4 ms·

I used to paint old masters portraits as a hobby (including Rembrandt). I think it's a bit disingenuous to describe this as 'painting'. On top of ma2rten's crit

I used to paint old masters portraits as a hobby (including Rembrandt). I think it's a bit disingenuous to describe this as 'painting'. On top of ma2rten's criticism that it basically photoshopped previous examples to create a most representative work, I'd add that 3D printing with texture is not painting. Rembrandt, in particular, was known for painting with countless layers of semi transparent glazes to give his paintings a sense of depth and an ethereal glow. He'd also mix his pigments with bindings aside from pure linseed oil, sometimes adding chalk or glass. 3D printing the final result with none of that process makes for a very limited reproduction. Also, I'll add that I think it's very impressive, but I think they're overselling it here.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
The 3D printed element is the least interesting part of the process because it's literally superficial. There's no reason you couldn't set up a robotic brush painter next to a robotic pigment factory to recreate all of the above. However - what's interesting to me is that the only way to make this work was by defining the features that were going to be included, analysing and averaging them separately, and gluing them together to create a whole. This wasn't a "Throw everything into an RNN and see if something useful falls out" project. It deliberately separated specific target features. That works well for an artist with very consistent and narrow clothing, lighting, and background choices, and limited model poses. It might not work so well for artists who included a much wider range of imagery - which is probably most of them.