Generative Art [Archive] - ConceptArt.org Forums

SanBase

May 3rd, 2007, 02:17 PM

yeah i agree Dile.. not much of art if a computer does it. its like painting mona lisa with one button press... cool program, but YOUR art?
Who has made such program (which 'painting mona lisa')? Other computer? The computer is a tool of a programmer (in this case programmer=artist). The artist is a human, not a computer, believe me! :)

First of all, let's start with an axiom that computer does not have any intelligence. Everything you can see on the screen is created by a human. Obviously it is self-evident and does not require any proof.

And now back to the question at its essence.
Let's have a look at Picasso's painting "Don Quijote":

http://www.globalgallery.com/prod_images/aa-1692.jpg

Provided Picasso does not paint it with hands but writes a computer program creating precisely the same picture, who would be the picture's author? And would the picture be worse because of that? I think, there is no doubt, Picasso is still supposed to be the author, not the computer (see the Ch.1). The way the picture is created does not influent on its artistic virtues. By all means it would still be a Picasso's masterpiece.

Let's go on. Let's suppose that Picasso not only writes a program which paints Don Quijote, but elaborates it so that the overall image becomes slightly different. Meaning, if the program can create a picture exactly LIKE THAT, one can change the program's parameters so that the picture is a little bit different from the original. Who is the author of the new picture? Still, Picasso is (see the Ch.1).

And let's go even further, Picasso creates a program which paints several different pictures and each of them is created in the same manner. And one of them is precisely the one as on the picture above. Who is the author of all the images? Is it computer? See the Ch.1. Picasso is the author because he has managed to force computer to PAINT and not to display senseless dots and lines.

San

lewiston

May 3rd, 2007, 04:54 PM

Interessting discussion. Great it is being held on these forums though. I believe that that the art term over the centuries has changed (or been widened) ever so often - why should it not be changed to something different so it would include the term 'generative art' (which I think is a great term btw.) After all we all just witness the dawn of a computer-aided and computer-generated reality.
History has proven all those, who branded new, emergent streams, perceptions and philosophies as 'this is NOT ART!' wrong, so I would be much more careful with my verdict on what is not-art (or un-art, or anti-art etc. - remember the dark decades of the term 'degenerate art'...). I find that artists have the responsibility to push culture and perception of art evermore further. I don't understand why we would still compare our creative generation to the time Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa.
In architecture forms, structures, patterns, even whole urban structures have been created using generative components. This strategy is stormily discussed and the discourse widens architectural perception all over the world. It is great to see pioneers introducing similar strategies into art. I believe the discussion should not be held over wether this is art or not, I think we should much rather find out what it contributes to the realm of art.
Android - as mentioned before in this thread and proven by his popularity in these forums - shows a good example of how to integrate these strategies into his work and therefore push it further.
To me, one of the most important issues is, wether the artist is able to control its tool or wether he has found a creator and retires to someone who judges, if he likes the outcome of his creative machine or not. That does make a very big difference to me.
I really loved the stuff on your website and I think, these dynamic pictures are very interessting as well but you didn't yet convince me, dear SanBase, that you are in full control over what you achieve. Do you let an algorythm run and stop it randomly and judge wether you like it or not? Or does 'dynamic' not only mean, it is a dynamic process that you program but that you can willfully and 'dynamically' change parameters according to what you want to achieve?
Thanks for sharing your process with us, its great to have this subject going on here.

TheDirtSyndicate

May 3rd, 2007, 05:29 PM

to me its not a question of whether or not its art, its a question of whether or not it belongs on THESE forums where the focus is CONCEPT ART.

~Faust~

May 3rd, 2007, 05:32 PM

I see spaceships in those.

SanBase

May 3rd, 2007, 09:19 PM

I really loved the stuff on your website and I think, these dynamic pictures are very interessting as well but you didn't yet convince me, dear SanBase, that you are in full control over what you achieve. Do you let an algorythm run and stop it randomly and judge wether you like it or not? Or does 'dynamic' not only mean, it is a dynamic process that you program but that you can willfully and 'dynamically' change parameters according to what you want to achieve?
Thanks for sharing your process with us, its great to have this subject going on here.

My product is a DYNAMIC picture. The static images are a by-product of this technology. Of course I do not control every STATIC image but I have full control of the dynamic one. It reminds me of the composer and the orchestra that play his music. The composer made the music but didn't produce a sound! I'm a composer and the computer is my orchestra. Sometimet it plays well, somethimes not so good but it is my music anyway. :)

TheDirtSyndicate

May 3rd, 2007, 10:29 PM

My product is a DYNAMIC picture. The static images are a by-product of this technology.

again, how does this piece and others like it pertain to THIS website?
you know, the one thats titled "conceptart.org", whose main focus is concept art?
again, im not arguing whether or not it is ART, im just wondering how it fits into this website, because to me this would only be used for inspiration.
is lucas arts going to hire you to do concept art based on a portfolio full of this?
no... probably not.
so again, how does your work fit into this website? or are you going to ignore my question for a 3rd time?

waijman

May 3rd, 2007, 10:46 PM

yes, i agree that the name of this site is "concpet art.org"

however, i have seen many pieces on this site that

1) are not a person's original concept, but a take on someone else's concept

2) pieces that have absolutely nothing to do with gaming, film, televison, comics, or any other sort of entertainment medium.

This site has extended beyond mere concept art. There is a section for people to post sketches, and a fair amount of those are figure drawing pieces, face studies, etc.

According to you then, every single thing posted on this site has to be original concept specifically geared toward entertainment media, and if that were the case, they would have to tear down a pretty decent chunk of this site (and that would be a travesty).

KenozGG

May 4th, 2007, 12:49 AM

I really enjoy looking at these twp pieces you have posted.:confident Thank you for sharing.

Dile_

May 4th, 2007, 01:42 AM

This site has extended beyond mere concept art. There is a section for people to post sketches, and a fair amount of those are figure drawing pieces, face studies, etc.

Because everyone knows that in concept art there are no such things as humans, or faces...

I do know that this site is not limited to conceptart only, it shouldn't be, its great to see all this kind of stuff, especially when its cool to look at! Like those, generated once, they are nice! =) I don't think people are getting my point here.. I was just asking if this program or whatever it is, is generating random pixels etc and that SanBase have just layered it up.. oh well I was
just curious about it, whatever or not i sounded like a negative idiot in my first post.. It wasn't my intention ..

-D

Doomgriever

May 4th, 2007, 02:06 AM

ok sanBase. lets say a computer randomly spits out art it made. someone programmed it yeah, but its programmed on randomness so the programmer dindt draw each painting, the computer did. Then he sells it to someone. just because he owns it and turns the computer on doesnt mean its his right? its more or less the computers art. what i mean is, one should not take pride in something one put none effort in. pressing a button, or change a 1 to a 0 is a bit lazy? just my opinion

lewiston

May 4th, 2007, 03:51 AM

again, how does this piece and others like it pertain to THIS website?
you know, the one thats titled "conceptart.org", whose main focus is concept art?
again, im not arguing whether or not it is ART, im just wondering how it fits into this website, because to me this would only be used for inspiration.
is lucas arts going to hire you to do concept art based on a portfolio full of this?
no... probably not.
so again, how does your work fit into this website? or are you going to ignore my question for a 3rd time?

Dude, please stop asking that question. its irrelevant. I suppose you consider yourself a concept artist. Please don't tell me you have only books on fengh and ryan church on your shelf... If we conept artists want to create new visions we have to look around everywhere - even beyond drawing and painting. If we were just looking at the cahracters and environments people from the industry are producing and reproducing, it would very soon become a incestuous thing.
its just boring to hear 'this was not made for comic, film or game - so this should not be on these forums'.
Please don't ask this funny question a 4th time...

Matsign

May 4th, 2007, 04:10 AM

itunes visualizations are dynamic, sound wave-driven, computer-generated art. I could take a print screen and call it art. But oh, wheres the fun in that? The original image doesn't capture my attention really. There are no interesting details, no familiar shapes. How do I relate to this? Shit, I'm slamming on abstract art again.. damnit. If parts of the image were isolated, and used in an intelligent manner in a design, I'd be interested in this.

Keep doing what your doing Sanbase, be selfish about it, really. If this is your art, thats great. You have my opinion, which is why you posted it here.

WODZGN

May 4th, 2007, 05:15 AM

Sandbase i really enjoy all of your pieces. To me it's amazing that random numbers which are applied to certain algorithms can produce such interesting shapes. To comment wether this is art or not, well whenever you create something, with a strong concept behind it and no matter which tool you use (can even be a computer algorithm that spits out theses shapes :)) it's already art.(and i hate this what's and what's not art subject...pointless) Sanbase, i dont know how your program works, since you said you have full control over the values you are inputing, it means also that these are not random and so you are experimenting so see what you can find.I don't see anything wrong in that. keep pushing it! :)

SanBase

May 4th, 2007, 07:35 AM

But oh, wheres the fun in that? The original image doesn't capture my attention really. There are no interesting details, no familiar shapes. How do I relate to this?

"itunes visualizations"? "no familiar shapes"? OK. Look at this image:

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/x701

One customer has asked me to make something in the style of "Group of Seven". I've made this picture (Labrador).

This is other instance (the same picture):

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/x703

lets say a computer randomly spits out art it made. someone programmed it yeah, but its programmed on randomness so the programmer dindt draw each painting, the computer did.
So you can say: the musician didn't play, the piano did!
The programmer (artist) has made a concept, plot, stylistics, colors etc. Computer made only variations of this plot. Computer can't make something by own will because it's an inanimate device.

TheDirtSyndicate

May 4th, 2007, 11:37 AM

So you can say: the musician didn't play, the piano did!
The programmer (artist) has made a concept, plot, stylistics, colors etc. Computer made only variations of this plot. Computer can't make something by own will because it's an inanimate device.

if you're going to argue this atleast make GOOD arguments!
if the piano is a keyboard with a "DEMO SONG", then YES, the piano played the song, not the guy who bought the keyboard, plugged it in turned it on and pressed the "demo song" button.
what i think you're trying to say to Doomgriever is, YOU wrote the "demo song" on that keyboard.
dont quote me on this, but i think aphex twin does something similar, takes a bunch of weird samples, throws them into a random generator of some kind and just pulls out interesting clumps and edits them togeather...

btw, no i dont consider myself a concept artist.
maybe a little.
but theres TONS of artwork i do every day that i dont post here on these forums because i dont feel like it belongs.
in fact, i've tried posting some of my other work before and gotten flamed for posting unrelated stuff.
like i said, i find these pieces by sanbase interesting. im not bashing his work.

voraz

May 4th, 2007, 12:34 PM

Hey complete2, I don't share your view of conceptart.org, I would say this site is opened to everykind of visual arts. If it is not then the administrators of the site should be clearer about this, that way I guess many works would have to be taken out of the finally finished section and from the other sections. I hope that that doesn't happen and I think conceptart.org would loose a lot with that. It is also very boring to have to read that stuff you are saying every once in a while.
I also find it strange that you were flamed because of that, I see a lot of people posting stuff that it isn't concept art and I never saw anyone get flammed.
Anyway if you it happened to you it is too bad but it is even worse that you are doing it too now...
sorry I guess this discussion has nothing to do with the image itself...

Anyway about the picture I wasn't going to comment since it doesn't appeal to me but now I feel I should say something.
Like I said I don't like the images maybe they are more interesting in motion, I guess the real interest here would be the programming itself, maybe with a little more work it could produce interesting images in the future...

cheers

EDIT: Complete2 didn't mean to say you were flamming, I guess I didn't express myself clearly... I was just talking about that annoying talk that this website is just for concept art... bla bla bla

TheDirtSyndicate

May 4th, 2007, 02:08 PM

i never flamed anyone, i just asked a question. plain and simple.
oh and on top of that i even posted a link to a website that loves this shit. they'd give way better input/feedback on this kind of work over at www.nowgocreate.com than here because there are others there that create this type of stuff. (besides, why would you want to be the only person on this forum who creates this stuff? you cant get decent feedback... thats what i look at this forum as, a place to learn)
if i went to a photography forum and started posting my drawings, of course there would be some people responding like, "hey those are really cool man" even if the drawings sucked (because its a photography forum, they cant give good feedback on illustrations because they dont know it like they do photography), but there would also be a few people saying "hey, this forum loves art in all forms, BUT our main focus here is photography not illustration. you'd probably get a better response over at CA.org"
thats the point im trying to make. and on my VERY FIRST POST i thought i made that clear...
anyway, im moving on. feel like im beating a dead horse, like nobody is listening, you people act really stupid sometimes, automatically assuming that someone is attacking you...

