Computer Generated Art
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
It's just you, yov. I can't imagine Whistler getting that wrong.
About what year was this, Whistler? Because I haven't seen a digital readout exactly like that in a long time. It helps give the whole thing a slightly comical retro feel.
Her Naugahyde(TM) jumpsuit looks comfy.
No, I am afraid I must find you guilty of deliberate irony in a commercial context. Tsk, tsk.
About what year was this, Whistler? Because I haven't seen a digital readout exactly like that in a long time. It helps give the whole thing a slightly comical retro feel.
Her Naugahyde(TM) jumpsuit looks comfy.
No, I am afraid I must find you guilty of deliberate irony in a commercial context. Tsk, tsk.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Well, the further irony is that his intended audience probably thought it was a masterpiece.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
My fondest hope is that no audience exists, or ever existed.
You know the saddest part? I have never made anything approaching this amount of money for anything else I have ever done.
Why do the boneheads have all the money? Why does a sophisticated, sensitive intellectual never show up with a wheelbarrow full of cash and say, "Here's lots of money! Take it, and make something wonderful!"?
Now, that would be the stuff of science fiction.
You know the saddest part? I have never made anything approaching this amount of money for anything else I have ever done.
Why do the boneheads have all the money? Why does a sophisticated, sensitive intellectual never show up with a wheelbarrow full of cash and say, "Here's lots of money! Take it, and make something wonderful!"?
Now, that would be the stuff of science fiction.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46194
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
PLEASE NOTE: This post contains images featuring non-sexual nudity. These are images of computer-generated humans and are not photographs. As the study of art is one of the purposes of the HoF, artistic nudity (in the proper forum) is not forbidden here if it is included with serious intent and is not regarded as offensive or gratuitous by the administrators, or by the membership in general. Even so, I have placed a few strategic blurs on the images in hope of minimizing any possible objections.
•••••••
I thought I might post some images of the same "alien" lady as she is properly used as an art reference tool. Most of these images are a bit creepy, but they don't approach the level of tackiness as seen in the book cover. How could they?
They tend to look like mannequins, some more than others. The "robotic" look can be minimized in a variety of ways, but in most cases this was not necessary for my purposes. I post them not because they are art (they aren't) but because they are a means to art that non-professionals seldom get to see.
This particular "woman" is based on a real model who was scanned into a computer and translated into a mesh composed of tens of thousands of dots and lines. Her "skin" is created from hundreds of photos of her actual skin, so in closeups minor blemishes are visible.
The mesh is first edited as needed: Race, body weight, etc. are determined by the use of literally hundreds of dials that are turned to make adjustments to literally every body part. Complexion, eye color, etc. are also adjusted as needed. A digital "wig" is then added.
Then the figure is posed as needed, with appropriate lighting. Because she is weightless and can be viewed from any angle for an infinite period of time, an artist can use her to create reference poses impossible with a real human. Imagine the sort of extreme poses you'd see in a comic book, and you'll understand that they could never be convincingly created in reality...at least, not for more than two seconds.
Sometimes the model is drawn in a different medium; sometimes (usually when video is the medium) she is used as you see her, with appropriate clothing and props. She can be animated in two ways: by hand, one body part at a time, or by the process of "motion capture." You have all seen films of Andy Serkis creating motion capture files for use on the figure of Gollum: This model can be animated in the same way, all the way down to her lips, which can be made to speak any line of dialogue.
She can also be edited in the same way: Once I actually turned her into Gollum, complete with pointed ears and rotten teeth!
Films with the traditional "cast of thousands" are becoming a thing of the past as figures of this type are increasingly used instead of real people. When hundreds of people fell into the water in the film Titanic, those people were this lady and her gentleman friend. They, and figures like them, have appeared in countless films since that time, most notably (for us) in The Lord Of the Rings.
•••••••
I thought I might post some images of the same "alien" lady as she is properly used as an art reference tool. Most of these images are a bit creepy, but they don't approach the level of tackiness as seen in the book cover. How could they?
They tend to look like mannequins, some more than others. The "robotic" look can be minimized in a variety of ways, but in most cases this was not necessary for my purposes. I post them not because they are art (they aren't) but because they are a means to art that non-professionals seldom get to see.
This particular "woman" is based on a real model who was scanned into a computer and translated into a mesh composed of tens of thousands of dots and lines. Her "skin" is created from hundreds of photos of her actual skin, so in closeups minor blemishes are visible.
The mesh is first edited as needed: Race, body weight, etc. are determined by the use of literally hundreds of dials that are turned to make adjustments to literally every body part. Complexion, eye color, etc. are also adjusted as needed. A digital "wig" is then added.
Then the figure is posed as needed, with appropriate lighting. Because she is weightless and can be viewed from any angle for an infinite period of time, an artist can use her to create reference poses impossible with a real human. Imagine the sort of extreme poses you'd see in a comic book, and you'll understand that they could never be convincingly created in reality...at least, not for more than two seconds.
