Paintings with no painter.

Author: secularmerlin ,

Posts

Total: 8
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,199
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3

Perhaps the computers are taking over!

25 days later

ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 556
2
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
2
2
7
--> @secularmerlin


67 days later

Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 26
Posts: 3,095
3
4
10
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
10
Can't wait for them to get better than humans at writing

23 days later

Bifolkal
Bifolkal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7
0
0
4
Bifolkal's avatar
Bifolkal
0
0
4
I use a 3d printer to model all of my pointillism in real life...I think I'm still better than those silly computers.
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,303
2
4
9
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
2
4
9
--> @secularmerlin
That's because they can easily replicate the randomness that is modern art.
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,303
2
4
9
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
2
4
9
--> @ResurgetExFavilla
Hehehe... nice reference.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,199
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @Mharman
Some of the images look more than random. They aren't Jackson Pollackesque sprays of dots they look like paintings of objects. Perhaps a bit abstract but if you read the article that is more like human art than a lackluster computer paint by numbers. This is what the researchers were trying to do. Honestly what makes human paintings more qualified as works of art than any of the images presented? Art stubbornly defies definition and pushes boundaries. What constitutes art is subjective not objective.

153 days later

Pinkfreud08
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 578
2
7
11
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Pinkfreud08
2
7
11
REEEEE