Doomgriever

May 4th, 2007, 06:54 PM

Complete2 thanx for making clear how i was looking at this situation. i also got a bit pissed of ur really bad argument SanBase :) i mean.. im saying "pressing a button isnt the same as drawing for 49 hours", try use arguments like "so just because i dont use a real pencil, i use photoshop instead, its not art?" well that is not my point eiter, at least one is the one creating things, not pushing a button (ok ok and put a 1 and 0 here and there). ur argument was like "so a person drawing a cat with a pen, isnt the artist, its the pen." thats just plain stupid.. anyways just wanted to express what i feel about it, and thats what this forum is quite much about right?

but hey really, have you thought of it.. people work for hours on a pic, go through much critique, post in FF section, and still end up in the Critique center cus its not "finished" "high level enough".. and what about this art? a click with the mouse and "voila" ready for FF sectioN! marvelous.. hey i think ima start do my "ctrl+c ctrl+v" art! simply take a picture from internet flip it 90 degrees and post it here! dont take me wrong, its art alright.. but try making that urself, then YOU can call urself the artist (in my opinion)

Brendan N

May 5th, 2007, 04:14 AM

Sanbase these are absolutely lovely, really enjoy looking at them. I can't really give you a crit, perhaps just a suggestion: I think you could go even more subtle with you colours, as you did here (http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/x632.jpg). Think the harmony is fine, but it's feeling just a bit too modernist to me. This is just a personal opinion of mine, disregard if you don't agree.

Also, I'm fascinated by this new medium. It's a shame people are having difficulty accepting it. I don't know if this is a valid analogy, but photography is also just pressing a button and ending up with an image, and we do not condemn it from the realm of art.

Lovely work.

Coinpurse

May 5th, 2007, 04:23 AM

hey interesting work here.
Not really my branch or cup of tea, but thats great!
the more different styles we look at the better.
Nice site btw, stick around more.
Cheers!

asoir

May 5th, 2007, 05:49 AM

one of these days, i'd really love to try and paint something in the same vain as the sanbase work. really inspiring, thanks again!

Zaknafain

May 5th, 2007, 06:34 AM

I like it. Though some of the stuff on your website is way better.
A suggestion:
You are using the whole valuerange, the whole huerange and the whole saturationrange... This results in some images with to much contrast. Additionally not all colors seem to fit with a colorsceme or have some sort of relation to each other. Thats why my favorite of this batch is the second one. You have a clear colorhierarchy here and really pays of.
Also the edges are always hard (in the foreground even with outlines). I think you could push some of those even farther if you find a way to implement depth of field.

Farvus

May 5th, 2007, 07:14 AM

Some pics are really nice. The idea is a bit like in the demoscene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoscene) productions that I often watch to find inspiration. But here it's with no music and with static images as result.

CGMonkey

May 5th, 2007, 08:46 AM

Complete2 - I think you're having a monologue, it's obvious you have missed the whole point of conceptart.org. We are not here to be inbred by our own definition by what the title of this forum is, we are here to expand upon how we percieve the title. As mentioned before, which you seem to display a rather blunt ignorance towards, is the showcasing of many non-concept art pieces on this very forum; one being Androids wonderful live concert pictures. They are created using a form of Generative Art, although with a greater control of the outcome.

With that said, I think this is very much so concept art. The first thing I saw when I watched the first picture is the designs of 3 figures. I could very well use that one as a base of patterns and form applicable to concept art.

I like it.

~B

SanBase

May 5th, 2007, 12:04 PM

You are using the whole valuerange, the whole huerange and the whole saturationrange... This results in some images with to much contrast. Additionally not all colors seem to fit with a colorsceme or have some sort of relation to each other.
You are right, it's a very complex task to control colors of EACH instance of the dynamic picture... I can easily change any STATIC image by hand (using Photoshop for example) but my task is to make a common alghorithm for the whole dynamic picture. The difference between static and dynamic pictures is: when you are watching the dynamic picture and you see that the current image is not good - wait a bit... maybe the next one can be better! :)

Just for fun: It's a second reincarnation of the initial dynamic picture:

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/ix747.jpg

KonnA

May 5th, 2007, 03:12 PM

Can I just say, I dont know what your all going APE about but lets actually appriciate that this looks really quite beautiful in terms of everything, good job I dont care how you done it!
(JC) - Im just respecting the vision not the artist!___________

Faustie

May 5th, 2007, 03:32 PM

are you SERIOUSLY trying to say that
a. one needs to prove art is concept art to post on here and
b. that this art is not real art?

The images, regardless of how they are composed are deliberately created. I could understand the validity of your argument if you were saying he hits a random series of numbers, hits generate and calls it a day. But he obviously doesn't. Look at the images of the hillside with trees if the abstract stuff is too hard to swallow for you. He didn't simply hit a button. He hit several until the piece was finished. regardless of what tools you use, if there is a process that goes into making it look the way you want it to, it is art. If you don't agree,that's fine. I take it you're not a fan of Dadaism either then. But please don't deem his work unworthy of being here, you are obviously a vocal minority on this one.

Doomgriever

May 5th, 2007, 05:12 PM

I take it you're not a fan of Dadaism either then. But please don't deem his work unworthy of being here, you are obviously a vocal minority on this one.

now dont be stupid, Dadaism has nothing to do with it. its not a matter of this is art or not. its beautiful and all that..
and about the vocal minority, wtf man its a community, if all are gona have the same opinion about it then there is no community but a monounity.. and besides a minority doesnt mean a "group who is wrong cus the majority is against it" often the majority just follows what other people has to say and are too affraid to say what they feel. NOW with that out of the way, ima continue..

What im concerned of is that, apparently people who just (trying to simply it by using this term) press a button to generate art can call themselves artists, and post in finally finished section without problem. and people who spend lots of energy and creativity are moved from the FF section. i dont say its not art, i dont say its not beautiful, i would just appreciate it if people acctually put some effort in it. like letting a robot clean the room and take the pride in acctually saying "i cleaned the room honney!" when he acctually just pressed the button *ON* and typed "C-L-E-A-N".. im not trying to make fun of u :) as ive said before, just my opinion.

and to give a little more hint what im talking about here is an example.. its like taking a photo from internet, and use a PROGRAM that generates the look of the art. lets choose Photoshop. You just changes values like SanBase dose (if i got it correctly). and in this case, lets choose the all mighty LENSFLARE! and just change the value until we are all happy, why not throw in a blur filter aswell!! =) =) =)
what im trying to say, o_o it screams Photoshop filter warning to me!

StealthNachos

May 5th, 2007, 05:46 PM

Let me start by saying that San Base should never take part in a social debate because his arguments range from ignoring the person and spwewing whatever he wants (he would make a great politician) to responding with a statement that shows that he's missing the point completely. Complete2 said that this isn't art because you just generated it on the computer (I'll get to wether or not I agree with that in a second), and you stated that a computer is just a tool like a piano or a pencil. You should already realise what's wrong with your statement, but lemme explain it to you: On a piano, you don't insert a few notes, press a button and end up with a much more complex peice. There's a difference between using a tool and using an amplifier.

Now, onto what I think about the peices.

ConceptArt.org is a just a name, surely originally meant to say that "This forum is for concept artisits in the industry" by the creator, but that has become much more broad now and includes all forms of art, be it abstract, surreal or what have you. In this way, it's still for concept artists in the industry but now includes those that would like to simply have a job in a visual art field, or possibly those that are just looking to improve. One thing has always stood true of ConceptArt.org though: Everyone's here to teach everyone else. And in doing so, those that want to become better can, if they're willing to learn. What I've been seeing lately (it started about the time Madster left) is that members have been giving out ass pats to those that really don't need them, and this does nothing but hurt everyone as a whole. I think that this is one of those things.

Let me explain: I've never been a fan of abstract work, but for a along time this was because I never really dipped into it and saw what it had to offer. Recently I've begun to find more and more things that are just beautiful in the abstract, subjectless side of art. Between each of them (however cliche it may sound) you really and truly can see expression, the artist's thoughts and ideas scrawled across, slowly strung across or carefully thought out across a canvas that's only their to retain the artist's thoughts. When art is generated through a computer (albeit with a few numbers punched in by the user) the artist's mind is removed. His expression becomes fact, and even though the result resembles what someone might call abstract, the thought's and ideas behind the word have been excluded.

Now, if I had never known that these were generated by a computer, I would still have to say I don't like them. I feel an abstract peice must also look nice by end, with colors that share what subjects can't. These look like every color and value and tint that you could think of was ingested and then hurled against a wall, resulting in a horrible mix of colors that you stuck on top of a photo background (in some cases).

That's just what I think. Take it as you will.

Duq

May 5th, 2007, 06:13 PM

Years ago I made a computer program that generated images. I would input variables for the color range, and the chance of using certain shapes. Then I let the program run for about 2 days, and the program generated roughly 8000 images. Out of those 8000 images I found 2 images that closely resembled something that a person could relate to, a strange face and a strange cityscape. People I showed it to where amazed I could influence the computer so much that it created something that actually looked like something we know.

I didnt like the progress of the program, I wasnt the artist, the computer was. Only thing I did was selecting the output that was familiar enough to view to a public. And discarded the other 7998 creations. All I did as an "artist" was just using standard criteria for composition to select the image that worked, in my eyes thats not creating. What I get from reading Sanbases replies, and former threads, and the demo on his site, is that this is the same workflow as what I used to do..

So what do I want to say: Give a monkey a pencil and let it draw several billion random drawings, one of those drawings will be the mona lisa.

Brendan N

May 5th, 2007, 06:17 PM

StealthNachos and Doomgriever - I'd love to debate with you guys over some of your points, but this is an FF thread. I'm not a mod and I don't pretend to have any authority here, but I think you guys should hand SanBase's thread back to him and, if you want to continue the discussion, start a thread in the Art Discussion section.

jus my 2c.

sciboy

May 5th, 2007, 06:53 PM

Yes your work is art, No it doesn't belong in the FF section.
This forum focuses on illustrative arts and unless your work achieves set design goals, you can bugger off to the discussion sections.
If you want to prove that this technique has any real application to the focus of these forums, take one of the community activities or thunderdome challenges.
[edit]
Forget it, moved it back, although i still recommend the challenges.

chaosrocks

May 5th, 2007, 07:04 PM

hehehe
Kasparov vs deep blue

put you sytstem to the tesst
if you post a "tunnel city" in this weeks EOW generted by your program.. Iwill take it to poll.

chaos

Zaknafain

May 5th, 2007, 07:08 PM

You are right, it's a very complex task to control colors of EACH instance of the dynamic picture... I can easily change any STATIC image by hand (using Photoshop for example) but my task is to make a common alghorithm for the whole dynamic picture. The difference between static and dynamic pictures is: when you are watching the dynamic picture and you see that the current image is not good - wait a bit... maybe the next one can be better! :)
hmm right... didn't think about that.

Now, if I had never known that these were generated by a computer, I would still have to say I don't like them. I feel an abstract peice must also look nice by end, with colors that share what subjects can't. These look like every color and value and tint that you could think of was ingested and then hurled against a wall, resulting in a horrible mix of colors that you stuck on top of a photo background (in some cases).

have a look at his website dude...
some of my favorites:
http://www.sanbase.com/bigpix.php?img=x696.jpg&available=1
http://www.sanbase.com/bigpix.php?img=x332.jpg&available=1
http://www.sanbase.com/bigpix.php?img=x438.jpg&available=1

awesome compositions, I like the colors, and you rarely see such shapes.

Elwell

May 5th, 2007, 07:11 PM

Yes your work is art, No it doesn't belong in the FF section.

Yes it does.
I sure as hell didn't move it.

Reading this thread has been very, shall we say, informative.

Hyskoa

May 5th, 2007, 07:54 PM

Soooooooooooooooooooooooo.... people pay for this? :D

If yes, then you go right ahead and enjoy your 1's and 0's.
If no, well.. nuff said.

tensai

May 5th, 2007, 07:57 PM

cool pieces, and for people interested in this and generating some art of their own, or making little programs for it, check

processing.org/ (http://processing.org/)

a lot of very very interesting imagery and processes where people get visual with code and end up with a wide variety of stuff.

please let's keep CA about art, any art and put this back in FF.

Zaknafain

May 5th, 2007, 08:38 PM

please let's keep CA about art, any art and put this back in FF.

yeah... please move this back. This thread is not supposed to be in this section.

and just to confirm godwins law:
once upon a time, there was a funny german guy who would totally agree with some of you guys
:D

Beelow

May 5th, 2007, 09:15 PM

Yeah why was this thread moved? I like these images very unique abstractions. I don't get into abstractions alot, But some of these I really dig! Thanx for sharing! XD

jfwalls

May 5th, 2007, 11:45 PM

yeah i agree Dile.. not much of art if a computer does it. its like painting mona lisa with one button press... cool program, but YOUR art? nah. selfgenerated art inmh no offence

Yeah, it's just like those silly things where you just have to push a button and an entire image is captured. What are those? Oh yeah, cameras!

I've always liked SanBase's work, and it's art, and it should be in the FF section just like it always has been.

SanBase

May 6th, 2007, 09:38 AM

strych9ine

May 6th, 2007, 09:48 AM

Art? Isn't art?
Lets consider the work of Jackson Pollock. He is an artist, isn't it? I think that the works of Pollock can be described as a generative art. When he was dripping paint onto the canvas he did not control the placement of every single drop of paint. This was a random process. Pollock the artist chose the colours but Pollock the computer executed the painting. :)

It's funny you say that because that was exactly what I was thinking while reading over this discussion. I like what you've been working to achieve with your art, it's always interesting and actually has triggered quite a few design ideas for myself here and there when thinking back on these pieces. Thanks for posting.

