealistic rendering
I would feed tons of different art by different artists to this machine and see what happens
>>2477072
>Rembrandt van Rijn himself, who has been dead for almost 450 years
Well, off to a good start, whoever wrote this can't even do basic math. I wonder if he understands what he is talking about.
>The new portrait is the product of 18 months of analysis of 346 paintings and 150 gigabytes of digitally rendered graphics.
So can it create more paintings now that it has analyzed all this shit? Or is it just 1 portrait per 18 months? What was going on during this period? Did the guy just press a button and waited? Or was there continuous input? The
>we assembled those facial features
part doesn't sound like AI to me. It sounds like some guy came up with a very contrived way to photobash. Sure maybe the 3d texture is the real kicker here. But it really doesn't sound like anything special. It certainly doesn't sound like anything that could
>re-create the other 80 percent
of a lost painting. How could this thing find out exactly what was there? It can't, going by what they told us. It would just put in a random face assembled from previous data which would obviously not be the actual subject of that painting, that is some person who actually lived and died at some point in time.
Yeah sounds like a lot of bullshit to me.
>>2477165
Well it's truly hard to say how much of it is bullshit or not since the entire article is so fucking vague. I'm not even sure what they actually did here, other than spend 18 months to produce a fake rembrandt.
Is there no actual research paper on this or any publication / article with real details about the process?
>>2477072
look at the fucking eyes. The volumes are off, and the folds are all screwed up. It's clear the 'researchers' just overlayed a lot of eyes and took the average. What a load of bullshit.
>>2477100
d-does that mean, I c-could create art even after my death
>>2477165
Yes it's all just bullshit that's pretty obvious.
There are programs that are able to mimic an artist's eye while looking at a photograph. As in, it takes a photograph and applies an oil painting that breaks down an image like a real person would. It know's which details are important and which ones to simplify based off of other paintings that have been analyzed. Then it creates strokes of paint, starting with a midtone layer type of deal and with individual strokes that add up and blend the paint.
After it gets created digitally there are 3d printers that actually use real oil paints to automatically paint the image based off of all the data in the first part. Stroke by stroke, with premixed paints until you get a completely original, real painting created by a computer(based off a photo and an engineers algorithm's and programs)
Which is kinda neat being able to get actual oil paint master copy paintings on your wall.
I'm not really buying it either. I just don't see how an AI could make a painting without understanding the principles of art, but if they can understand those principles, they're basically the same as us. This looks more like one of these algorithm to mimic someone's style without any depth.
What's the reasoning behind you posting this here?
>>2477178
it's way too fucking small to actually critique the damn thing.
It could be super shitty or amazingly detailed we have no idea.
>>2477245
watch the video
Too bad it's not actually creating anything new, it's just averaging all his portraits and creating some machine-learned photobashing. It isn't even trying to make a new painting, the end result is a soft mess that looks like someone photoshopped a 300 year old painting to look cleaner, down to the cracking texture in the canvas. It's just about the farthest thing from a "new" painting this experiment could have created.
It's pretty good, but at the end of the day it relies a lot on being derivative of the guy's existing work. It needed a large sample to reproduce.
The zoom in also looked a touch wonky.
Still, I'm impressed.
>>2477082
photographs don't replicate paintings. this process does, down to the brushstrokes.
>>2477245
plenty of good pics out there, try google
>>2477357
>photographs don't replicate paintings
>down to the brushstrokes
That's what shitty filters are for.
The end product of this is cool, but it's far from revolutionary. It's just an overwrought photobash.
>>2477421
name me one filter that creates a three dimensional brushstroke. you need a 3d printer for that.
>>2477072
You keep making these retarded threads like every other week. Give it a rest already.
>>2477461
Different anons probably. I thought about making this thread when the news broke. The technology continues to advance, warranting new analysis.
>>2477357
How can a replication software make artists obsolete though? All it can do is recreate what artists have created. As that article states, it will be used to restore damaged paintings. Are you mentally challenged or did you just not read the article you linked yourself?
>>2477464
No, you're definitely the same guy. I can tell by the fact that you are never interested in actually discussing the technology and its fairly gimmicky and limited application, but always end your opening posts with something along the lines of "well, this is it, /ic/", "this is the end" or "art is finished" etc.
>>2477468
OP here, i am not the same as the people who have made other threads, but i did put the "well /ic/, this is the end" at the end of my post because that is what other threads have done.
really I think that this is mostly a neat application of data processing and 3d printing that reads (from the video anyway) as more of an advertisement for the bank who sponsored it than anything else, but i figured i'd post it on /ic/ with a vaguely bait-ish post and see what people would have to say about it.
>>2477072
>this is the end
Nope, it's just a paintbash. You can yourself stich together different parts of different Hudson River Shcool paintings and create an unique new painting. But you won't be able to go further than that, meaning you won't be able to create anything really new or different this way.
>>2477072
admit it OP, you said you wanted to be an artist, but for the novelty of it, not because you enjoy drawing, and now when you realize all the work you have to do, are just looking for excuses to stop
you come like once a month with some new technology which supposedly will kill the artist, just quit already
I've seen something about this on tv, and none of you people have to worry. They took all the features of Rembrandt's paintings, and made an 'average' painting, for instance, they found out that most of his paintings involved males, in their 30's to 40's, with facial hair.
They basically used the normal distribution to make a painting. If you've ever read the Black Swan, you know why this is horseshit, and also why computerized 'randomness' won't replace actual randomness.
So no worries. This is all much ado about nothing
>>2477468
I'm not OP you actual retard
