View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Topic : "Art of the 21st century - dynamic painting" |
SanBase junior member
Member # Joined: 12 Apr 2007 Posts: 21 Location: Toronto
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:33 am |
|
|
This is a static image:
... and the dynamic original: http://www.sanbasestudio.com/demo/episode_17.html
Dynamic painting is not a method for transformation of existing images. A dynamic picture is a computer code (in other words it is a program). Therefore the initial (original) image doesn't exist. The difference between tradition drawing and dynamic painting is that instead of drawing directly on some surface (canvas, LCD screen - doesn't matter) I create something like the DNA (algorithm of creation) of the picture. After that the computer draws on the screen using this algorithm.
Just like the DNA of a living organism, with a slight mutation, the image algorithm can produce an infinite number of unique paintings. A carefully devised "mutation" algorithm uses a computer to generate a series of distinct images. This "mutation" process can be slowly animated over time to produce a fluid motion within the element of a painting; producing a never-ending and never repeating show. _________________ www.sanbase.com |
|
Back to top |
|
Ian Jones member
Member # Joined: 01 Oct 2001 Posts: 1114 Location: Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:22 am |
|
|
Definitely some interesting work, I enjoyed watching the video for a bit and seeing things slowly alter. There is definitely a lack of 'slow technology' (to quote a paper) in the fast paced digital world... so nice to see some subtle changes over time.
I don't want to piss on your parade, but I have to object to the following statement from your website:
"Unlike all other generative art examples that account for just a few basic artistic principles and require very little artist input, the Dynamic Paintings by San Base are truly creations of an artist. This is what sets it far apart from any other works in this area."
This is such a broad, sweeping statement and frankly it comes across as arrogant. I will agree with you that some, perhaps most generative art is still fairly simplistic in terms of the intentions and elements that are input, but the outputs / outcomes are not necessarily simplistic either technically or artistically. You are obviously trying to communicate the complexities, the decisions and intent behind your own work, but this statement doesn't tell us anything other than you think your work is better than the rest. |
|
Back to top |
|
SanBase junior member
Member # Joined: 12 Apr 2007 Posts: 21 Location: Toronto
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:19 am |
|
|
Ian Jones wrote: |
I don't want to piss on your parade, but I have to object to the following statement from your website:
"Unlike all other generative art examples that account for just a few basic artistic principles and require very little artist input, the Dynamic Paintings by San Base are truly creations of an artist. This is what sets it far apart from any other works in this area."
This is such a broad, sweeping statement and frankly it comes across as arrogant. |
I agree. I changed "all other" to "most of others" (to tell the truth it is not my text ).
One more sample:
...and dynamic one: http://www.sanbasestudio.com/demo/episode_16.html _________________ www.sanbase.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|