Stark

May 6th, 2007, 11:07 AM

Good images. I have a friend who was doing some things like this a while back...He was on DA by the name of publius...

I like it and I agree with your arguments and some of the others. Just because one doesn't understand how something was made, doesn't negate it's effectiveness and "art-ness" Hell, there's a lot of things on this site that I don't understand but I make sure to find out about if it looks like something I might be interested in adding to one of my hand drawn pieces. Collecting resources and materials from all aspects of concept art and the art community is a great idea and SanBase may have just provided that. I know I had one of these as a desktop image a while back.

hurricane

May 6th, 2007, 11:07 AM

bla bla bla bla bla

great art i especially love the last one!
reminds me of that picasso painting of a war (it was a war right?)

cheers!

afrodcyack

May 6th, 2007, 05:19 PM

Wow to think someone could just make such a strong proclamation of 'THIS ISN'T ART' or 'THIS ART DOESN'T BELONG HERE' makes me somewhat sick. I can see the human touch in these images. Also there are far too many non concept art threads that I appreciate and like to see. It's like my one-stop shop for 'underground' art that is truly inspiring.

Anyways, I really really enjoy your pieces SanBase, especially the 3 that Zaknafain linked to. Hot stuff. I'm waiting for you to make a desktop wallpaper, approximately 1440x900 so I can awe at it's glory when I come home to my computer :-D.

Again, beautiful stuff San Base. Don't let the haters *cough*doomgriever*cough* get you down.

Kamikazebob

May 6th, 2007, 06:06 PM

You win.
It reminds me of some fractal stuff. The one at post 40 is amazing.
~Bob

Seedling

May 6th, 2007, 07:19 PM

Where is all this fixation with process coming from? These pieces can be critiqued perfectly well without knowing how they were generated.

The First Image: (http://conceptart.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1308421&postcount=1)
This image seems like it is completely non-representational, but something about these three vertical shapes makes me see them as characters. And they are chock full of personality. The color palette works well. The shapes and patterns are downright sexy. I’m not so fond of the endless checker plain, on the other hand, because it has strong associations with early digital art. Using that is about like using soft-cornered orange rectangles – one says “I’m a tacky product of the sixties”, and the other says “I’m a tacky product of the nineties.”

The Second Image: (http://conceptart.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1309141&postcount=11)
This color-palette is more sophisticated than the first. Overall it works, but the yellow gets too intense for my liking. Here, I’m seeing vast structures, rather than characters. The patterns in the sky give me a similar reaction as the checkers in the first one. They seem rather out of place next to the buildings, which are fabulously eye-pleasing. I’m not sure all that overlapping stuff at the bottom works well in the composition.

The Tree Images: (http://conceptart.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1310154&postcount=29)
I don’t think these compare favorably to the other images. There is nothing small and delicate to counteract all of the big shapes. In the previous two images, the iconic compositions worked, because the “characters” and “buildings” had enough interesting tidbits to keep the eye busy and to occupy the mind with ideas about what sorts of characters and buildings they might be. Here, we read “tree in front of hills” and immediately lose interest. The composition needs to be dynamic if there is to be no mystery in the subjects.

Holy Canole! (http://conceptart.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1311319&postcount=40)
This image is just delightful. The colors are playful without being excessive, the composition is iconic but has more than enough of interest in it to succeed, the shapes are a delight to sort through and ponder. Once again I’m seeing a building on a landscape.

Of all the work you have shown us, my only suggestion is to try breaking out of these iconic compositions you’ve been using. Try some unbalanced compositions. Japanese art is a good place to find examples of that.

SanBase, thanks for providing fodder for such a great discussion and for sharing your lovely images.

you didn't yet convince me, dear SanBase, that you are in full control over what you achieve.

Since when is full control over a medium a requirement for beauty or art? Richard Schmidt, author of “Alla Prima”, speaks highly of “happy accidents,” and mentions repeatedly how some of his paintings are successful because someone else stopped him in time from developing them further.

is lucas arts going to hire you to do concept art based on a portfolio full of this?

Actually, this isn’t irrelevant to the games industry. We have graphics programmers who use code to make things like water and trees and textures, or who cause objects to reflect light in a manner that looks pretty or realistic. In addition to that, the ability to see noise and pick out a beautiful composition is of vital importance to anyone working in any career that involves art, even if that career is more technical in nature. No, this sort of work isn’t likely to get San Base hired as a concept artist, but it may get him hired in another position. Since ConceptArt.org accommodates artists who aim to be 3D modelers, painters, and book illustrators, it wouldn’t make any sense to exclude another type of art simply for being “not concept art”. Even when a type of work is deeply in the minority it can still inspire and educate.

and what about this art? a click with the mouse and "voila" ready for FF sectioN! marvelous.. hey i think ima start do my "ctrl+c ctrl+v" art! simply take a picture from internet flip it 90 degrees and post it here! dont take me wrong, its art alright.. but try making that urself, then YOU can call urself the artist (in my opinion)

To those of you who think a human shouldn’t get credit for the beauty of the output of a program that they coded, try telling that to the coder who made your favorite computer game run and made it look good. Whether or not you would call their creation art, they still made it - with real effort, real time, and a real eye towards beauty - and they will rightfully take offense if you try telling them otherwise.

Doomgriever, you specifically are demonstrating a painful cluelessness when it comes to programming. Please go educate yourself before you embarrass yourself further.

Years ago I made a computer program that generated images. I would input variables for the color range, and the chance of using certain shapes. Then I let the program run for about 2 days, and the program generated roughly 8000 images. Out of those 8000 images I found 2 images that closely resembled something that a person could relate to, a strange face and a strange cityscape. People I showed it to where amazed I could influence the computer so much that it created something that actually looked like something we know.

I didnt like the progress of the program, I wasnt the artist, the computer was. Only thing I did was selecting the output that was familiar enough to view to a public. And discarded the other 7998 creations. All I did as an "artist" was just using standard criteria for composition to select the image that worked, in my eyes thats not creating.

Have you ever heard of the art form known as “photography”? They point a recording device at random patterns, pick one image from the thousand they recorded, adjust it slightly, and then present it as art.

put you sytstem to the tesst
if you post a "tunnel city" in this weeks EOW generted by your program.. Iwill take it to poll.

A brilliant idea!

Faustie

May 6th, 2007, 10:29 PM

If these images are as simple to make as you profess Doom, I humbly ask you to reproduce a similar image using the techniques you have described. Then and only then will I believe your claim about this being a brainless automatic process.

Duq

May 7th, 2007, 06:07 AM

Have you ever heard of the art form known as “photography”? They point a recording device at random patterns, pick one image from the thousand they recorded, adjust it slightly, and then present it as art.

So you are saying that we can actually post photo's here, instead of the Photography forums? And maybe we should also accept fractal artists on the FF forums then?

San base describes the images he made as byproducts, created without any thought of context. In the end these static images arent the art he makes, the art he makes is in infinity, and in the infinity lies the context the work. The static picture he shows is just a random occurence that looks pretty. Dont get me wrong though, the program is great when looking for inspiration.

But as Chaos said, if he joins one of the community activities and makes something within the context of the assignment I will take this all back

If these images are as simple to make as you profess Doom, I humbly ask you to reproduce a similar image using the techniques you have described. Then and only then will I believe your claim about this being a brainless automatic process.

I just made this, I messed around a bit with the values in the demo data files. But didnt discover a real pattern yet. But I suspect my playing around did have some effect. I would much rather play around with the full version so I would be able to determine the pic that seeds the rest, but I'm not able to.

lewiston

May 7th, 2007, 06:46 AM

Since when is full control over a medium a requirement for beauty or art? Richard Schmidt, author of “Alla Prima”, speaks highly of “happy accidents,” and mentions repeatedly how some of his paintings are successful because someone else stopped him in time from developing them further.

Agreed! Accidents are vital and can be strongly constructive and inspiring.
But I believe, that you should be able to master a medium AND in consequence let accidents happen. If your art only consists of accidents, we are at Goethe's sourcerer's apprentice...
To me the most amazing thing is, when a master adds to his toolbox the accident-tool.
This I implied with my earlier question, wether SunBase really controls his tools.
And he did in fact convince me with his second pair of posts (the group-of-seven landscape - comission)

Glad to see this thread back at FF though. the controversy and discussion is really interessting here....

dkounios

May 7th, 2007, 06:56 AM

great images!
the ones in post 29 are my favs.
very different and interesting...colors just poped right at me. altho it is 5am so
that could be a factor.

cool stuff!

SanBase

May 7th, 2007, 09:12 AM

I just made this, I messed around a bit with the values in the demo data files. But didnt discover a real pattern yet. But I suspect my playing around did have some effect. I would much rather play around with the full version so I would be able to determine the pic that seeds the rest, but I'm not able to.You totally misunderstood the idea of the dynamic painting. It is not a filter or deformation of the existing picture. Dynamic picture reminds an endless movie and any static image is only a screenshot of this movie. Therefore I've told that the static images are by-product of the dynamic picture. Every time it is a new and unique image, made from scratch. Try to make the algorithm of generation of such images in real time, in this case it will be a true dynamic picture.

One more instance of the picture from post #40:

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/icreenshot5.jpg

It is not a new picture, it is a new INSTANCE.

This is instance of other DYNAMIC picture (Rock Garden):

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/ix609.jpg

San
http://www.sanbase.com

Lord Edwin

May 7th, 2007, 09:31 AM

I have no problem with concept art relating to a wide variety of themes and ideas. It's true that these pieces were perhaps not conceived as concepts for anything (similar to many wonderful pieces posted on these forums), but I can see conceptual design in any art piece. You could, if you wanted, create pieces like these for a sci-fi or fantasy setting and describe them as the kind of art that a particular people in that world appreciate, and that their great artists produce. It's all relative to the way you define the where/when/how of the concept, imo, and it doesn't have to be all practical application of character, tech, and environment design. In fact, this could be a great explorative method for conceptualizing colour themes for a series of costumes or buildings without yet worrying about their shape and volume.

Great stuff!

hurricane

May 7th, 2007, 09:32 AM

the 2 recent ones are very cool!

love that "inverted" area in the first one...looks like a tree almost

very cool! makes my mind wander

Dile_

May 7th, 2007, 10:07 AM

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/ix609.jpg

'just rocks! I love it =)

Fellah.

May 7th, 2007, 10:16 AM

Yup, last one is damned beautiful!
The others has a '70s acid trip feel to them.

GriNGo

May 7th, 2007, 10:17 AM

to me its not a question of whether or not its art, its a question of whether or not it belongs on THESE forums where the focus is CONCEPT ART.

just pure bla bla bla!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/GriNGoLoCO/andrewjonesabstract.jpg

"Man, i like the mood and colors of this thing, but damn, it's abstract generative art, and man, it doesn't belong here! only monsters, or people in gas masks are demons and angels or dwarves or fantasy stuff is allowed here! And why did you use that Photoshop human icon shape so repeatedly there?! Man if you can´t draw humans correctly, then go practice man, there are subforums here to help you out in that but don't start using those templates with us! It's almost like cheating! & please could a mod please remove this from the FF section? It's an insult to all those who do real conceptart!"

*ZOOM OUT (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=94340)

"Oh Android, I didn't know it was YOU who made these masterpieces please don't ban me!"

__
That "satire" there goes in honor of complete2, dile and everybody who hates images created with a button.

Hey Sanbase, that last abstract piece you posted has some nice forms to it! how did you do it?? It's a lot different from the others you posted. & just one suggestion... could you refrain from including your sig on the pieces? the font is not very good looking, and it's just bothering for me. Since they are pretty low res, I don't think people we be stealing this stuff like crazy to print or stuff so...

Seedling

May 7th, 2007, 10:36 AM

So you are saying that we can actually post photo's here, instead of the Photography forums?

Psst, Duq, you're embarassing yourself:

http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=92314

TheDirtSyndicate

May 7th, 2007, 12:25 PM

this will be my last post here because its clear that nobody is actually reading these posts, they're just skimming them and not actually trying to understand what people like me are saying.
never once did i say this wasn't art
never once did i flame sanbase for posting it here
i was nice, i offered a website that i knew of where there are others that created this type of work, they would probably be able to give him all kinds of feedback that WE cant.

i see conceptart.org as a place to learn. a place to change and grow.
sanbase, how are you going to learn here? who's going to give you feedback here (on coding for example) that can help you get BETTER with this kind of stuff?

to everyone who twisted my words, to everyone who just skimmed over my posts and made the assumption that i was saying this wasn't art, to everyone who decided to take one sentence out of my 2 or 3 paragraphs and harp on that ONE point because it was the ONLY point you could argue against and just ignore my other points, i'm gonna make you happy right now: FUCK YOU.
there, you happy that i finally put in a little bit of negativity? is that what you wanted?

im not posting in this thread again.
if you've got something to say to me send me a PM. but if you're going to do that, go back and read my posts first so that you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Seedling

May 7th, 2007, 12:30 PM

Complete, dude, *we* are learning from *him*. For that reason alone he has got a place here. You have good points to make, but you obviously need to cool off, so go take a cold shower.

sve

May 7th, 2007, 12:46 PM

Seedling... I already had once a pleasure to bring to your attention that I think your comments would win a lot if you add little words like "in my opinion", 'I think", "in my eyes"...
You recently complained a lot that people discuss your personality instead of your comments... but you are not shy to do it yourself with other people...What kind of argument is this: "you specifically are demonstrating a painful cluelessness when it comes to programming. Please go educate yourself before you embarrass yourself further."...???

