|
|
|
|
|
|
by tripzilch
3666 days ago
|
|
|
> It's a little misleading, especially since there's a lot more going on in Picasso than geometric shapes and crazy colors. > Then again I might take things too seriously. if anything, too many people in this thread don't seem to be taking cubism and Picasso's style seriously either (signature faces? what ..?) of course a deeplearning net can't actually do cubism. if someone wrote a program to generate blocks of primary colours in pleasing ratios, really cleverly, it may look like Mondriaan to someone that has seen a couple of Mondriaan paintings. but everybody who knows what Mondriaan was trying to do, will instantly know that there's really no way today's computers could really perform the same process. |
|
|
It's more like an insta-Picasso plug-in for one particular form of abstraction.
It's interesting and unusual, and yes, it would be better with constraints.
I'm not sure I'd want to look at it on a big screen though.
>of course a deeplearning net can't actually do cubism.
One of the interesting things to fall out of this research is the realisation that a lot of art - even figurative art - is based on abstraction of visual invariants.
There's no reason that creative abstraction can't be automated to create new styles.
The difference when humans do it is the level of psychological insight and feel for what's visually important and interesting in a scene.
That can probably be automated too, but it's a very much harder problem.
The challenge for most developers in this space is that they have a much more superficial understanding of art (and music, and writing) than they believe they do, so a lot of content and detail that's important to experienced viewers gets ignored. The result is superficial lookalike output - pastiche.
Technically, the superficial output is an achievement in itself, but it's still a way short of being artistically innovative in its own right.