3 ms·

You could probably sell them even though you revealed how you did it.

• lisper 10y ago
  I dunno, I think a lot of the hoity-toity types who are willing to overpay for art would be put off by knowing that it was done by computer. For them, the value is in the scarcity more than the aesthetics: they want to have something that their friends don't (and can't!) have. So if it were me, I would choose not to reveal that anyone who knows how to use github and an inkjet printer can reproduce the results.
  • jamesjyu 10y ago
    That's not necessarily true. There are many examples of fine art which is made by computer and easily replicated by anyone. However, the prints themselves are limited in quantity (or, there may just one official print).
    • lisper 10y ago
      Of course. But do people pay top dollar for those? I don't actually know, but I doubt it.
      • RangerScience 10y ago
        This is how photography nearly always worked. I think there's some early photo tech that did only result in one image, but all of film photography produced 'prints'. Although I remember growing up with one print that deliberately had a fold in it, made by the artist as part of the art.
  • bootload 10y ago
    "I dunno, I think a lot of the hoity-toity types who are willing to overpay for art would be put off by knowing that it was done by computer. For them, the value is in the scarcity more than the aesthetics:" There is a portion of the art market that caters for interior design. A client might say something like, "I want a dozen in this colour, style with an ocean breeze feel." As soul destroying as this may be to an artist, some clients want their art by the numbers, colours and feel.
• seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  On a related note, perhaps Richard P Gabriel could also sell his machine generated poetry. The future will be interesting for artists.