The person comment is valid, IMO and he can discuss the interesting for him/her topics as much as anyone as long as he follows rules... Making rude belittling remarks about his intellect is self serving from your side in my opinion...

Now back to discussion... in my opinion art is when you look at objects and it could be anything: a vase, a building, an earring in woman ear, her little transparent ear itself, an interesting word, expression... well anything, actually...what made you response... when you look at object and go away without any emotion stirred in you... it is not art you look at, in my opinion... when you use a program and its design doesn't move you, you just use its functionality... that's not an art in front of you... but when you noticed a harmony or dissonance of it and it makes some changes, disturbances in your mood... that's art in front of you... I already wrote one time... Ilja Repin, an artist was going back several times in a row to look at freshly made piss puddle "created" by one of his dog near his house... because it had a beautiful rare amber color. He enjoyed it and protested when on of his guest tried to destroy the embarrassing spot...

Beauty is in an eye of beholder... piece can be art or not in the same time for two different people, IMO. Art is a contact.

About handmade or artificially created... in the end if it is emotional piece... that's what is matter in my opinion... but I think in little imperfections of handmade material is a human soul hiding and becasue of that a handmade was always much more appreciated... it has a bigger ability to trapa human emotion somewhere in a process and individualism, uniqueness of it.

Now about pieces... I like colors and sharp edges and generosity in them.. I like play with imagination in which it invites me... I do have a contact with these pieces.... They bring mostly life loving, delightful emotion in me.

Duq

May 7th, 2007, 12:48 PM

You totally misunderstood the idea of the dynamic painting. It is not a filter or deformation of the existing picture. Dynamic picture reminds an endless movie and any static image is only a screenshot of this movie. Therefore I've told that the static images are by-product of the dynamic picture. Every time it is a new and unique image, made from scratch. Try to make the algorithm of generation of such images in real time, in this case it will be a true dynamic picture.

Precisly, thats why the static images you present are nothing more then just an pretty image. The entire concept of creation into infinity gets lost the moment you pull a picture out of the cycle and give it a new context. The only thing we are seeing here are works in progress.

Ap0vFnHw3Ro
This movie on your website is the dynamic painting. Just a fragment of time as the completly static ones. But it does bring over the concept behind your work alot more then one image ever would.

Try to make the algorithm of generation of such images in real time, in this case it will be a true dynamic picture.
Now here it is interesting, your demo's or movies show nothing about real time interference with the alghorithme. Can you eloborate about this process?

Because right now it looks to me like you insert an image. Let the algorithm run wild, and wait untill something nice gets created.

@seedling:To be honest I dont think I am. Several people claim that this is the same as photography, since it is the same action. Yet photographs arent considered fully as finished work, just as reference and inspiration if I read the forum descriptions. That just made me wonder why this thread is here, since you all said it is the exact same thing. But that could just as well be my twisted view on things. And really the discussion isnt about photographers or their work, or about me embarassing myself.

stalsby

May 7th, 2007, 01:12 PM

cool stuff, some of them kinda remind me of a picasso/cubism type of style if you get my drift ;] nevertheless nice designs, and they're interesting to look at!

Seedling

May 7th, 2007, 05:05 PM

sve

May 7th, 2007, 05:50 PM

:).well, now you have a great opportunity to look at the mirror and say something very rude to a person who looks at you from there :).

And here for your ignorance to improve: I took it from rules of this forum:
"What are the rules?
Please be respectful and courteous to each and every member of the forum. Arguing is fine if done without slandering each other personally."
So. I don't think I have to deal with you being rude...And even more funnier reading later about you being unhappy when someone says something unpleasant about your character.

Seedling

May 7th, 2007, 06:17 PM

Sve, if you want to do a critique on me, start a fresh thread. You're cluttering up an otherwise fruitful discussion.

sve

May 7th, 2007, 06:19 PM

hmm. I should start a new thread critiquing you, but you can do the same for another person right in this one? interesting...Double standard... I expect when someone gives advice he/ she is at least consistent and honest and follows it too.

Seedling

May 7th, 2007, 06:33 PM

/ignore add sve

sve

May 7th, 2007, 06:35 PM

You are the funniest person on this site, in my opinion, Seedling...

Zaknafain

May 7th, 2007, 06:44 PM

sorry for interupting the trashtalk:
Am I the only one who thinks that this is incredibly phalic: http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/icreenshot5.jpg
:teeth:

btw.. the colors of that one are sweet:
http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/ix747.jpg

Act.Appalled

May 7th, 2007, 07:23 PM

So what do I want to say: Give a monkey a pencil and let it draw several billion random drawings, one of those drawings will be the mona lisa.

sorry no. no matter the number of random drawings a monkey will never create the mona lisa. They don't possess mental capacity and technical skill required. which is why we cannot teach a monkey/ape to speak besides a few rote learning / tricks.

I'm with complete2 on this one. This is conceptart.org and not generativeart.org i have no problem with this kind of art, but don't expect much praise from something that took basically no skill in creating.

As for the expansion of the site, most of the site pertains to the enhancement of technical artistic skill, and the ability to put our concepts to paper.

Life Drawing is directly related to concepts and understanding of the human figure/animals and then being able to apply those to concepts

wizo5454

May 7th, 2007, 09:34 PM

I share act. appalled's opinion. I find a lot of these pics interesting but I would have liked more explanations to the algorithm or artistic process of the program.

that being said,

I ve enjoyed looking at that last one you posted.

AdamDillabo

May 7th, 2007, 10:34 PM

whos that guy who paints mountains and nice sunny groves with little cottages in them and then sells them on tv?

Hai

May 8th, 2007, 12:14 AM

I'm sorry for cluttering this thread even more, but I wanted to publicly thank sve for saying everything that I didn't have the courage, focus and vocabulary to say. You are my hero.

Dile_

May 8th, 2007, 01:01 AM

Grincoloco or whatever your name is.

"That "satire" there goes in honor of complete2, dile and everybody who hates images created with a button. "

Hey, you know what ? I happen to like those images a lot !

But that made me really angry, because you obviously didn't read shit of what i wrote in this thread..

how did you do it? Thats what you asked right ?
You know what ? thats what I asked in ALL MY POSTS too. ( except for the last one, where I actually just asspatted the artwork , BECAUSE I LIKED IT A LOT! ) But did you read that ? No of course not, you where to busy calling out people just because you thought you had the rights to, without even looking around first. Do you look like this now ?:bashful: I better hope so...

I can't help that people wrote "Ohh I agree with dile" when they obviously had not even read my posts. Like you.
Please think before you post.. I actually send a "I'm sorry for my first post " PM to sanbase, and I also wrote another post in this thread, just to clear up that I didn't hated art generated with a button. And that my way to write it looked negative, unintentionally. I just wanted to know how it was done.

I can't believe you even mentioned my name after that stupid example. I always liked android's stuff, ( I also like san base's stuff )and I always knew that it was done in a slightly generated way as for randomness.
Although, What you don't get is that theres a huge difference between sanbase and Androids stuff. As sanbase ( what I have understood ) does 100% generated art, and Android just use it to get the randomness in his pictures.

-Thanks

lewiston

May 8th, 2007, 04:15 AM

whos that guy who paints mountains and nice sunny groves with little cottages in them and then sells them on tv?

BOB ROSS!!! the great and unprecedented MASTER OF GENERATIVE ART.
> see the proof below - although mankind worshiped him for his dizzy and virtuosic brush (and afro) I found evidence for that his art was generated by only one little white remote control.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y92/3589806/bob-ross-paints-on-revolution-20060.jpg

squidmonk3j

May 8th, 2007, 04:25 AM

the colours and structures look nice, but i'm not really into stuff that relies on explanation in order to be appreciated. either it works, or it doesn't.

fascinating, tho:)

Duq

May 8th, 2007, 05:15 AM

sorry no. no matter the number of random drawings a monkey will never create the mona lisa. They don't possess mental capacity and technical skill required. which is why we cannot teach a monkey/ape to speak besides a few rote learning / tricks.

The monkey doesnt make it based on skill or mental capacity, just mathematical probability. You can compare it to a rare drop item in an mmorpg. The more times you kill the monster, the more chance the item will drop.

AdamDillabo

May 8th, 2007, 07:07 AM

BOB ROSS!!! the great and unprecedented MASTER OF GENERATIVE ART.

close but not the guy i meant. any who my biggest problem is your signature, i know this sounds dumb but hear me out. on this type of art where you didnt slave over it for more hours in a day, your very large, very legible signature looks kinda.. i dont think i can find the perfect word so ill just list the ones that come to mind, egotistical, misleading, sell-out,.. i think you can see what side of the field im coming from.

thundercake

May 8th, 2007, 08:38 AM

Just the fact that people are arguing over whether or not this is art -proves- it's art, in my opinion ;)

I think I'd really like to learn more about this process. I too thought of Pollack when I saw this debate. I also though of photography, since beautiful and artistic photos can be achieved by random chance as well as careful planning.

_andreas_

May 8th, 2007, 08:43 AM

the whole "its-art" "its-not-art" discussion is nearly always a waste of time and great for trolls.
its something that everyone has to decide for themself.
i do think that this forum needs different (new) things, concept artists NEED to see as much as they can (even when they dont like it) .. drawing the same robots or dragons gets boring otherwise

also:
i think the pictures have bad color choices, chessboard floors are done to death and the textures dont work for me.

stalsby

May 8th, 2007, 11:01 AM

You can't dis Bob Ross! He's the man! I'd like to see you paint what he does in 30 min in 5 hours hahahaa!

Blue Severin

May 8th, 2007, 12:25 PM

This stuff is great.. I see this as akin to setting up a scene with actors, and then taking photos of the different actions they are doing. But wouldn't it be cool to see the movie? Since these are 'process shots' in the finally finished section, can I trick you into posting a link to a nice finished AVI?

As for the purpose of these forums, furthering conceptart is the goal. So the composition, colors, shapes, and styles of these pieces are inspiring as hell. It's up in FF so more people will be exposed to the images and the discussion, a good call by the admins. Who couldn't start imagining awesome things after seeing images like these?
http://www.sanbase.com/bigpix.php?img=x331.jpg&available=1
http://www.sanbase.com/bigpix.php?img=x401.jpg&available=1

As far as 'whether this is art' goes, I guess it's which philoshopher you listen too. Apparently these fulfill Tolstoy's definition of infectious communication i.e. the amount of posts in this forum, but maybe not his idea of purposeful communication. In Clive Bell's Formalism, some of these I definitely respond to as having significant form.

As far as how I would use these, as I'm not into abstract art as much as representative, I could definitely use any of these as an abstract understructure for some awesome concept scenes, i.e. Android's work. Or even as just a way to 'expand my shape library' as many of these guys put it.

I'm assuming the huge signature is more of a water mark to keep people from jacking these? I think I see a much smaller signature in some of your images.
Only other crit I can think of is the black and white checker pattern. It's really a turn off, even more so than excessive lens flares, if you know what I mean.

On that note, Sanbase, do you want to do any collaborations, where I actually do get to use these as abstract bases for some digital drawing? That would be sweet.

Doomgriever

May 8th, 2007, 12:45 PM

Doomgriever, you specifically are demonstrating a painful cluelessness when it comes to programming. Please go educate yourself before you embarrass yourself further.

and you specifically are demonstrating a painful cluelessness when it comes to judging people. i AM a programmer. i just said this guy didnt program his own program. but yeah yeah enough said. never dissed the art, just the form of making it and taking the creds. and about cameras... naah i wouldnt say thats the same. with Cams you acctually choose the motive right? this is more like, the program does? well anyways. i see u guys hate it when people question things. not my prob though, was just my opinion

Doomgriever

May 8th, 2007, 12:48 PM

Again, beautiful stuff San Base. Don't let the haters *cough*doomgriever*cough* get you down.

and that mr.afrodcyack was just plain mean. i never hated him nor his art. just questioned his medium. thats all.

Kamikazebob

May 8th, 2007, 03:47 PM

*cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_art *cough*
<< Note the name, 'Art.'
Yes, the wiki is ALWAYS right. I dunno if it applies, but I thought of it in this case.

Seedling

May 8th, 2007, 04:31 PM

i AM a programmer. i just said this guy didnt program his own program.

