4 ms·
Not to be totally grumpy here, but this is classic mathematicians-think-art-is-images-looking-like-famous-art. The expanded "starry night" isn't an interesting
by trop 12y ago
Not to be totally grumpy here, but this is classic mathematicians-think-art-is-images-looking-like-famous-art. The expanded "starry night" isn't an interesting painting, of course. And it adds nothing to Mr. V. V. Gogh's work. It just mimics aspects of the extant work, in a spatially naive manner (e.g., what more do we learn except that the new rendition exists on a black mesa surrounded by more village-with-church?).
SIGGRAPH-style research shouldn't validate itself merely because it teaches the computer to adopt a cliched mode of image-making.
- infinitone 12y agoHave you looked at the other examples? http://extrapolated-art.com/ http://extrapolated-art.com/ Some of these are pretty impressive and do more than just pattern repetition.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y agoI'm going to agree with the critics - I think you may be confusing technical problem-solving with artistic awareness. They're all interesting as technology demonstrations, but none of them improve on the original compositions, and some of them are almost completely unsuccessful as visual art.
- Rapzid 12y agoI think that makes the whole just as interesting. Photographers often frame a tiny portion of the entire view available to them. That frame is where their art is, not the expanded view. So in a sense the wall just highlights that what's inside the frame is special and it contrasts nicely.