Demo in ultra slow motion: sanbase
category: general [glöplog]
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/09/san_base_computer_graphics_avant-garde/
Good article with technical/practical content as well as a bit of historical context.
And the official site http://www.sanbase.com/
Good article with technical/practical content as well as a bit of historical context.
And the official site http://www.sanbase.com/
thanks for the input!
here some pages i've recently stumbled upon... maybe of interest
http://tale-of-tales.com/tales/RAM.html
http://grandtextauto.org/2003/06/17/harold-cohen-on-artist-programmers/
here some pages i've recently stumbled upon... maybe of interest
http://tale-of-tales.com/tales/RAM.html
http://grandtextauto.org/2003/06/17/harold-cohen-on-artist-programmers/
Didn't see the links, but I'll hijack this thread to greet Farbraush for the awsome idea of doing motion blur and 24p on Massaging.
hehe, there aren't any... first i wanted to write a big bloated blah about computer painting and the silliness of screensaver art, but mh, isn't worth it. just blur some links in ultra slow motion if you like to...
for me the future of realtime art is interative. period :)
for me the future of realtime art is interative. period :)
Interactivity is probably the only way for ppl to understand the difference.
"The painting is always in the state of a perpetual transformation. It never repeats itself. Every time a new image is created, there is an opportunity for a peaceful receptivity and then the work disappears forever. The picture living its own life with objects moving and transforming but still following the original artist's concept. "
i am so glad that most demos come without artistic disclamer.
i am so glad that most demos come without artistic disclamer.
alternatively: back to good old multi-part demos that do not have a fixed length (i.e. the kind of demo where you need to skip to the next part using the space bar/LMB)
..that will teach 'em ! :)
..that will teach 'em ! :)
true... coding it is always interactive to some degree (the ultimative game), but for the viewer there's no distinct quality separting the experience from watching a movie or a firework.
don't know what to do now exactly. atm, i'm prototyping some small games trying to morph them away from the hardfun aspect...
don't know what to do now exactly. atm, i'm prototyping some small games trying to morph them away from the hardfun aspect...
Harold cohen is an absolutely important read. He has some really serious insights. (You'd be surprised)
http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/aaron/hi_essays.html
http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/aaron/hi_essays.html
I guess that in order to be taken seriously as an artist you should conform to the artist stereotype... Imagine a policeman that conformed to the hooker stereotype or the clown stereotype or the rambling one man orchestra which get a facial from satan stereotype.. Would you take that man seriously? huh HUH?
I like his pics though. ( Sanbase ) The bump / brushstrokes do it all.
Knos: Awesome! Thanks for the inputs/links
0rel: nice read
0rel: nice read
Quite frankly, I just found the pictures pretty. And interesting to hear about somebody who uses the same technology than us, to make, like us, non-interactive executables, just with a different goal in mind.
Why always bring up the behaviour/talk of other peoples? Don't you see that the behaviour/talk of a scener aren't exactly standard either? That we also conform with lots of traditions etc.. ?
Why always bring up the behaviour/talk of other peoples? Don't you see that the behaviour/talk of a scener aren't exactly standard either? That we also conform with lots of traditions etc.. ?
"For most people outside of art, probably, art is directed
primarily at the production of beautiful objects and interesting
images; and who is to argue that a complicated
and intricate Lissajou figure is less beautiful than an
Elsworth Kelly painting or a Jackson Pollock; or that
a machine simulation of a Mondrian is less interesting
than the original it plagiarizes? To talk of beauty or of
interest is to talk of taste, and matters of taste cannot
be argued with much profit. The fact is that art is not,
and never has been, concerned primarily with the making
of beautiful or interesting patterns. The real power, the
real magic, which remains still in the hands of the elite,
rests not in the making of images, but in the conjuring
of meaning. And I use the word meaning in a sense
broad enough to cover not only the semantic content of
the image itself, but all that is involved in the making
of the image." (HAROLD COHEN, 1973)
neq: thank you for that link. it seems to be much more profound than the
majority of the more contemporary new media stuff. and i think this could be relevant for sceners, because here, people are really involved with the bare metal, the real machine, not only the interfaces and the secondary media (all what can be done with a particular software).
'computer art' is still an very unclear topic more than 30 years later, mainly because computers are such a enormous variform medium (the multimedium?). they are more than just an electronic canvas.
what can be expressed with computers? where are their expressive strengths, how should we value and read a computerbased artwork...
is beauty != beauty?
primarily at the production of beautiful objects and interesting
images; and who is to argue that a complicated
and intricate Lissajou figure is less beautiful than an
Elsworth Kelly painting or a Jackson Pollock; or that
a machine simulation of a Mondrian is less interesting
than the original it plagiarizes? To talk of beauty or of
interest is to talk of taste, and matters of taste cannot
be argued with much profit. The fact is that art is not,
and never has been, concerned primarily with the making
of beautiful or interesting patterns. The real power, the
real magic, which remains still in the hands of the elite,
rests not in the making of images, but in the conjuring
of meaning. And I use the word meaning in a sense
broad enough to cover not only the semantic content of
the image itself, but all that is involved in the making
of the image." (HAROLD COHEN, 1973)
neq: thank you for that link. it seems to be much more profound than the
majority of the more contemporary new media stuff. and i think this could be relevant for sceners, because here, people are really involved with the bare metal, the real machine, not only the interfaces and the secondary media (all what can be done with a particular software).
'computer art' is still an very unclear topic more than 30 years later, mainly because computers are such a enormous variform medium (the multimedium?). they are more than just an electronic canvas.
what can be expressed with computers? where are their expressive strengths, how should we value and read a computerbased artwork...
is beauty != beauty?
ahm, to be more precise: size coding is such a discipline where something very special can happen. when i saw my first 4ks or even smaller 256byte intros, i was extremly impressed by the simple fact, that something like that is possible... it wasn't the mainly "sensual qualities" of the patterns on the screen or even not the tremendous skills of some coders that impressed me so much, it was more the general fact! the truth, that something very complex can be expressed trough very simple rules... this can tell us something about how nature really is, and how the machines are related to it.
without the knowlege of the inner workings of the medium/machine, the viewer is not capable of judging it's real value. fractales can be visually beautiful like a flower can be, but the real point is the fact, the there is a really simple core which is not percivable through the eye...
or another example was simple physics simulations, like spring-mass systems. as a gamer, it can be fun to play with it, but when you know how it is constructed, the expression changes fundamentally and starts to talk about nature itself.
without the knowlege of the inner workings of the medium/machine, the viewer is not capable of judging it's real value. fractales can be visually beautiful like a flower can be, but the real point is the fact, the there is a really simple core which is not percivable through the eye...
or another example was simple physics simulations, like spring-mass systems. as a gamer, it can be fun to play with it, but when you know how it is constructed, the expression changes fundamentally and starts to talk about nature itself.