Doom, you’re 19. You may have taken enough classes in programming to know your stuff, but in your posts you haven’t presented any evidence to support your claim that you know anything about programming. Instead you have ranted, which is why I spoke to you dismissively.

From what I can tell, SanBase’s program has a lot in common with Bryce. Bryce is a program that generates 3D landscapes. It has a user interface that lets the user control variables like erosion, ground-cover, and clouds. Any random numbers plugged into these variables are likely to produce an eye-pleasing landscape. And because any random numbers generate pretty results, Bryce, alone, is a lousy tool for any aspiring artist to use. However, I give big props to the creators of Bryce for making a system that manages to create such beauty.

I give the same props to the creators of those numerous screen-savers in which changing shapes and colors have captivated my attention.

I am under the impression that SanBase wrote this image-generating program himself. Maybe I am wrong. But if he has, I give him big props for making a system that is capable of generating such fascinating images. Even if the resulting program, like Bryce, spits out pretty images no matter what variables are entered, the program itself is still an admirable piece of work, and potentially a useful application.

If he hasn’t written the program himself, then he’s just another Bryce-user who will quickly fade into obscurity as an artist if he doesn’t learn traditional, versatile art skills.

cotta

May 8th, 2007, 07:16 PM

Hi guys - I have been following this forum for awhiile, and I find it really interesting when discussions like these pop up.
As far as I know, there has not been made any sort of definition on what is conceptart and what is not. So who is to say what belongs in here and what doesn't.
Even though the art displayed in this thread isn't excatly my cup of tea, I still find it very interesting.
I have been working alot with vj'ing. That means creating visuals for concerts, and I have been working alot with graphics that works together with the sound the band creates. For instance, I could connect the playing speed of a videorecording, to the bass, and then I could connect the contrast of the video to the vocals. I have no controll over the result, but I set the parameters, and make sure the ingredients are there.

Is it my art then? Is that important?

Anyway - I see a clear parrallel between my work, and the art displayed in this thread, and even thought im really into traditional stuff, I get a real kick out of connecting random things, and not having a clue what the result will be. As an artist, I believe, you need to be curious and experimental, as well as skilled.

Im not really sure what im trying to say here - It's kinda late where I am, and it's been a long day, but this was my 2 cents.

Adios

SanBase

May 8th, 2007, 08:26 PM

First of all I want to make it clear - I wrote this program alone and from scratch. I can say more - ANY dynamic picture is a new (I mean unique!) set of programs. If I use the same code again - I'll get the same picture!

Let me try to put together some type of a manifesto. All of this is “my humble opinion”, of course.

For hundreds of years the works of fine art captured images frozen in time. That was dictated, first of all, by the available technology. The first artist grabbed a piece of coal and drew a bison on a wall in his cave. Later on paints were invented and paintings became colorful. After that, a perspective was discovered and paintings became closer reproductions of the 3D world. But in all of these instances only a single moment was captured. You can spend a lot of time gazing at a painting and discovering your own meaning, but it’s STATIC in nature.

At the verge of XX century an animation was invented and images came to life. (Cinematography is an “alive” picture, it’s a new genre). But even that wasn’t a fully dynamic image, more like a CYCLIC image. In other words the picture had a beginning and an end, after which it could be repeated.

However, the world is changing and so is technology. Using modern technology one can create truly dynamic paintings that “live” their own digital “lives”. It isn’t meant to be a REPLACEMENT of traditional paintings or animation. This is a new genre that didn’t exist up until now mainly due to the technological obstacles.

I think (and I apologize if I sound immodest), that I’m the first one who figured out how to make truly dynamic paintings. To be accurate, attempts to create them were made well before me; however, I think I’m the first one who discovered how to make THE PAINTINS, not random color spots or combos of previously pre-selected images. I’m sure that in time there will be many others, who will be able to make dynamic painting better than mine. But I’m the first one and that cheers me up. :)

The purpose of the dynamic painting, first of all, is to decorate a space (interior design element) just like traditional paintings do; but on the other hand, it’s a show which can be watched for hours. Due to the nature of generated images, they are quite abstract and that creates a bond with the viewer at the associative level or in other words stirs up his imagination. The viewer imagines the rest. Since the image is constantly changing, it draws attention for a longer time span than a static picture. However, let me make it clear once again, the dynamic paintings aren’t INSTREAD, but are rather in ADDITION to other forms of art.

I’m sure that with lower LCD TV prices and advent of wall TV panels, this type of art might gain great popularity. At the moment each TV shows Malevich’s “Black Square” 75% of the time. If each wall has such screen, then the number of Black Squares displayed will grow dramatically. But each screen, when it’s not used for its primary purpose, could potentially be a dynamic picture. Of course, you can display a static one as well, but dynamic picture is more intriguing due to its unpredictable nature. Everybody will see and interpret the image according to his mood.

That’s my take on it. Of course many will disagree with what I’m saying here, but you can’t stop the progress. Maybe it’s time to explore a new technology, isn’t it?

Regards,
San
http://www.sanbase.com

P.S. It is not an oil painting. This image has been generated from scratch in 50ms (I used 7900GT). It is built not with a computer processor involved, but directly with a video card graphic processor, instead. Just a few years ago such an access was not possible at all. But now the productivity of a video card is some 100 times faster than the one of the CPU. It allows me to generate images in real time, i.e. the image is changing all the time, while the picture's complication and its realism is totally different from everything what the CPU can generate and what I have seen on the Web.

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/sampl.jpg

The original resulution of this image is 11244x7710

otis

May 8th, 2007, 11:29 PM

San,

Have you ever submited your work to any museums? I think your stuff would be a hit.

Blue Severin

May 9th, 2007, 12:28 AM

textures in that last one turned out pretty sweet. Do you have DVD's with any of these dynamic paintings on them? My video card doesn't support the demo downloads.

SanBase

May 9th, 2007, 07:47 AM

Have you ever submited your work to any museums? I think your stuff would be a hit.No one museum asked me about it for now :). Probably it will happen after my death. :) :) :)

textures in that last one turned out pretty sweet. Do you have DVD's with any of these dynamic paintings on them? My video card doesn't support the demo downloads.

The screensaver is not exactly a demo... it generates images 1 time in 15 seconds. The real dynamic picture can do it 100 times faster, so I can make morping of the objects in real time, but it requires 8800GTX.
Concerning DVD: you can download two avi files (90MB each) from my site.
http://www.sanbase.com/art/avi/demo1.avi
http://www.sanbase.com/art/avi/demo2.avi
Resolution: 1024x768. Moving too fast but it's a demo :)...

long hair jr.

May 9th, 2007, 09:30 AM

so crazy!

Seedling

May 9th, 2007, 11:40 AM

Hiya SanBase. Thanks for going so indepth about your process. It all sounds rather spiffy to me. Try what Otis says, and get your work into galleries! :-)

At the moment each TV shows Malevich’s “Black Square” 75% of the time.

HAHA! My TV actually gets covered by a pretty Indian cloth when not in use, my dislike of Malevich is so strong.

One thing to consider: I think it is dangerous to get hung up on the idea of being the first to do something. That bit of pride could halt your forward progress as an artist. The medium, whether or not you invented it, is your tool to produce a final product, so focus on making the best possible final product.

Also, if you aren’t familiar with early experiments with non-representational animation, you should look it up. Other people out there have experimented with moving shapes and colors.

JoeSolo

May 9th, 2007, 01:13 PM

Hello everyone,
This thread has been an interesting one to say the least. I would like to say I think that this is a great step forward in artwork. I think it touches on something very deep. Nature, including us have algorithms, they can't all be cataloged though they have been trying to for a very long time, but they are there none the less. I think that complete control, or the ability to find and make changes to an algorithm that produces a visual is art. Most of us strive for this in our works. How many of us grab textures to paint with, how many of us start with abstract shapes to pull form? Most of us. We do not paint a rock texture by hand and then overlay it over silhouettes and start pulling out armor or an environment.(some of us do paint them . I am nto saying no one does, and I am not flaming this who do not. I am trying to be general) We grab a photo. Maybe we do some filter work. Some people pull from a painting that was already done. This is acceptable, it leads to enough surfacing accidents to be pleasing, and with enough tweaks we get t hem to work and function as we wish. So I believe that as long as the ability to make changes willfully, and not solely accidentally then it is art. Because these known changes show a thought process and come across as artistic expression. I think that bringing up the site name to dictate whether or not this is relevant is wrong. This is a place of art. A place where things like abstract art, pop art ,fine art etc paved the way for us to be concept artists. We should apply and learn about all things art, and let it influence our creations. I think strongly then that this belongs here in this section. And I think that industry status should not dictate who can say they like this and that it works or that they don't. We all have the right to our opinion. And I think we all know individuals who are concept artists professionally who would get their asses handed to them by some of the individuals in the teen challenge arena.

I enjoy these works. I would say that you should start trying to apply more compositional rules to the pieces. I think in a few you are depending too much on a lot of color mixing (which looks nice) but not enough on the placement of the shapes and how they relate to one another.

GriNGo

May 13th, 2007, 09:51 AM

Grincoloco, or whatever your name is.
It's with a G, not a C. You could have easily copied my username. Ctrl or Command + C, and later on, Ctrl + Command C. It's easy.

I can't help that people wrote "Ohh I agree with dile" when they obviously had not even read my posts. Like you.
Please think before you post.. I actually send a "I'm sorry for my first post" PM to sanbase, and I also wrote another post in this thread, just to clear up that I didn't hated art generated with a button. And that my way to write it looked negative, unintentionally.

The first post was enough for me to see how much of an hypocrite you are... as well as the rest of the generative-art-bashers. It was funny to see how all you people suddenly changed posture when everybody was backing up Sanbase. Typical.

& stop sending me warning's/yellow/red cards. I'll send you one too for being a crybaby.

later,
GRiNGoLoCo

Doomgriever

May 13th, 2007, 11:02 AM

you wrote it urself. i change my opinion. a bit :) and say well done. but i stick to the opinion that u should try to do it with traditional means, and i will praise it more. sorry for misjudging u.

mrgrumble

May 13th, 2007, 12:31 PM

i dont reallllly want to get in this debate, but seeing as this is to be regarded as true art under your name, i feel it should still function well like any other piece of art, man made or electronically generated aside. right now to me there is little in the way of tonal harmony and the colors dont always work well depending on their placement and/or use within the entire piece. so whether or not you slaved hours or minutes over it doesnt matter, its what you choose to have as your body of work you show the world. but regardless the pieces still seem somewhat bland or dated. i do feel that there is some great potential for the program you made though!

Dile_

May 13th, 2007, 01:24 PM

You , GriNGoLoCo is obviously a pretty funny person if you find
this

"I don't get it.. You typed in some numbers and got a lot of randomness ?
Is that 'art' ?"

as "art bashing" :P

, it could be translated to "I don't understand how you do it, you type in a lot of numbers on your computer and you got some sort of abstract randomness generated on your screen?

And if that is the case, should it be considered art ? If that is how art is done , then I find it pretty boring."

Next day, I checked back and when i took a look at my post again, i realized that it could been taken in a wrong way like

"wtf, do you call that shit for art ? wow thats fucking boring with you and your program"

SO what i did was to send SanBase a PM because I saw that one guy already started to "agree" with me but on the very wrong points that I didn't intend to do. This is the exact PM I send sanbase.

"Hey SanBase , I just wanted to say i'm sorry for my first post on your thread.. It came off wrong.. It wasn't my intention at all to question if you do art or not.. I was uhm, generally wondering if generative art is "creative art" Which I somehow couldn't connect..
I really like both of those pictures , I thought that those
where "random" ...

I remember back then, when I did this javascript thing where it placed random pixels in a box , and sometimes
it looked cool , but I was never considering that 'art' as I actually just pressed F5 to get a new pixel randomness..
I thought that this is what you where doing.. Sorry!

Please keep posting those, they are great And I'm sorry for coming off like an idiot!

-D"

Ohwell Gringo , if you find it funny to judge people because you like to assume they are always meaning the bad thing, then keep it up :) and good luck, you'll need it, especially if you act the same way in real life =)

ps. I didn't changed my opinion at all, I liked those from the first time i saw them, I was just curious how he did them when i read "generative art" :)
ps.2. I tested the infraction thing on you, as you where the only person I could remember insulting someone :)
Sorry if you took it so bad that you got so mad that you had to call me 'crybaby' ( which I find pretty silly, but I can understand you where mad and just had to write it) . Thats what people did in 4th grade on my school.. :) Calling
each other names when they didn't really knew what else to say.

Edit* You called me a hypocrite, that wasn't very nice of you.

-Dile

donalfall

May 13th, 2007, 02:30 PM

I really really like these pieces. And they get my vote as art, most definately. What an interesting idea and a great merger of creativity and technology. I also think that the pieces shown so far work really well. "Fine Art" artists would be killing each other to be the guy who did this. :)

Very impressed. It's probably not a "new" artform, but more an evolution of previous types, but thats an argument that will only be resolved - as all these things are - when the ideas and techniques are fully established. But we can be witnesses to the origins!

