pouët.net

texel, my guesses:

The top one looks like an artist started to block paint dark areas ready for a painting, then changed their mind and moved on to something else. I'm guessing this is the professional.

The middle one looks like an artist starting painting something, got angry with their result and scribbled over it. I'm guessing this is yours.

The bottom looks like a monkey threw paint at it, then sat on it, so I guess that's the computer.

Vallejo is kind of cliched but there's so much imagination, passion and dedication in his work. I think that's a more valid artistic statement than splats on canvas for easy money.

Say Buttler, what's your opinion on Dragonforce?

He better get this right.

texel, tell the answer already.

Ok:

Top - Kline
Middle - Randomly generated (using an algorithm I'm testing right now)
Bottom - One from my serie '29' of ink drawings on paper (more at http://www.romancortes.com/29)

Since nobody wrote the middle was computer randomly generated, I think it is valid to say it could pass an "arturing" test.

i love this one.

Dragonforce....not really my thing, but got nothing against them. They are kind of uplifting though.

texel: I doubt it. The computer most likely isn't making art, but just making pictures according to an algorithm somebody wrote. Really, that's just the human making a new tool to produce art, with automation. It's still the work of a human.

If it could produce something appropriate when you gave it a theme though, it would pass :) (And out of interest, there are elephants which have drawn 'self portraits' - nothing spectacular, but surely a huge leap ahead of the computer.)

WTF is dragon force?

psonice dragonforce

i think u mean DRAGON FORCE!

img]http://www.keepsanantoniometal.com/dragon-force-color.jpg[/img]
img]http://www.sega-saturn.net/df1.jpg[/img]
img]http://hg101.classicgaming.gamespy.com/segaages/dragonforce-7.jpg[/img]
img]http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/8566/dragon5jt.jpg[/img]
img]http://www.rpgfan.com/soundtracks/dragonforce/cover_l.jpg[/img]
img]http://www.metalsymphonique.com/wallpapers/Dragonforce3.jpg[/img]

you werent actually expecting to seriously discuss generative computer graphics in this thread were you?

ps: thanks. I'll pass though, not my cup of tea. Give me some dark ambient noise any day. Btw, what happens if you ban yourself? ;)

the universe would collapse upon itself. oh please make it be true.

This interesting discussion reminds me of "The Satellite Is Still OK" by xernobyl:
http://www.virb.com/xernobyl/photos/1027210

i'll self-censor my posted img's and let you folks get back into insulting the efforts of generative art then. ^_^

btw. i was just joking about that boris vallejo thingie. important lesson i learned. create what you want and don't care the most vocal critics. but pay attention second most vocal. his often right. and i'm serious really jealous to texel. you have very good ideas...

ps: hiding the evidence! ;D

Actually I like generative art, and I'm working on some (well, actually not working on it due to lack of time :/ But I started it, and intend to finish it.) What I don't like is work that could be created by accident, or without effort :)

I like some of the other stuff on texel's site too. And come to think of it, I feel exactly the same way about visualice's oil paintings - his other stuff is great, but the oil painting suddenly become abstract, and leave me with the feeling that he half-made a really great paining, then gave up and splashed paint over the top.

Actually, it's not even all really abstract art - a lot of it I 'get' and quite like - just things like this make me angry somehow. If that's the intention of the artist, I guess it's great art ;)

Doom: Obviously, you didn't pay attention to the "R.I.P. Stockhausen" thread.

psonice: even work created by accident can have good aesthetic value when viewed in the right angle. nature photography anyone? i have been working on a meta heuristic genetic algorithm, if you need some let me know, its just sitting here without freetime to apply it to any audiovisuals, its annoying me.

ps: thanks, but I have an algorithm up and running (also without audiovisuals. :) It's also somewhat along genetic lines, but more in terms of having lots of things that grow, die and reproduce, evolving along the way. I have good visuals planned to make use of it, but no time for a few months at least :/

I totally agree on stuff being perhaps aesthetically pleasing, but that's not enough for me to appreciate it as art. A nature photo is great, I have a photo of some trees as a desktop picture and a photo of a lake on my office wall, but I can't consider either to be art. Well, maybe in the craft sense of the word, showing the skill of the photographer etc., which I can appreciate.

I guess the problem I have with this kind of modern art is that there's little talent required, and little work involved, and I just can't respect that.

it mostly depends on your definition of art

i guessed:
top: you
middle: franz
bottom: HAL

good god, that's a nice algorithm. It was the one that looked least like a computer generated image to me.