35 ms·
This Artwork Does Not Exist
- benkoller 7y agoOut of sheer self-interest: Do you intentionally obscure the source of the file? I'd be interested to save some of these (for non-commercial, strictly private usage).
- mattkevan 7y agoReally tempted to paint some of these, thereby closing the human > machine > human loop. Could be an interesting experiment.
- gildandstain 7y agoMy (human) collaborator and I took on something like this a couple of years ago: https://veronica-projectspace.com/zack-davis-rebecca-friedman https://veronica-projectspace.com/zack-davis-rebecca-friedma...
- Juliate 7y agoIt's abstract per construction. There's no intent, no meaning, no purpose, no origin, no artist into these.
- freepor 7y agoIt all looks terrible to me but then so does 60% of the stuff in the museum of Modern Art.
- abriosi 7y agohttps://thiseyedoesnotexist.com/ https://thiseyedoesnotexist.com/
- pxndxx 7y agoI've always wanted to do something like this, but wired up to your webcam to detect when you blink. When you do, update the picture to a new one, to make extremely ephemeral art.
- nkrisc 7y agoSo it will be like a timelapse video but in every picture you have your eyes closed?
- sp332 7y agoNo, it just uses your eyeblinks to time when to switch artworks.
- nkrisc 7y agoI totally misunderstood your comment. I thought you meant it would track you and take a picture of you and create art out of those pictures. Reading your comment again I'm not really sure how I came to that conclusion at the time. I thought that was a really dumb idea, but turns out it was mine the whole time. Your actual idea is much cooler. To expand on your idea, it would be cool if every time you blinked or looked away, it wasn't a completely new picture, but the same one that is subtly changed, such that it slowly morphs over time, but only as you aren't looking. I suppose you could pre-generate quite a few steps in advance and then mete them out gradually.
- joosters 7y agoI think the more shocking version would be ThisArtworkDoesExist.com - just fill it with some of the worst 'real' modern art that has somehow got displayed in a gallery.
- pzumk 7y agoJust forward the domain to the $ 120.000 Banana [1] or something even more ridiculous. [1] https://www.vogue.com/article/the-120000-art-basel-banana-explained-maurizio-cattelan https://www.vogue.com/article/the-120000-art-basel-banana-ex...
- rolling_robot 7y agohttps://thisxdoesnotexist.com/ https://thisxdoesnotexist.com/
- hestefisk 7y agohttps://thishorsedoesnotexist.com/ https://thishorsedoesnotexist.com/
- coldcode 7y agoAs an abstract digital artist I find most of these not interesting enough for me but the real issue is a GAN cannot make images that are big enough to print without looking like crap or taking forever. A decent sized 30x30in looks good at 300 dpi which is 81M pixels. I need a decent computer and video card to work at this size. A GAN would need to be massively bigger to function at this scale.
- arketyp 7y agoGANs can be made fully convolutional so that you can generate images of abritrary size. But the training of the latent space will still be limited by memory and speed, so you'd end up with images that are perhaps quite repetetive in nature.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- nkrisc 7y agoUnlike "This Person Does Not Exist", this artwork does, I should think, now exist. Is it possible to create artwork that doesn't exist?
- frereubu 7y agoReminds me rather of that not-technically NSFW image generator based on Yahoo's NSFW-detecting neural network, particularly the art gallery section. (Probably NSFW, by the way): https://open_nsfw.gitlab.io/ https://open_nsfw.gitlab.io/
- jeffmcmahan 7y agoThe results are indistinguishable from real modern art. That is to say, this AI is really bad at producing art.
- salamanderman 7y agoThis artwork does not exist, and is generally unattractive.
- bkeating 7y agoThis reminds me a lot of Brian Eno’s 77 Million Paintings: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/77_Million_Paintings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/77_Million_Paintings Perhaps this could fuel v2 ;)
- alg_fun 7y agowow, it somehow looks a lot better than previous GAN paintings I've seen. And there are weights of this network, shared by the author in twitter. https://mega.nz/#!TCgSVCTa!ZmcV381soxyqiQyHO4p60F5ogoHcaO1PqDF9ZuiHVQw https://mega.nz/#!TCgSVCTa!ZmcV381soxyqiQyHO4p60F5ogoHcaO1Pq... StyleGAN2 takes 512 dimensional vector as an input. Would be neat to attach some physical input device, like a matrix of dials... And encode your own painting with it :)
- pwason 7y agoIt does now.
- preillyme 7y agohaha haha haha
- sreekotay 7y agoRaises the question (again) eloquently: is art about what is expresses or what it evokes? (Nice work!)