Its always difficult to lay down your theoretical groundwork in the early days, and people will naturally lie both sides of the "debate". So you're bound to get some questioners, some detractors and some supporters. There's not much point flaming about it.

Is it creative INMHO? Yes. Do they work? Absolutely. Do I want to see more? Keep 'em coming. Anyone who doesn't like them doesn't have to look. I think you answered the questions about your techniques very well. And those who like them can keep appreciating them.

GriNGo

May 13th, 2007, 04:40 PM

Ok Dile_, for the sake of this thread I have sent you a PM. Hope you act like a man and accept my challenge! Or are you going to cry your way out of it? :perv:

adonihs

May 13th, 2007, 05:03 PM

God, so pathetic. Some of you guys are destroying his thread just so you can look right ON THE INTERNET. Who cares how he did it? As long as it's not a rip, then its HIS art. I could take a photo of a piece of crap and still call it my art, even if my friend shat it.

great stuff man, like BOOM said, not my type of work, but cool none the less

J.Mac

May 13th, 2007, 08:13 PM

sanBase you have some cool work, provocative :) very informative thread. Thank you for sharing.

I just wish the people who want to have personal quarrels do it privately so i can enjoy the work and information with out having to role my eyes every so often. Also thank you to the ones who are helping to supply the information and getting the cogs to move once again.

-Jesse

black_fish

May 14th, 2007, 08:45 AM

I don;t like abstract art as a matter of taste but this is extremely interesting.
Like the birth of a new way of creating art, the first real 21st century way of painting. Excellent.

Beelow

May 14th, 2007, 02:16 PM

and that mr.afrodcyack was just plain mean. i never hated him nor his art. just questioned his medium. thats all.

You took that wrong dude, it's slang. It really means don't let guys/gals judge or dismiss you or make fun of you. Usually someone that does that are those that think of themselves highly or people that just don't want you to get attention, so they hate. Get it?

Last 2 are hot San Base, that you previously posted before the last, I mean! Keep posting more!

SanBase

May 14th, 2007, 11:04 PM

Keep posting more!

OK.

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/ex_j6.jpg
Jungle

http://www.sanbase.com

blacky

May 15th, 2007, 02:53 AM

These are all very interesting and I like some of them a lot because they are so beatiful.
But I see no point behind it except for making pretty images.
I actually like abstract art, but abstrakt artist usually are trying to make a point too.
Could samewell eat some mushrooms and rubb my eyeballs in order to see something similar to this.

SanBase

May 23rd, 2007, 04:46 PM

Just for fun:

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/x765.jpg

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/xx770.jpg

http://www.sanbase.com

alti

May 23rd, 2007, 06:23 PM

part of my brain realy likes these images, the part that dosnt realy use words, it just makes me nod and say cool.

i like what you're doing , go crazy.
can you make one with more reds ?

cheers
-alti

maxetormer

May 23rd, 2007, 11:49 PM

Ain't that the pure truth ;)

part of my brain realy likes these images, the part that dosnt realy use words, it just makes me nod and say cool.

i like what you're doing , go crazy.
can you make one with more reds ?

cheers
-alti

AlexC

May 24th, 2007, 03:34 AM

Ok Dile_, for the sake of this thread I have sent you a PM. Hope you act like a man and accept my challenge! Or are you going to cry your way out of it? :perv:

Take it easy big fella, no one likes a smart ass.

Sanbase, I find your work quite intriuging and interesting and havent made up my mind on what I think.
Do you do any traditional work? I would love to see some large canvases with this same style,,just a thought.

SanBase

May 24th, 2007, 10:21 AM

Do you do any traditional work? I would love to see some large canvases with this same style,,just a thought.

Yes I do. Sometimes. :) For instance:

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/rest.jpg

It's a fast food restaurant, Gravenhurst, Ontario.
Media: giclee on canvas 40"x60". I have Epson 9800 so I printed it self.

sve

May 24th, 2007, 11:04 AM

hahahaha. they probably carry a spoon into ear instead of mouth in this restaurant, walls are better than outdoors... look gorgeous and very tasteful! I wish it was in my town, place with walls like this...

asoir

May 24th, 2007, 11:26 AM

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/x765.jpg love the composition!

SanBase

June 28th, 2007, 01:29 PM

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/ex779.jpg

Jungle-3
http://www.sanbase.com

Coleb

June 29th, 2007, 04:28 PM

I can´t believe that I´m the only one seeing a little Dali in these. Something about the tightness of the line?

Earlier someone was asking about Picasso - I think you´re thinking of Guernica, which was indeed during the Spanish civil war, specifically the brutal bombing of the town of the same name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg

Most enlightening discussion. Good work SanBase.

SanBase

July 13th, 2007, 02:03 PM

Some info about dynamic painting:
Computer Graphics Avant-Garde (Tom's Hardware): http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/09/san_base_computer_graphics_avant-garde/index.html

kev ferrara

July 13th, 2007, 03:21 PM

Yeah, a little dali, a little lebbeus woods, some tanguy...

If you consider Kandinsky to be anything more than a decorative artist, then this computer generated design is the same stuff. Both based on some formulas that cause strange shapes and colors to appear in decorative arrangements that seem to have some tangential relation to landscapes or buildings or something that it sorta looks like. (see Kandinsky's Point and Line to Plane)

Its like the Mandelbrot "art". Its really just mathematically generated designs.

I personally tend to believe that art is a personal interpretation of the world, which requires the direct hand of the artist upon the work. The more apparatus between the artist and the work, the less personal it is. The more the computer slicks your work up, the more the work is the computer's. The more assistants a painter has, the less personal the work is for the painter.

kev

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101106

SanBase

July 14th, 2007, 09:17 PM

I personally tend to believe that art is a personal interpretation of the world
Agree.
which requires the direct hand of the artist upon the work.

What do you mean "direct hand"?
Do you think this image has been created by the computer without me? Randomly?

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/x577.jpg

San

kev ferrara

July 14th, 2007, 10:30 PM

San, most of the works you post would qualify as decorative in my book. Which is not to say I don't find your work both beautiful and interesting and innovative. I just make a distinction between decorative art and, what I guess could be called, "fine art" (but which I tend to call "expressive realism".)

They used to call decorative arts "the applied arts" which I prefer, because these crafts were "arts" meant to be applied to objects and structures as decoration. And there was always some element of precision and math involved in these productions.

Its a beautiful work, this last one. Very exciting. Very decorative. Lots of interesting shapes and patterns.

But I have a thousand photoshop filters myself so the patterns themselves don't impress me. The patterns aren't interpretations of clouds and earth, they are abstract stylizations that you have put in the sky and the ground plane. There is no further meaning to them. They don't resonate, they decorate.

I do like those two shapes that resemble figures holding each other, though.

Your artwork in the above post, to me, is akin to De Kooning's work. It is the total domination of a figural element by a specific decorative style to the point that the figural element becomes so abstracted that it is left as only a graphic design or an icon of the original subject.

That's all well and good and does convey some meaning, but it is too general to be of lasting interest to me at least. But I would agree that the above work, like much of De Kooning's is personal enough, has enough integrity, and has enough of the earmarks of an artist's hand that it rises to the level of Fine Art (by which I mean "expressive realism").

But the lack of specificity in your image is sort of like telling a story like this...

A guy went and did something fascinating that nearly killed him, but it didn't kill him and then he went home.

You understand the story, but you ask, "is that all there is? Get back to me when you know the details."

It is the personal that makes art universal.

Abstraction, on the other hand, removes personality. It simplifies, codifies, stratifies...

And if you abstract with aid of a computer, the personality that you eject gets replaced with cold digital slickness which has nothing whatsoever to do with art. Beware your collaborators!

Best,
kev

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101106

sanhueza

July 15th, 2007, 09:15 PM

But I see no point behind it except for making pretty images.

That is what art is all about!

kev ferrara

July 15th, 2007, 10:55 PM

That is what art is all about!

Boy, did you just lose this argument big time!

What's that great line that Louis Armstrong had about explaining Jazz music... "There's some people that, if they don't know, you can't tell them!"

That's you my friend.

You think it's all about nothing, just pretty pictures -- totally shallow. Well, I think that says a lot about you, and almost nothing about art.

Best,
kev

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101106

sanhueza

July 16th, 2007, 12:56 AM

It's funny how this guy arbitrarily decides who has won or lost an argument. "You disagree with me, so, you lost!!!"

Everyone is free to develop their own beliefs on what art means to them. For myself, the most important part of art is to create an image that has an impact on people. That impact could be emotionally or intellectually moving, it could cause uneasiness or turn someone's world upside down, or it could very simply and most often be something that is aesthetically pleasing. Anything else, like conveying a message or attempting to prove some conceptual theory or demonstrate one's skill with a particular technique, is secondary.

That is what art means to ME. I'm not alone in my beliefs, yet I know there are many people out there who think very differently from me. That's okay. It SHOULD be like that. There is so much out there that will appeal to one person, yet will turn off another. It's totally subjective and that's one of the things I love about art: la variedad.

It's unfortunate that there are still individuals out there who are so frighteningly fundamentalist that they try to impose their own opinions and limitations on the creativity of others. Hopefully SanBase will not be discouraged from pursuing what he enjoys doing by such people. Peace,

- me

kev ferrara

July 16th, 2007, 10:49 AM

I was responding to your statement that art is "all about making pretty pictures".

What you just posted, I agree totally with. I guess you must have reconsidered.

Best,
Fundamentalist Kev

Scary Fundamentalist Art Thread: http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101106

SanBase

August 16th, 2007, 10:46 AM

Fine Art, Decorative Art - who care? :teeth: It's a new form of art - DYNAMIC picture. It did not exist before.
Take a look at this demo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPNtiZW9xbM
It's very important to understand that the dynamic picture don’t really have a beginning or and. The images are in a constant transformation. It's endless show.

Regards,
San (www.sanbase.com)

donalfall

August 16th, 2007, 09:09 PM

These are still looking great. Congrats on the restaurant commission. ( And owning a quality large scale printer, I am jealous ) Is that a typical scale of your commissions or have you been asked to provide single works? And would you let the customer give some input into the commission/appearance of the finished piece? Sorry about the questions, you've made me curious.

MEMPER

August 17th, 2007, 12:53 AM

I have read most of these posts here. Its agreed that no one person has the definitive meaning for art. fine. That is not the argument here for me.
I like these images. But it goes only that far.
They are not inspiring.
They dont make me want to work harder.
Probably because its evident that this type of artwork requires
-very little effort-.

For this art, one need not study anything, train in anything, develop any kind of SKILLS whatsoever. Essentially anyone with half a brain could press the activate button...
What makes these special from the next person doing the same thing? Your hard earned ability to say: ok, aaaannnnd stop!" C'mon gimmie a break...

Websters Dictionary defines quality as: "degree of excellence"

Maybe I can sum up my view here: Do I see "EXCELLENCE" here?
Not really.

P.S. Dont use the past to defend and justify the present(ie. Pollack, Picasso, etc..).
Use the present to defend and justify the present.

MEMPER

August 17th, 2007, 01:14 AM

1)screenshot taken from an online video.
2)a manipulated image seen somewhere online. pressed 1 button.

Blaze Firestorm

August 17th, 2007, 02:18 AM

so before any colors or shapes are ever on the screen... what do YOU have to do? i've never heard of generative art until this thread.

are there lines of code that you type? sliders you mess with and values that you input, do you draw some shapes? i don't get it :(

capt underoo

August 17th, 2007, 03:01 AM

there is no one definition to art...the people who are having problems accepting this is because they are used to images that have some physicality to them, an artist who painted, scultpted..., created the image with their own hands, the ones where you can see the experience and skill and the blood, sweat and tears that all lead up to the finished product....people keep saying that this is concept art and images that sanbase creates are not. Well, I just went to dictionary.com and looked up the word "concept" and it is stated as thus "a general notion or idea; conception" and this is the first definition for art "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance"
It seems to me that sanbase came up with a concept, and produced something aesthetic with it...so shouldn't this be considered concept art...also, if you go off of the "or of more than ordinary significance" his work should be here because this is one of the more unique threads on this site and has envoked a lot of people's attention.

SanBase

August 17th, 2007, 09:04 AM

For this art, one need not study anything, train in anything, develop any kind of SKILLS whatsoever. Essentially anyone with half a brain could press the activate button...

Really? The question is: who has made this button? Another computer? :bashful:
Or anyone can make it because "one need not study anything, train in anything, develop any kind of SKILLS whatsoever."?
If it is so simple - try to make an own dynamic picture! :wink:

Modern computers don’t possess a “true” artificial intelligence in a sense that they cannot come up with images on their own and they perform only what they are instructed to do. The computer is nothing more than a tool in this process.

It is not a secret that many artists, who have found a successful style and form, exploited it for many years by painting similar pictures without much creativity. A dynamic painting can do the same thing at much higher speed -- generating many images per minute instead of 2-3 paintings per week that most of conventional artist can paint. :wink: The real challenge is coming up with an original idea for a dynamic painting as well as producing it; after that a computer can mechanically generate variations. Computer, as a tool, frees up artist’s time to do what as an artist he does the best – create and innovate.

