8 ms·

Hmm. So the point of looking "painterly" is that it looks like the art was done manually by a craftsman. But once any computer can do it, that stops working. Th

by dash2 2y ago

Hmm. So the point of looking "painterly" is that it looks like the art was done manually by a craftsman. But once any computer can do it, that stops working. Then you'll need to do something else. I guess this also applies to the diffusion models. They look just as if a human did it! But as that gets more common, there will be added value in doing whatever they can't do, because only that will look truly human.

Daub 2y ago
> So the point of looking "painterly" is that it looks like the art was done manually by a craftsman I think the core issue is the difference between the digital and the analog as mediums. My understanding is that the computor is not a medium in the real sense. Rather (for the most part) it is a meta-medium: a medium that impersonates other mediums. It impersonates the photographers darkroom, a typewriter, a movie editing station etc. TFA describes a more effective way to impersonate. It is no more a replacement of a painting than a photograph of my wife is a replacement of my wife. > But as that gets more common, there will be added value in doing whatever they can't do, because only that will look truly human. Here I would agree. Standing in front of a real painting is an entirely different experience to looking at a digital emulation of a painting on a screen. My new problem as an art teacher is that I find myself talking to students who claim to have seen the work of (for example) Michelangelo, yet I know they have never visited Italy.
qwery 2y ago
> So the point of looking "painterly" is that it looks like the art was done manually by a craftsman. I don't know that there has to be a point to it in that sense. In general, the goal isn't to generate static images that can be passed off as paintings. It's a real-time 3D rendering technique, for one thing -- you can't paint this. The term painterly refers to non-photorealistic computer graphics art styles that mimic some aspects of painterly paintings. The point of doing this is to (try to) make a thing (a 3D scene, generally) look the way you want it to.

by dash2 2y ago

Daub 2y ago

> So the point of looking "painterly" is that it looks like the art was done manually by a craftsman I think the core issue is the difference between the digital and the analog as mediums. My understanding is that the computor is not a medium in the real sense. Rather (for the most part) it is a meta-medium: a medium that impersonates other mediums. It impersonates the photographers darkroom, a typewriter, a movie editing station etc. TFA describes a more effective way to impersonate. It is no more a replacement of a painting than a photograph of my wife is a replacement of my wife. > But as that gets more common, there will be added value in doing whatever they can't do, because only that will look truly human. Here I would agree. Standing in front of a real painting is an entirely different experience to looking at a digital emulation of a painting on a screen. My new problem as an art teacher is that I find myself talking to students who claim to have seen the work of (for example) Michelangelo, yet I know they have never visited Italy.

qwery 2y ago

> So the point of looking "painterly" is that it looks like the art was done manually by a craftsman. I don't know that there has to be a point to it in that sense. In general, the goal isn't to generate static images that can be passed off as paintings. It's a real-time 3D rendering technique, for one thing -- you can't paint this. The term painterly refers to non-photorealistic computer graphics art styles that mimic some aspects of painterly paintings. The point of doing this is to (try to) make a thing (a 3D scene, generally) look the way you want it to.