- O_H_E 7y ago*expressed ?
- adrianmonk 7y agoI think they're using the so-called "literary present" verb tense. https://style.mla.org/literary-present-tense/ https://style.mla.org/literary-present-tense/
- mkl 7y agoOnly if "is expresses" is supposed to be "it expresses". Which would also make sense.
- sreekotay 7y agoOops! Yes... should have said "it expresses" (typo)
- adrianmonk 7y agoOh! I read it multiple times, and each time, my brain auto-corrected "is" to "it".
- Apocryphon 7y agoAh, modern art. https://imgur.com/JxOzgTM https://imgur.com/JxOzgTM
- anthony_romeo 7y agoThis is a good one too, subtle: https://imgur.com/3uo8VyJ https://imgur.com/3uo8VyJ
- Waterluvian 7y agoIt's clearly about depression. Look at the drab blue and the computer's lack of motivation to continue after one stroke. It knows it needs to get back into painting to snap out of this feedback loop of sadness. But even one brush stroke in and it feels like a pointless endeavor.
- Apocryphon 7y agoThe only winning move is not to paint.
- dwd 7y agoSign that one: Marvin
- listic 7y agoHow does this page disable "View Source"?
- Waterluvian 7y agoDoes it reimplememt a context menu? Surely you can hit F12? Can't test on mobile.
- kohtatsu 7y agoIt's just serving an image.
- SpaceManiac 7y agoBy serving a JPG file rather than an HTML document.
- ozten 7y agoIt doesn't serve up HTML, just an image. curl -v https://thisartworkdoesnotexist.com/ GET / HTTP/2 content-type: image/jpeg ... Warning: Binary output can mess up your terminal. Use "--output -" to tell
- jumarm 7y agoI'm pretty sure the server is just serving an image rather than an html file hence the lack of a source. I tested this using Safari and Google Chrome and when inspecting the image element, both browsers produced different <img/> tags which I assume is because of the browser itself.
- pjbk 7y agoNow get a robot to paint it.
- fcbrooklyn 7y agoIs it really a work of art if it doesn't include the obligatory ridiculous description? Something like "Opus #4, in mixed media. Through a re-imagining of the interaction between form and light, the artist challenges our preconceived notions regarding the interplay of history, science, and religion, transgressing the boundaries imposed by our own engagement in a patriarchal society, and forcing us to reconsider the role of art as a medium for change."
- jonplackett 7y agoI thought about this the other day while at the Louvre. Someone needs to make thisartworkdescriptiondoesnotexist.com
- earthbound19 7y agoAny markov chain generator working on a large enough input can simulate such gibberish. I linked to static output from one I made (in another thread).
- amoebaarriba 7y agoThisemotionalreactiontoartworkdoesnotexist.com This is silly
- stubish 7y agoYes. So often I've seen art that is completely devoid of meaning without the label, and it isn't obvious if the label is supposed to apply to a nearby pedestal or the wall it is affixed to. The label is the actual art work.
- notahacker 7y agoYou nailed it. I mean, my first thought on looking at the output was it's shit. But I'm pretty sure that with some meaningless verbiage generated from a corpus of art criticism (thisartcommentarydoesnotexist?) as a caption, it wouldn't look out of place in some modern art galleries and some collector would lap it up.
- lucidrains 7y agoHi all, this was trained by Michael Friesen (https://twitter.com/MichaelFriese10 https://twitter.com/MichaelFriese10). I liked the latent space so much that I decided to share it with everyone. Have fun! I'll add some html to credit Michael with the training once I find the time.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- valentinvieriu 7y agoCredit should have been mentioned at the beginning of the project. HTML is not that hard!
- StevenRayOrr 7y agoThe initial page just shows the art, but after a couple seconds it pops up with an explicit credit to Michael Friesen and a link to his twitter: > Imagined by a GAN (generative adversarial network) StyleGAN2 (Dec 2019) - Karras et al. and Nvidia Trained by Michael Friesen on images of Modern Art
- MarkusWandel 7y agoFunny that of all the "This X does not exist" sites, this one only gives relatively small, low-res pictures. Because I'd totally print out some of that stuff and hang it up!
- chungy 7y agoBut then it would exist :) This generator of all of them seems to raise the more existential questions. What does it mean to exist? Surely art is art regardless of whether it's on a physical canvas. Just the act of generating it and serving pixels changes the state from "doesn't exist" to "does exist"...
- dwd 7y agoMount a flat screen on the wall and refresh periodically. I would do that if it could be trained with specific artists I like.
- gridlockd 7y agoIt's exponentially more expensive to train these at higher resolutions.