In any case my goal is not to create countless heaps of static paintings; the Dynamic Painting is a new art form. Just like a movie is not a collection of individual frames, the Dynamic Painting is not a collection of static images.

Regards,
San
www.sanbase.com

ciots

August 17th, 2007, 09:14 AM

haha, still getting the old "its not art" arguments, people's stupidity doesn't seem to come to an end..
im seconding his "you make it if it's so easy" point.

Randis

August 17th, 2007, 09:45 AM

As it seems that now everyone can do art, everyone can judge it as well.

i could chew some color and spit it on toilet paper, as long as some people are willing to pay money for it i can call it art. On the other hand i have to accept those who do not accept it as art.

no one should have hard feelings about it

Zaknafain

August 17th, 2007, 09:51 AM

Just consider this:
If painting an orc warrior with an axe in a standard pose, standard composition and standard palette is sooooo much more difficult then creating a dynamic picture, then why do I see about 20 orks a day while this thread here is the only example I know of the latter...
Doesn't look to me like everybody can do that... -_-

MEMPER

August 17th, 2007, 11:00 AM

"Really? The question is: who has made this button? Another computer?"

-That is not the question. This isnt about human involvement. This is about you.
The question is: Did you merely activate a program and press a button (or a few) to get what you have?
-probably-
-Again, VERY LITTLE EFFORT INVOLVED

""Or anyone can make it because "one need not study anything, train in anything, develop any kind of SKILLS whatsoever."?
If it is so simple - try to make your own dynamic picture!"

-Oh, so you're saying you HAVE developed special skills over a long period of time?
-Again, VERY LITTLE EFFORT INVOLVED.
-I did make a Generative Art Image. I made two. See posted images above. It was effortless.
-IF MY LITTLE BROTHER CAME TO YOUR HOUSE, USED YOUR COMPUTER, AND YOUR PROGRAM, COULD HE MAKE WHAT YOU MAKE?
answer? -yes-

"Modern computers don’t possess a “true” artificial intelligence in a sense that they cannot come up with images on their own and they perform only what they are instructed to do. The computer is nothing more than a tool in this process."

-True. But you rely on the strength of the particular program to create your art. So do I. But Photoshop/Painter cannot create a robot or a car or an ork FOR me.
I must tell it to through the use of MY DECISIONS and countless actions on MY PART.

"It is not a secret that many artists, who have found a successful style and form, exploited it for many years by painting similar pictures without much creativity."
-So you agree then that your process is 'without much creativity'.

"A dynamic painting can do the same thing at much higher speed.."
-So you're saying that what you do is speedy, lacks creativity, and you are exploiting the sameness of the images your program produces.

"Just like a movie is not a collection of individual frames, the Dynamic Painting is not a collection of static images."
-Actually, movies are just that. A collection of static images strung together.

Please, San, I urge you to post an actual painting or drawing or sculpture of yours that uses actual paint, graphite, or sculptural medium.
Master the rules before deciding to break them. Picasso was an excellent realist before discovering cubism.

Regards,
Memper

MEMPER

August 17th, 2007, 11:50 AM

GENERATIVE ART
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Generative art refers to art that has been generated, composed, or constructed in an algorithmic manner through the use of systems defined by computer software algorithms, or similar mathematical or mechanical or RANDOMIZED AUTONOMOUS PROCESSES...
Generative art is a system oriented art practice where the common denominator is the use of systems as a production method. To meet the definition of generative art, an artwork must be self-contained and operate with some degree of AUTONOMY. The workings of systems in generative art might resemble, or RELY ON, various scientific theories such as Complexity science and Information theory. The systems of generative artworks have many similarities with systems found in various areas of science. Such systems may exhibit order and/or disorder, as well as a varying degree of complexity, MAKING BEHAVIORAL PREDICTION DIFFICULT...
...An artist or creator will usually set down certain ground-rules or formulae and/or templates materials, and will then set a random or semi-random process to work on those elements. THE RESULTS WILL REMAIN SOMEWHAT WITHIN SET LIMITS, but may also be subject to subtle or even startling mutations. THE IDEA OF PUTTING THE ART MAKING PROCESS IN THE PLACE OF A PREGENERATED ARTWORK IS A KEY FEATURE IN GENERATIVE ART, HIGHLIGHTING THE PROCESS-ORIENTATION AS AN ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC..."

SanBase

August 17th, 2007, 06:18 PM

The question is: Did you merely activate a program and press a button (or a few) to get what you have?
-probably-
-Again, VERY LITTLE EFFORT INVOLVED

Incorrectly. You can turn on TV and watch the movie. It does not mean that YOU have made this movie.

-Oh, so you're saying you HAVE developed special skills over a long period of time?
-Again, VERY LITTLE EFFORT INVOLVED.
I have 5 years of a classical fine art education and about 20 years of experience as a software developer. Any dynamic picture is a set of programs and textures. The same program - the same picture. I mean the same DYNAMIC picture, of course (the static instances will be different anyway).
So if you want to create a new dynamic picture, you should make about 15-20 GLSL shaders (programs) and 300-500 colormaps (idea, plot, composition, transformation - it's another story.) Usually it takes from 2-3 days to 2-3 weeks of my time. I can not say that it is a little effort. :)

-I did make a Generative Art Image. I made two. See posted images above. It was effortless.

It is not a generative art. You have manually (in Photoshop, I think) made a combination from two of my images, nothing more.

-IF MY LITTLE BROTHER CAME TO YOUR HOUSE, USED YOUR COMPUTER, AND YOUR PROGRAM, COULD HE MAKE WHAT YOU MAKE?
answer? -yes-.
Answer - not now. He can watch a dynamic picture (as a viewer) but he can not make an own picture. After 5 years of university and some fine art education - maybe.

Please, San, I urge you to post an actual painting or drawing or sculpture of yours that uses actual paint, graphite, or sculptural medium. Master the rules before deciding to break them. Picasso was an excellent realist before discovering cubism

My dear, I'm50 years old... I have spent many-many years with paints and brushes, blieve me or not. :)

Some of my DIGITAL (static) works you can find here: www.sanbase.com/art

Ellingsworth

August 17th, 2007, 07:01 PM

My dear, I'm50 years old... I have spent many-many years with paints and brushes, blieve me or not.

Some of my DIGITAL (static) works you can find here: www.sanbase.com/art
Reply With Quote

Hey, SanBase. Your website is giving me a RED McAfee SiteAdvisor warning, you might want to try and fix this, seeing as how it might push some visitors away. :)

SanBase

August 17th, 2007, 07:36 PM

Hey, SanBase. Your website is giving me a RED McAfee SiteAdvisor warning, you might want to try and fix this, seeing as how it might push some visitors away. :)

It seems so I had a problem with canadiancontent.net. This link has been deleted few months ago. SiteAdvisor usеs out-of-date information. :) Thanks anyway!

Kamikazebob

August 17th, 2007, 07:52 PM

Why do you insist on arguing what this is exactly? I'm not an expert (Hell, I'm still in High school. ) But programming is an art form unto itself and therefore why not think of it that way?
I greatly respect this and I want to see more. :D

-Bob

Ellingsworth

August 17th, 2007, 08:02 PM

It seems so I had a problem with canadiancontent.net. This link has been deleted few months ago. SiteAdvisor usеs out-of-date information. :) Thanks anyway!

Oh, now I understand. Well, I left you a site review and a "green-check" rating for McAfee Site Advisor, hope you get it worked out. :)

SanBase

August 18th, 2007, 07:14 PM

There is an article about my work in the latest issue of the IEEE Computer Graphics magazine - and my picture on the cover. :)
One more article about my technic is here (tom's hardware): http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/09/san_base_computer_graphics_avant-garde/

Best
San.

P.S.
http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/x830.jpg

What do you see here?

Ebony-chan

August 18th, 2007, 10:53 PM

SanBase your works are really beautiful, reminds me of some of the old heavy Metal mags in a way. More please show more. =)

MEMPER

August 19th, 2007, 01:03 PM

GENERATIVE ART
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Generative art refers to art that has been generated, composed, or constructed in an algorithmic manner through the use of systems defined by computer software algorithms, or similar mathematical or mechanical or RANDOMIZED AUTONOMOUS PROCESSES...
Generative art is a system oriented art practice where the common denominator is THE USE OF SYSTEMS AS A PRODUCTION METHOD. To meet the definition of generative art, an artwork must be self-contained and operate with some degree of AUTONOMY. The workings of systems in generative art might resemble, or RELY ON, various scientific theories such as Complexity science and Information theory. The systems of generative artworks have many similarities with systems found in various areas of science. Such systems may exhibit order and/or disorder, as well as a varying degree of complexity, MAKING BEHAVIORAL PREDICTION DIFFICULT...
...An artist or creator will usually set down certain ground-rules or formulae and/or TEMPLATES materials, and will then set a RANDOM OR SEMI-RANDOM PROCESS TO WORK ON THOSE ELEMENTS. THE RESULTS WILL REMAIN SOMEWHAT WITHIN SET LIMITS, but may also be subject to subtle or even startling mutations. THE IDEA OF PUTTING THE ART MAKING PROCESS IN THE PLACE OF A PREGENERATED ARTWORK IS A KEY FEATURE IN GENERATIVE ART, HIGHLIGHTING THE PROCESS-ORIENTATION AS AN ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC..."

highlights: Make your own decision folks...
-RANDOMIZED AUTONOMOUS PROCESSES
-THE USE OF SYSTEMS AS A PRODUCTION METHOD
-MAKING BEHAVIORAL PREDICTION DIFFICULT
-RANDOM OR SEMI-RANDOM PROCESS TO WORK ON THOSE ELEMENTS. THE RESULTS WILL REMAIN SOMEWHAT WITHIN SET LIMITS(!!!!)
-THE IDEA OF PUTTING THE ART MAKING PROCESS IN THE PLACE OF A PREGENERATED ARTWORK IS A KEY FEATURE IN GENERATIVE ART, HIGHLIGHTING THE PROCESS-ORIENTATION AS AN ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC (!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Dile_

August 19th, 2007, 05:46 PM

Stop being such fucking hypocrite Memper. "My Opinion and wikipedia skills are the once to follow!!?!??!?!!!!111ONE1112OOOEnne!!1111" You act like a 11 year old with all your caps'ing . Now enjoy the work, he never asked for some demonstrative shit to point out totally irrelevant info about his work.
"Make your decisions folks..." About what ?!?

Offtopic or on Topic, you decide.. But I love this one ( from your gallery )

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/x577.jpg

:)

Spyplane

August 19th, 2007, 06:38 PM

I have seen this thread before and thought it was pretty interesting what your doing. And for the record people, why bother arguing over some images?! Where do you see yourself going with this, and are you improving on the skills or knowledge it takes to generate these images?

ciots

August 19th, 2007, 06:39 PM

i always come back to this thread, mainly because it's so damn interesting.
sanbase, i know i shove praise onto you, but honestly, there's something about the idea of you creating a world of this art using programming which is enthralling

all the best

alti

August 19th, 2007, 07:00 PM

i like your work more and more. you should post some detailed close up images like you did in that interview with toms hardware. tempted to order a print of this piece for the studio wall.
http://images.tomshardware.com/2007/07/09/san_base_computer_graphics_avant-garde/ex519-small.jpg

dont stop posting.
-alti

Compact Disaster

August 20th, 2007, 04:19 AM

there is more to producing generative art then "activate a program and press a button (or a few)" you have to understand the languge you are putting into the programme.
So it is like understanding how to use ur hand to draw the human shape.
If you have a handicapped person who loves art and wants to produce art but is incapable of using his hands (in a manner of holding a pencil/pen), does that give him a reason to forget his passion????NO (this is an example to wat programmes can help with)

Also yes it is conceptart.org so wat maybe it was based on concept art in the beggining but as life goes on we evolve becoming better and more open minded (well some people do), so do websites.

SanBase

August 22nd, 2007, 08:38 AM

It’s imperative to understand that it’s insignificant how you create a piece of art; in any case the viewer doesn't see the process. What is important is the result of your efforts. In case of a classical painting technology the connection between the artist and a canvas is direct:

painter’s hand->canvas.

In my case one intermediate step is added:

painter’s hand->computer code->canvas.

However, it doesn't change the gist of it. Only I, as an artist, can define how the piece will look; the computer is merely a tool for presenting my design.
I've stated it earlier that computer can only create variations of artist’s creations; it can't add anything on its own. But in many cases the artists create variations only -- it’s sufficient to look at the examples posted on this forum. A lot of works represent variations of just a few subjects: a monster, a heroine in armor with a sword, or a futuristic city. :) If you put that into a computer, it can create variations as well as human can. The creative element in that process is next to nothing. It’s another matter to think up new themes; and computer is helpless in this case.

Here are several instances of one painting (i.e. variations created by computer):

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/x753.jpg
http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/x752.jpg
http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/x756.jpg
As you can see, it is THE SAME picture.

