Static Art
Cyclic Art
Dynamic Art
Paintings and sculptures are Static Art. No explanation is required here. Everybody understands this notion. Music and movies can be attributed to Cyclic Art. Cyclic Art has the dimension of time. Cyclic Art works have a beginning and end, and can be repeated. I am very liberal with this definition. For example, a theatre play when repeated is different every time. By the same token, a jazz musician improvises at will and is therefore unpredictable to a certain extent. But I think you get the idea.
Hence Dynamic Art must be perpetual and always original. If we apply these definitions to pictorial compositions, then computer animations fall in the Cyclic Art category. At the same time, a cartoon is a series of Static Art pieces. By contrast, my technique creates original images all the time. Thus, a painting acquires another dimension – the dimension of time. Moreover, the period is infinite. Obviously, this cannot be done with paints and a brush. So, I had to utilize computer-based technology for that.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, then the work disappears forever.
Demo: http://www.sanbasestudio.com/demo.htm
Two static samples (the same picture):
[ add comment ] ( 11 views ) | permalink |
( 2.9 / 287 )
[ 1 comment ] ( 10 views ) | permalink |
( 2.9 / 266 )>not much of art if a computer does it. its like painting mona lisa with one button press... cool program, but YOUR art? nah. selfgenerated art inmh no offence
First of all, let's start with an axiom that computer does not have any intelligence. Everything you can see on the screen is created by a human. Obviously it is self-evident and does not require any proof.
And now back to the question at its essence.
Let's have a look at Picasso's painting "Don Quijote":
;)
Provided Picasso does not paint it with hands but writes a computer program creating precisely the same picture, who would be the picture's author? And would the picture be worse because of that? I think, there is no doubt, Picasso is still supposed to be the author, not the computer (see the Ch.1). The way the picture is created does not influent on its artistic virtues. By all means it would still be a Picasso's masterpiece.
Let's go on. Let's suppose that Picasso not only writes a program which paints Don Quixote, but elaborates it so that the overall image becomes slightly different. Meaning, if the program can create a picture exactly LIKE THAT, one can change the program's parameters so that the picture is a little bit different from the original. Who is the author of the new picture? Still, Picasso is (see the Ch.1).
And let's go even further, Picasso creates a program which paints several different pictures and each of them is created in the same manner. And one of them is precisely the one as on the picture above. Who is the author of all the images? Is it computer? See the Ch.1. Picasso is the author because he has managed to force computer to PAINT and not to display senseless dots and lines.
Lets say a computer randomly spits out art it made. someone programmed it yeah, but its programmed on randomness so the programmer dindt draw each painting, the computer did.
So you can say: the musician didn't play, the piano did!
The programmer (artist) has made a concept, plot, stylistics, colors etc. Computer made only variations of this plot. Computer can't make something by own will because it's an inanimate device.
[ 1 comment ] ( 7 views ) | permalink |
( 3 / 210 )
[ 2 comments ] ( 13 views ) | permalink |
( 3 / 221 )
[ 1 comment ] ( 7 views ) | permalink |
( 3 / 191 )
Calendar