- gwern 7y agoNot exponentially. More like linearly in pixel count, you just tack on another convolution block. (StyleGAN doesn't use self-attention, but even naive self-attention is just quadratic.) The problem is more that you hit diminishing returns fast from training at higher resolutions. There's not too much difference between training at 1024px or training at 512px and using an off-the-shelf superresolution NN upscaler, but the latter is like 4x faster. So why bother? You don't always even have input data which is 1024px+.
- valentinvieriu 7y agoI've launched a similar project some weeks ago. https://art42.net https://art42.net see the previous thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22344254 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22344254
- stolen_biscuit 7y agoI won't lie, I don't get it. Are these generated by a NN or something?
- ly 7y agoYep! They're from here: https://twitter.com/lucidrains/status/1232699234354204672 https://twitter.com/lucidrains/status/1232699234354204672
- dawnerd 7y agoThis is basically a NIN album generator. (Of the ones I've seen)
- 7777fps 7y agoMy reaction was "These are all post-rock album covers". Compare to the real things: https://www.factmag.com/2016/04/20/best-post-rock-albums/ https://www.factmag.com/2016/04/20/best-post-rock-albums/
- eyelidlessness 7y agoI had the same reaction to quite a few. Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xg-Wk2DEXs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xg-Wk2DEXs
- jonplackett 7y agoWho owns the copyright to something created like this?
- J5892 7y agohttp://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ http://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
- gwern 7y agoNo one. All the 'X Does Not Exist' websites use random generation, without any human curation; the US Copyright Office is clear, non-humans (and machines in particular) cannot create a copyright, and since there is no human author expressing any creativity in random generation via NNs, there is no copyright, and they are automatically public domain. I got this question a lot on my anime faces as well and provide a few references on why they're public domain: https://www.gwern.net/Faces#faq https://www.gwern.net/Faces#faq
- visarga 7y agoYou're forgetting about 'who paid for the electricity, hardware and set up the model used in generating this image?' Couldn't this allow the person hosting the model to claim copyright? I am also thinking about hyper-parameter configuration and selection of training data as creative human input in this process.
- gwern 7y agoNo, it doesn't. Again, the law is very clear about this. The US Copyright Office guidelines are extremely blunt: machines are not authors. Period. It doesn't matter if you twiddled with the hyperparameters or how much you paid for the electricity. (Similarly, you can spend billions of dollars measuring a physical constant, but as a fact, it is not copyrightable.)
- Cpoll 7y agoWhat happens if you sign it with your name, or modify a single pixel manually?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hhs 7y agoIn 1929, Rene Magritte made a painting of a smoking pipe and, on the bottom of the picture, he wrote “this is not a pipe” in French [0]. So, this website seems to be using that same surrealist theme. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
- david-gpu 7y agoI think the domain name is simply following the pattern of other domains for AI-generated images, such as https://thispersondoesnotexist.com https://thispersondoesnotexist.com , https://thiscatdoesnotexist.com https://thiscatdoesnotexist.com , https://thisrentaldoesnotexist.com https://thisrentaldoesnotexist.com , etc. For these and more, see https://thisxdoesnotexist.com https://thisxdoesnotexist.com
- yreg 7y agothiscatdoesntexist.com just got me one with a "meme text".
- amoebaarriba 7y agoThis(this(x)doesnotexist)doesnotexist=x
- downshun 7y agoWicked for x=quine
- nineteen999 7y agoUgh. The third one. We need "thisJPEGartifactdoesnotexist.com" now.
- leshokunin 7y agoSo what's next? Combine this with thispersondoesnotexist? Generate fake descriptions about the art? Make a real-fake exhibition? Make a fake Wikipedia entry? I guess at one point, all this makes it real art, where the artwork isn't the object, but the craftsmanship is. Might be interesting to put the repo on display at a gallery.
- aiCeivi9 7y agoSo far the best I have seen is https://thisstartupdoesnotexist.com/ https://thisstartupdoesnotexist.com/
- earthbound19 7y agoIt is arguably already "real" art. Art does not have to be physical to be "real," it can be virtual; art does not have to be made by humans to be "real;" art made by an AI is real, etc.
- hhs 7y ago> Might be interesting to put the repo on display at a gallery. This is what artists like Marcel Duchamp did when selling “readymades” with the conceptual art movement.
- leshokunin 7y agoInteresting. Got any good reads on this?
- hhs 7y agoSure, I think Wikipedia does a good job [0]. There's also a neat book called the "Duchamp Dictionary" [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp [1]: https://thamesandhudsonusa.com/books/the-duchamp-dictionary-hardcover https://thamesandhudsonusa.com/books/the-duchamp-dictionary-...