And here is another painting:

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/x831.jpg

I think you can easily see the difference.

matias

August 24th, 2007, 07:48 AM

Hi SanBase, a very interesting thread, this is my first exposure to Generative Art so thank you indeed, it is always interesting to see new and amazing styles and techniques. I personally do not get into alot of abstract art, i think alot of it goes over my head but I have never doubted its value.

My first impressions of Generative Art is actually of Pollack, not in the outcome but in the method. I know that might sound weird, but, he chose his colours and movements but didnt actually make brush>canvas contact, instead letting the random effects of gravity combined with his movements to apply the paint. Thats the feel I get from these, initial decisions followed by random(ish) outcomes.

Also Memper, to say to ignore the past in art is sad indeed, (also wasnt the mona lisa at the press of a button brought up earlier by someone else?) art is all about exploring our cultures, which is basically our past, present and future.

As for effort I have done only the slightest amount of programming (creating a pong game in flash at uni... from a text book :S ) and found it very difficult indeed, I can only imagine what it would take to program something capable of creating such images. On that point, just to clarify, this is not done in a program either bought or downloaded from another source, SanBase is writing this progam(s) yourself?

Anyways, thank you for sharing this SanBase, please continue to do so (if only to stimulate lively debate, which is after all not a new thing in the world of debate).

Cheers
Matias

mikeasaurus

August 24th, 2007, 11:17 AM

I have a few friends that program, and I can definitely say that programming is an art (albeit a nerdy one). I'm sure you've done more than just click a button to create your dynamic art, however I am sure that to create a static image you really only do need to click just once (print screen). BAM! $500.00 fee for the canvas please. The fact that you state that you only have limited prints for each image is laughable, considering there are in infinite amount of images that can be generated from even 10 seconds of your dynamic.

Here's how I see it. The true art you are creating is the DYNAMIC picture, which I would say is art. Modernist, dynamic art. It's new, and has a place.

The static image by-products, though are technically still art, I would say that they are not to the same caliber as the dynamic installment. Not even close.

What makes your art interesting is that it's fluid and constantly evolving. Your algorithms are obviously different for each 'series', which makes your galleries have 'feel', which I like. I think the true medium for this is not printed canvas (though as previously mentioned, some people like it and would love to have the static images on their wall). No the best medium for this is to have an LCD with the program on it which can accurately display exactly what the algorithm can acomplish.

While the static images do occasionally create some nice variations and interesting shapes, it seems like it's selling the true power of your work short, which is too bad.

Whether or not to call it art. I'm unsure. If I had never known that the static images were part of something much larger, then I'd say yes. But now that I know, why would you ever even want static images? the dynamic aspect blows them away.

Refine your algorithms, and your code. Create something else using the same technology, advance, just like every other artist. What you have here is great (even though I'm not a huge fan, I do like the concept, and the textures hidden in the randomness), just don't get pigeon-holed into thinking this is the be all to end all.

Bottom line: The static images are a bastardization of your true art, which is programming. You've done a great job of manipulating your computer to come up with some really great evolving pictures, seeing the static images ruins the beauty of not being able to see every detail in every frame.

Keep it up, SanBase

-michaelsaurus

SanBase

August 27th, 2007, 10:01 PM

I am sure that to create a static image you really only do need to click just once (print screen). BAM! $500.00 fee for the canvas please.
You can do the same. You can print a COPY of your real work and sell it for $500 (instead of 5.000 for the original work). It is the same process. But I can print a slightly DIFFERENT picture every time. You can not!

The static image by-products, though are technically still art, I would say that they are not to the same caliber as the dynamic installment. Not even close.

That's absolutely correct. My product is a dynamic picture. But HOW I can show a real dynamic picture here? It requires hardware that costs 3-4.000 dollars. A real dynamic picture is a toy for rich people at the moment...

If I had never known that the static images were part of something much larger, then I'd say yes. But now that I know, why would you ever even want static images? the dynamic aspect blows them away.
I consider a static picture to be a poster of the dynamic one. You can't buy Mona Lisa, but you can hang the reproduction on your wall. Maybe the real picture looks a bit better but... anyway it's better than nothing. :)
Some instances look really nice, you will wait a long time before you find something like it but this image will disappear in few minutes anyway... So these instances have been extracted (by me) from the infinity pool. As I've told it is a new kind or art and you can't compare it with traditional technique.

SanBase

September 14th, 2007, 10:34 AM

Over the Hills and Far Away

http://www.sanbase.com/art/img/x914.jpg

www.sanbase.com

SanBase

April 1st, 2008, 06:53 PM

Now I can create not only dynamic images but as also dynamic sound.
Take a look at my latest work, please: http://www.sanbase.com/demo/test.html (flash)

So the picture not only has an extra dimention (time), but also sound.

San.

~Faust~

April 2nd, 2008, 02:07 AM

I am sorry but I seem not to be able to access your website at the moment. I am still a big fan of your art, though.

SanBase

April 2nd, 2008, 08:56 AM

I am sorry but I seem not to be able to access your website at the moment.

Hmm... Try this one: http://www.sanbasestudio.com/demo/test.html
My host (sanbase.com) has been upgraded yesterday by provider, so I have some technical difficulties now. :)

MEMPER

April 2nd, 2008, 09:48 AM

This thread has been viewed 12,762 times with 171 other responses. Things that are obviously questionable usually hold much debate.

Question:
When has the work of Dos Santos, Andrew J, Marko , Alexi, Justin Sweet, Gangus, Coro, Dociu, Foster, Geddes, e-338, Nox, Steak Tron, etc (see best of CA for more); not to mention the masters of the past, been questioned?
Answer:
IT HASN'T. The work speaks for itself. (whoops, sorry Dile about the 11yr old caps'ing. And btw a hypocrite is the practice of claiming to have beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. I dont believe I did this in my previous response)

SanBase here as well as his other threads must speak for his work. NOT the other way around.

Basically, the proof is in the pudding.

~Faust~

April 2nd, 2008, 12:35 PM

Thank you so much! Works like a charm now :)

Ohaeri

April 3rd, 2008, 12:06 PM

Memper . . . not to be snarky or anything, but you do know that Picasso's work was (and is, by common people) heavily questioned when he was alive? Seriously, go up to someone you casually know and ask them if they think that Picasso's stuff is art. Unless they're educated in art history they'll most likely say "no." Yet we know Picasso to be one of the greatest people in art history.

Photography was once not considered an art form. According to wikipedia: "Alfred Stieglitz (January 1, 1864 – July 13, 1946) was an American photographer who was instrumental over his fifty-year career in making photography an acceptable art form alongside painting and sculpture." And yeah, I still know some people who say that it's not art. But it has been officially recognized in every major gallery system in the world, so tough monkeys to the people who think it's not. :)

I even had two art teachers--people in positions of power in specialized schools, mind you--who said that nobody who works on the computer can be an artist. They (and many other people I've met) have a hard time believing that the computer doesn't do all the work--they think that Photoshop, Painter, ArtRage, etc. are all just easy ways out of painting! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_art#Description_and_techniques Read the first sentence of the fifth paragraph there if you need more proof of how far digital art has to go as far as the public eye goes.) Of course I don't think that's true, and I would assume you don't either! But by extension, that means that many, many, MANY of the people here on CA.org have had their work questioned by at least two people that I can personally verify. Does that make their work not art? I know you wouldn't dream of saying to anyone here, "No offense, but while this is (beautiful/amazing/wonderful/astounding/whatever), it was done on a computer. Sorry, it's not art. And it'll never belong in a gallery, either." (Or at least I hope you wouldn't dream of doing so, but hey, I've got a squeegee ready if you would! :D) It would be a slap to the face and gravely insulting to the amount of time and effort they put into their work, not to mention wrong.

So, no, the proof is not always in the pudding. Sometimes it takes a long time for an art form or medium to be recognized. Just because it is not recognized now doesn't mean that it never will be or never should be.

Furthermore, you should know that SanBase coded the program that he's using to generate these pictures, as he's stated elsewhere in this thread. The computer didn't come up with it itself and he's not profiting off of someone else's hard programming work. That, to me, says something.

SanBase, sorry to hijack your thread. I'm a fractal artist myself and have been working in the field for five years, so this topic hits somewhat close to home for me. I felt the need to respond. On your art, it's not really my cup of tea per se (I prefer less choatic scenes), but I think it's really interesting. Some of the textures you generate with the program are very pleasing to the eye. One thing that is a technical quibble, and this may just be because it's often using the same scene at different points. I feel like a lot of the pictures are a bit "same-y" and revisit old ground a lot. I'd like to see more dynamic compositions and different scenes (with less of the same spikey towers), but I also realize that these things take time, and that you'll likely get there in your own time. So it's not much of a problem really. :) I'd also like to know, what language did you use to program this?

P.S.: Sorry for the textwall guys. :^^;:

MEMPER

April 3rd, 2008, 04:58 PM

"So, no, the proof is not always in the pudding. Sometimes it takes a long time for an art form or medium to be recognized. Just because it is not recognized now doesn't mean that it never will be or never should be."

I agree with what you said here Fanficbug. I also agree that Sanbase probably has worked really hard on the programming end of his visuals.

What you said about Picasso is true as well. However, Picasso spent years of study and practice of realism long before cubism came along. Same goes with Pollack before his short stint with "splattering".

A thought: How much imagination is used while using the generative software? And I dont mean during the programming or during the image capturing.

**sorry for being a nudge**

egerie

April 3rd, 2008, 06:26 PM

What a day to come out of the woodwork :)

archipelago

April 3rd, 2008, 06:41 PM

A thought: How much imagination is used while using the generative software? And I dont mean during the programming or during the image capturing.
A thought: How much imagination is used while painting a portrait? And I dont mean during the linework or during the painting.

ab4185

April 3rd, 2008, 10:06 PM

sorry i got tired of reading through this thread so i apologize if this has already been asked but do you have any other mediums of art or traditional medium paintings that can show us some of your other abilities?

cheers

SanBase

April 4th, 2008, 11:20 AM

do you have any other mediums of art or traditional medium paintings that can show us some of your other abilities?

For what? I have 4 years of classical Fine Art education (I graduated in USSR, so it was true CLASSICAL education) but now I've found my own technique and I suppose so this technics is unique.
I think we have lost a subject of discussion. Look at http://www.sanbase.com/demo/test.html
I want to know your opinions concerning this work but not about me personally. :)

San

Darasen

April 4th, 2008, 12:03 PM

A thought: How much imagination is used while painting a portrait? And I dont mean during the linework or during the painting.

http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6938

or search Androids thread and ask that again.

benkashmir

April 4th, 2008, 01:13 PM

the sound is a nice addon.

sorry if my question sound stupid, but is the music also dynamic?

benkashmir

April 4th, 2008, 01:39 PM

MEMPER WROTE -
" Picasso was an excellent realist before discovering cubism."

and if picasso wasnt an excellent realist, wouldnt his cubism stand on its own?

SanBase

April 4th, 2008, 10:44 PM

sorry if my question sound stupid, but is the music also dynamic?

Yes it is.

FunkdaFide

April 5th, 2008, 12:32 AM

I struggled with this for quite a while, I didn't like it at first. I was very opposed and had this giant response written out explaining why I didn't appreciate it. When I was all finished I thought I would take another look at your website before possibly stuffing my foot in my mouth.

Now I will say just this, I really like some of your pieces. However, I would pay no more than the price of a poster for any of them and I think your prices are very pretentious. I also do not agree with selling these prints on canvas, as it seems like nothing more than a "value-adding" factor. But hey, gotta pay the bills.

This is your art and I am happy that you are making a living doing what you love. I wish you luck in taking this to the next level.

Ohaeri

April 5th, 2008, 09:54 AM

What you said about Picasso is true as well. However, Picasso spent years of study and practice of realism long before cubism came along. Same goes with Pollack before his short stint with "splattering".

A thought: How much imagination is used while using the generative software? And I dont mean during the programming or during the image capturing.

**sorry for being a nudge**

Nah, it's fine. :)

It's true that Picasso spent a long time on realism before moving to cubism; however, I'm relatively sure that say, Ansel Adams spent very little to no time studying realistic drawing before moving on to photography from performance art, and I don't think his art is negatively affected by the omission. I really think it's a question of whether someone needs something like that for their work. Yes, a few concepts from painting and drawing carry over to art like what SanBase is creating (such as composition, value, texture, color, and a few more I'm sure I'm not thinking of :D), but it's not nearly as important that he be able to draw for this type of thing. It can be learned along the way. And like benkashmir said (and what I was going to bring up myself :D), shouldn't Picasso's cubist works stand on their own? I think they do. (I mean, just look at what he was able to accomplish with "Guernica" in so little space--it evokes a lot of emotion and shows many different things without being cramped, which is to me one of the strengths of cubism.)

As for how much imagination, you have to look at the work as a whole. SanBase isn't just using a set landscape--he's said that he's able to feed it different parameters to achieve different effects. I took this to mean that he's able to say "okay, I want the background to be such-and-such color, with this texture, and I want it to rotate like so" and things like that. That is (to me) an integral part of the process. He's choosing a lot of the elements that go into one of these.

:) Just my take on it.