http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php Copyright 2010, San Base San Base en-US SPHPBLOG 0.5.1 http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100724-100951


Case: HAF 932
MB: Asus P6T Deluxe
Videocard: GTX480
water cooling
and 8.5TB of space !!!

I hope my work will go faster now...]]> http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100724-100951 San Base Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:09:51 GMT http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/comments.php?y=10&m=07&entry=entry100724-100951 http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100510-160841
Computer games and 3D films have a finite duration, they have an end. After the action is finished they stop or repeat again. Technically, during the creation of 3D content the work of the artist (the 3-D specialist or animator) most closely resembles that of a sculptor. The artist creates three-dimensional models of objects which are then seen from different angles and in different positions.
Dynamic painting on the other hand consists of infinite, never-repeating video sequences generated in real time instead of being produced in advance. The basic advantage of dynamic painting consists of the unpredictability of the image. The spectator can always see something new that has never been displayed before. 3D films or computer games do not have that advantage because all of their visual factors are programmed in advance.

2. Is it possible to call a dynamic painting a `screensaver’?

Yes it is possible. But it will be quite an expensive screensaver.

3. Could a dynamic painting be considered the creation of an artificial intellect because of the fact that it is not drawn nor morphed by the artist but more by the computer?

This is not true. If adhering to this logic, singing is the only true type of music and everything that the musician makes using technical devices (all acoustic instruments including electronic ones) can be considered a non-human mechanically composed sound. But for some reason nobody thinks that the electronic synthesizer itself composes music. The role of a computer in dynamic painting is no greater than the role of a synthesizer in music. It is just a device that a person is using to create something.
4. A piece of art is considered to be a material object like a canvas with paint, or a sculpture, etc... Dynamic painting is a piece of soft ware running on a computer and tv set. How is it possible to call DP a work of art if you can copy the program and then purchase a computer with a tv in any shop? What would be an original piece and what would be a copy?

In the same way it is possible to say that music is not a work of art because it does not exist in a material context. What is the original of a piece of music? Is it the notes written by the composer on paper, or the same notes published and recorded then played again and again with various improvisations? Digital recordings of music can be duplicated without loss of quality but nobody doubts that music is art.
A work of art it something created by a person in the time of great influence by their emotional condition. It is not important by what mean that influence is transferred. Music uses the acoustical channel, painting – the visual.

Originals and copies are a creation of the business world of art. For the businessman the importance of the “originality” of paint smeared on a canvas is enough to warrant a price of 20 million dollars while precisely the same canvas but without the certificate of authenticity would cost only 20 dollars. At the end the viewer does not look at the certificate but at the picture itself and if its emotional and aesthetic qualities are precisely the same, what difference does it make whether it is original or just a copy?

Dynamic picture can truly be copied without loss of quality. There are no distinguishing differences between a copy and an original as this is impossible in the computer world. Perhaps this should be considered a benefit rather than a disadvantage of this kind of art.

5. The same dynamic picture can produce thousand of "screenshots" without any efforts from the artist. Does this bring down the status quo and creativity of traditional artists?

Before the development of photography artists spent many patient hours struggling to copy and perfect still images. In the 19th century a mechanical device was created which did the same thing. In what measure did the occurrence of a photo discredit painters? There certainly were some problems with this, but now photography has become an independent type of art and there are no conflicts between the two.
At any moment the dynamic picture can be stopped and transformed into a static one. It is then possible to print the image on canvas with very high resolution. This print will be unique as precisely the same image will never be repeated in the original dynamic picture. This process is very similar to photography where it is necessary to find (and wait for) an interesting moment which you then capture. It does not demand a lot of effort but patience and good taste are required.
It is necessary to understand that the dynamic picture does not create at all times absolutely different images; it is only a variation of the SAME picture. Therefore all static images will be variations of the same plot. They can strongly differ in details but the general plot, the composition and the aesthetics will be constant and the same.

6. Do dynamic paintings remind us of children’s toys such as the “kaleidoscope”?

It does remind us of it. The kaleidoscope allows us to create a million combinations of images by means of the elementary system of three mirrors and several splinters of color glass. It is ingenious that a kaleidoscope is able to create symmetric patterns from a finite set of colors. The dynamic picture reminds us of a kaleidoscope because it also generates millions of variations of images but with this their similarity comes to an end.

7. Where can dynamic pictures be used?

Like any traditional painting, a dynamic painting can be used as interior decoration. A dynamic picture on a wall favourably differs from a static one because it is always new and different. Instead of the same picture you have an infinite quantity of variations. At the same time, any specific image on the dynamic painting display can be made static until the transformation is told to start once again. In a dynamic picture clouds float and trees move. It is really a live representation.
Aside from home decoration these pictures can also be used in waiting areas such as a doctor’s reception room or a hotel lobby to help pass the time.
The dynamic picture is an excellent tool for relaxation and meditation. The images vary slowly allowing a viewer to enter a stress-free state or a type of “trance”. It is reminiscent of watching clouds in motion. The changing images put the imagination to work helping the viewer to relax and rest.

Here is an example of a dynamic picture that is exceptionally traditional:
http://www.sanbasestudio.com/demo/planet_earth.html
]]> http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100510-160841 San Base Mon, 10 May 2010 21:08:41 GMT http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/comments.php?y=10&m=05&entry=entry100510-160841 http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090717-131311

San Base Studio press release:
--------------------------------------------------------
San Base Studio Launches Dynamic Art TV for the Internet, TV, Mobile and other Multi-media Devices. San Base Studio is set to revolutionize the world of mass media and art, making the beauty and magic of dynamic art accessible for all to enjoy in the home, office or commercial space. San Base Studio is producing and procuring original digital works for broadcast over the internet, television, mobile and other multi-media devices. This is the first time dynamic art has been produced for broadcast to a wide international audience and provides dynamic artists an ideal platform to promote their work.

San Base recently, launched Dynamic Art TV on TiVo in the U.S with a potential reach of over 500K homes. This unique arrangement will see San Base Studio produce 53, fifteen minute episodes for download on TiVo PVR boxes. Viewers will be able to download a blend of continuously evolving abstract, surreal and realistic images and ambient soundscapes for therapeutic enjoyment and entertainment. In the coming months San Base Studio will be searching the world for other broadcast partners and deals, including public and private IPTV networks. Mobile applications for the Iphone and Blackberry are in the works. DVD’s and Bluray discs are available for purchase on the website at www.sanbasestudio.com
Watch for the launch of the launch of the Dynamic Art TV website at the end of August.

See Dynamic Art TV ]]> http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090717-131311 San Base Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:13:11 GMT http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/comments.php?y=09&m=07&entry=entry090717-131311 http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090711-160052
Cool! There is a skill obtained in traditional art made by hands (or by other body parts) and there is a skill of the second type, which is not completely a skill, made with the aid of the computer. Proximity to such works is offensive for the real artist.

It is implied that the computer “itself” sketches the picture, and man presses the buttons. And this opinion is very wide spread. I do not know if it is worthwhile to explain that the computer itself generally cannot make anything. It is simply a piece of iron and wires. Everything you see on it's screen is made by PEOPLE. But the further people are from the technology, the more they are convinced that the computer is a thinking machine which works by itself. The only thing it needs is to have the necessary button pushed. The question of who made this button it does not arise. Therefore, if the artist holds in his hand not a pencil but an electronic pen and he draws not on paper but the screen of a computer, then does he no longer art? Or is the work instead initiated and completed by the computer? Is art created by the computer? To me it does not seem worthwhile to comment on the absurdity of this assertion.

Thus, we observe the explicit discrimination of artists using digital technologies by art critics and curators of exhibitions. Moreover, this discrimination is based exclusively on the technique. The quality of the works themselves do not enter into the calculation.


]]> http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090711-160052 San Base Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:00:52 GMT http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/comments.php?y=09&m=07&entry=entry090711-160052 http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090227-191605
Dynamic Paintings can provide a form of visual stimulation that evokes changes in physiological activity to improve health and performance. Dynamic Paintings are composed of lively and colorful abstract, surreal and psychedelic digital images in a state of perpetual transformation. The overall idea of the visual remains unchanged, while the computer introduces infinite variations. Dynamic Paintings are a great outlet for relaxation, meditation and spiritual awareness and stimulate a variety of emotional and mental states that can help alleviate anxiety and treat stress. When used in tandem with biofeedback therapies Dynamic Paintings can be used to train patients to control certain internal bodily processes such as heart rate, blood pressure, muscle tension, and skin temperature.”Dynamic Paintings are available in DVD and work with all biofeedback software solutions with DVD functionality. San Base Studio is working with developers to drive individual elements of the dynamic painting (sky, structures, foreground, sound, etc.) from an assigned physiological “channel. Watch for our future content.
]]> http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090227-191605 San Base Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:16:05 GMT http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/comments.php?y=09&m=02&entry=entry090227-191605 http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090121-104256
I’d like to highlight another example of a new art trend: the dynamic painting. Unlike 3D images created by many computer artists, my paintings are composed of abstract images in the state of perpetual never repeating transformation. The overall idea of the painting remains unchanged, while the computer introduces continuous variations, resembling an artist at work. The colors and shapes go through the changes and the image slowly flows and transforms. The traditional painting has acquired the dimension of time. This creates an extraordinary show since at any moment in time the painting is different, and catching even a glimpse of it, one becomes completely engrossed in the experience.

Because a computer produces the images of a dynamic painting, one might question the artist’s involvement in the process. So who in the end creates the painting an artist or a computer?
Of course an artist creates the painting. A computer can’t create anything at its will and it doesn’t embody any creativity. It’s just a tool that works according to a predefined algorithm. The dynamic painting could have many varying parameters that the computer can change to create new instances of a painting, however it can’t create anything on its own.

Looking at a dynamic painting might create the perception that you see purely the fruits of a computer’s imagination. The endless variations of colors and shapes make it hard to believe that a person has devised such a complex scheme. Some of the paintings are so good they are worthy to be printed on a canvas and to be displayed in the best galleries throughout the world. On the other hand, it is the unpredictability and dynamics that make dynamic painting so attractive. A unique image teases your imagination and in a few moments it fades only to give a way to other astonishing picture. One can always expect something new and unusual from a dynamic painting.

I think art critics will be arguing about the art status of the dynamic paintings for the years to come. On the other hand, what difference does it make how you label it? The dynamic paintings are beautiful and fascinating. This direction is new and eccentric. Progress can’t be halted and something that looks like an exotic creation will soon become a common element of an interior design.

]]> http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090121-104256 San Base Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:42:56 GMT http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/comments.php?y=09&m=01&entry=entry090121-104256 http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090113-125735 http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090113-125735 San Base Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:57:35 GMT http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/comments.php?y=09&m=01&entry=entry090113-125735 http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090104-102042 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):





]]> http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090104-102042 San Base Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:20:42 GMT http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/comments.php?y=09&m=01&entry=entry090104-102042 http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry081231-103132 ]]> http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry081231-103132 San Base Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:31:32 GMT http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/comments.php?y=08&m=12&entry=entry081231-103132 http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry081228-105904 >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.


]]> http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry081228-105904 San Base Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:59:04 GMT http://www.sanbasestudio.com/blog/comments.php?y=08&m=12&entry=entry081228-105904