Sometimes the model is drawn in a different medium; sometimes (usually when video is the medium) she is used as you see her, with appropriate clothing and props. She can be animated in two ways: by hand, one body part at a time, or by the process of "motion capture." You have all seen films of Andy Serkis creating motion capture files for use on the figure of Gollum: This model can be animated in the same way, all the way down to her lips, which can be made to speak any line of dialogue.
She can also be edited in the same way: Once I actually turned her into Gollum, complete with pointed ears and rotten teeth!
Films with the traditional "cast of thousands" are becoming a thing of the past as figures of this type are increasingly used instead of real people. When hundreds of people fell into the water in the film Titanic, those people were this lady and her gentleman friend. They, and figures like them, have appeared in countless films since that time, most notably (for us) in The Lord Of the Rings.
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
That's fascinating, Whistler.
The level of realism in some of those images is startling.
You refer to this is a reference tool. Would an artist work with an image like these visible while he created his own image, as with a live model? Or would he create his own image around one of these?
The level of realism in some of those images is startling.
You refer to this is a reference tool. Would an artist work with an image like these visible while he created his own image, as with a live model? Or would he create his own image around one of these?
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Is the primary purpose speed of creation?
Obviously an artist could create his own image by hand, but it would take much longer.
I'm also thinking that having images like this available does not really overcome questions of composition and realism, since an artist wishing to create a believable image would still have to have the traditional understanding of anatomy, and for the pic to be aesthetically pleasing it would have to conform to our notions of balance and dynamic and such.
Jn
Obviously an artist could create his own image by hand, but it would take much longer.
I'm also thinking that having images like this available does not really overcome questions of composition and realism, since an artist wishing to create a believable image would still have to have the traditional understanding of anatomy, and for the pic to be aesthetically pleasing it would have to conform to our notions of balance and dynamic and such.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
As a non-artist I have a very old-fashioned image of how artists work. Even though my own son creates computer imagery, it's hard for me to grasp tools that are part of the image that is ultimately created. It depends on the artist's goals, the time available, and the desired result, I'm sure, but some of this strikes me as if a writer could buy pre-written love scenes or fight scenes and plug them into her work, with a few quick changes. As a writer myself, I can see how that could very easily produce a bad novel.
What I'm trying to get at is: is it harder to create good art with these tools, or does that, too, depend on the artist?
What I'm trying to get at is: is it harder to create good art with these tools, or does that, too, depend on the artist?
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Harder to create good art?
I'd say it's a neutral matter. No computer program makes art, only an artist makes art. To do that he uses whatever tools are available. What happens from that point on is good or bad dependent on the taste and intelligence of the artist.
Obviously, my book cover is in the worst possible taste. But two or three of these images (look at the one of the kneeling woman, lost in shadow, looking upward) have an impact that almost qualifies as art. I could turn that particular image into a very powerful painting.
What the new technology does is eliminate the "busy work" of creating art and streamline the process of moving from Point A to Point B. If the artist is creating his art for a living, this is a very important consideration. I can come home after working ten hours at a computer, sit down at my studio Mac and create a six-foot painting before bedtime. This would have been unimaginable in pre-digital days.
Of course (and I have mentioned this elsewhere) there is a great danger in handing these tools to people who have not learned about art the hard way. They are often dazzled by the technology, but they forget about the essentials of design, color and composition that are vastly more important.
My rule is this: If you can't do it WITHOUT the technology, you cannot do it properly WITH the technology. These tools are simply an aid to productivity. So yes, Jn, speeding up the process is the idea. And that's not necessarily a vulgar concept, as long as the results are worthwhile.
I'd say it's a neutral matter. No computer program makes art, only an artist makes art. To do that he uses whatever tools are available. What happens from that point on is good or bad dependent on the taste and intelligence of the artist.
Obviously, my book cover is in the worst possible taste. But two or three of these images (look at the one of the kneeling woman, lost in shadow, looking upward) have an impact that almost qualifies as art. I could turn that particular image into a very powerful painting.
What the new technology does is eliminate the "busy work" of creating art and streamline the process of moving from Point A to Point B. If the artist is creating his art for a living, this is a very important consideration. I can come home after working ten hours at a computer, sit down at my studio Mac and create a six-foot painting before bedtime. This would have been unimaginable in pre-digital days.
Of course (and I have mentioned this elsewhere) there is a great danger in handing these tools to people who have not learned about art the hard way. They are often dazzled by the technology, but they forget about the essentials of design, color and composition that are vastly more important.
My rule is this: If you can't do it WITHOUT the technology, you cannot do it properly WITH the technology. These tools are simply an aid to productivity. So yes, Jn, speeding up the process is the idea. And that's not necessarily a vulgar concept, as long as the results are worthwhile.
That's fascinating, Whistler. Thanks for posting that. I assume this is the model you said you bought on the last page? I presume there is a male equivalent? Do they also have "stock" animals and such?
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Whistler, the image of the kneeling shadowed woman was the one that struck me as potentially "real" art, too. And of course it's not the tool that makes it so, but your informed choice of position and lighting and composition.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King