- lucidrains 7y agoI moved on to molecules https://thischemicaldoesnotexist.com https://thischemicaldoesnotexist.com Perhaps short stranded proteins are next
- mjfl 7y agohow long is it going to take someone to download 100,000 of these, hang them up on a bar wall somewhere and sell them for $20 apiece?
- Balgair 7y agohttps://www.staples.com/services/printing/custom-posters/ https://www.staples.com/services/printing/custom-posters/ 36x48in (92x122cm) for ~$10. It would not be too terribly difficult to just do this at a flea-market this very weekend.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y agoReally tempted to run some through an AI upscaler.
- downshun 7y agoThis stimulates my endocrine system. This method could greatly increase the value of my objectice function! I shall acquire more stamped cellulose.
- awb 7y agoResolution might be an issue. It might take too long to generate print quality images.
- gridlockd 7y agoYou must be underestimating the effort it takes to sell any kind of art at any price. The first "image created by an AI" kind of painting has already sold for a lot of money. It'll be much tougher for the next 100,000.
- tomhoward 7y agoI found it interesting to note how viscerally uncomfortable I felt while looking at some (or, most) of these pieces. Of course not all art has to be pleasing to the viewer, but confronting/challenging art is made deliberately that way by the artist, and the process of experiencing the art involves understanding the feeling and learning something from it. It's a different feeling altogether to be discomforted by art, but for no purpose.
- mattlondon 7y agoLooked like generic anonymous hotel/office art to me. Technically this is great, but I guess I am not able to appreciate the art itself... but then I get zero feeling from "real" art as well. Shrug
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoDo you like any type of art, or is it only painting that leaves you unmoved? If you appreciate the technicality of it that's still appreciation. I'm like that with photorealism, awed at the skill of it, but otherwise unconvinced by it as a form of painting.
- mattlondon 7y agoPretty much couldn't really care any less about most art. It's just some paint on a canvas or a statue or whatever. Some people say they are emotionally moved or mesmerised by the beauty etc. Sure I can appreciate it is a skill etc etc, but I don't understand the emotional reaction people say they have - I just see a "thing" like I see advertising boards on the street as a "thing". I wonder sometimes if people just say this stuff because they think they are supposed to.
- balfirevic 7y ago> Pretty much couldn't really care any less about most art. Art also includes literature, music, movies, theater... Not sure if you also meant those.
- arxpoetica 7y agoBy and large, the artwork generated herein totally speaks to me. This is almost beyond the uncanny valley for me.
- mnl 7y agoFunnily I get nothing from these. I can't see any tension in the compositions. They're aimless. I guess it's what I'd expect from mixing attributes from other paintings. What did the painter want to do here? I don't know, I can't detect a painter to begin with.
- earthbound19 7y agoFor me it's about 1/3 hit 2/3 miss, and those that hit I usually want to tweak the composition or alter it somehow. Rarely am I completely satisfied with output from it, but that does happen. I would take many of them and scale them up to a resolution that would work for LARGE prints, with a tool that does its own upscaling/stylish embellishing (like Dynamic Auto Painter), then work them up further in digital. I think it's a fantastic tool for brainstorming ideas. Anyone know the license terms for images generated by this web site?
- earthbound19 7y ago(it seems I can't edit this comment. Per a reply in another thread: public domain.)
- arxpoetica 7y agoActually—my mind just took a trippy turn on this— At an abstract level, this stuff is still derived from works done by humans. I can't process this (at the meta level), ha ha. Basically, the universal question, but where does art begin, and where does it end. This is in essence, taking something already abstract (I'm assuming) created at the hands of expressionists, and turning it back into something—random— AGGGGGHHHH I can't process it!!!! ha ha
- 3131s 7y agoI don't get all the hate here either. Some of these are very pretty.
- throwaway_2047 7y agoWe need a corpus of story, generated of course
- buboard 7y agofirst we need "thispaintingtitledoesnotexist.com"
- Avi-D-coder 7y agoCan it be made to generate 4k images easily?
- visarga 7y agoIt would be nice to upscale by auto-redrawing with a simulated brush and paint.
- earthbound19 7y agoA program I mentioned in another thread, Dynamic Auto-Painter, can do that--but it will stylize the work according to some other preset.
- indigodaddy 7y agoThis is seriously awesome
- sgt 7y agoWould like a higher resolution of this, print'em out and open up an art gallery. Only joking of course. Or am I..
- buboard 7y agoThanks. i downloaded some prints for my next exhibition, ironically called "originals". art is in the eye of the downloader