This method illustrates where the current approaches to making AI artwork diverge: some artists seek to make AI that is independently creative, whereas others try to recreate human abilities in form and function. The third-placed entry by CMIT ReArt from Kasestart University in Thailand takes a different approach, and recreates an artist’s brushstrokes precisely including the force applied and position of the brush, to create an exact copy of the painting stroke by stroke. This year’s winner CloudPainter (built and programmed by Pindar Van Arman) uses deep learning, cameras and a selection of 3D printed brush heads to achieve an increasing amount of autonomy in the paintings that CloudPainter produces - but as Van Arman stated in a Vice & HBO documentary last year, ‘my robots… make the same creative decisions I do,’ which seems to imply that he is still the ‘artist’ despite allowing the program to make decisions based on his instructions. The RobotArt competition, founded in 2016 by Stanford graduate Andrew Conru, attracts a mixture of artists, mechanics and computer scientists interested in advancing the field of robotic art. With priceless artworks subject to collateral damage or vandalism, and prominent artists recently making bold statements about our attitude towards ‘priceless’ art, could computer-generated paintings change how we think about art and its value? ![]() ![]() ![]() Whichever side you are on, artistic AI is gaining traction, with artists adopting it in many different ways just as they would use any other tool to create original work or recreate the world’s most valuable pieces.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |