PDA

View Full Version : New form changes the way you look at art


sanbase
01-19-2009, 05:34 PM
By Kelly Gadzala,
Town Crier, Toronto Today
-------------------------------------

You look at a screen on the wall of an art gallery and something starts to move. The abstract images and shapes behind the glass melt and morph into new and ever-changing designs. No matter how long you find yourself looking at it, you never see the same scene twice.

What you are seeing is the work of Yorkville, Toronto artist San Base, who creates what he calls dynamic paintings using mathematical equations and computer technology.

“It’s like life,” he says of his work, which he shows at his newly opened San Base Studios on Scollard St. “It’s unpredictable, it’s endless.”

A former system program developer, Base quit his day job four years ago and started developing his dynamic painting concept. His new venture combines his talent for computer programming with his passion for art he’s been indulging since high school in his native Kyiv, Ukraine.

To create a dynamic painting, Base thinks of shapes and colours and translates them into a math equation in a computer program, then mutates that equation to make the picture change. The process of creating a painting — about two weeks, Base says — requires sophisticated video card and graphical processor technology that didn’t exist until recently.

Though the technology is vital to his work, Base suggests there’s still a creative process involved. Only a human can do the programming, he says, and he still creates in the theme of the painting by generating shapes and colours and scanning them into the computer system.

Base insists his creations are more complicated than computer graphics or digital animation.

Computer graphics, he says, are based on models created by designers that are static and predictable, while his art is based on a different principle: “There is no knowledge of what’s going to happen next,” he says.

The final product can take various forms. If clients have a flat screen TV, then they buy hardware that can be attached to the TV and view the painting that way.

The painting can be programmed to change as quickly or slowly as desired and this version never repeats itself. The pricetag: around $7,000.

Less expensive options include a Blu-ray or DVD recording of a dynamic painting that will repeat itself after an hour, or a print of a dynamic painting on a canvas.

Base conceived of the idea of live painting 15 years ago in Kyiv. The economy had collapsed, he says, and art supplies were scarce. He started painting over his old canvases as a result, and noticed he was trying to harmonize the old paint colours with the fresh new colours he was painting over top. He ended up transforming the same painting again and again, he says, but found the process labourious.

Now Base hopes to target design professionals with his live paintings. In the end, though, he does what he does for sheer art’s sake.

“I’m an artist,” he says. “I make it for myself.”

---------------------

http://www.towncrieronline.ca/images/story_M3_Painting.jpg

ART ON THE MOVE: Artist and computer programmer San Base watches one of his creations shift and change.
Base says that each painting will never look the same twice no matter how long it runs.

San Base website: http://www.SanBaseStudio.com (http://www.sanbasestudio.com/)

Per-Anders
01-19-2009, 06:48 PM
Look it's nice that you're making your art installations and doing well out of it, and I do genuinely enjoy what I see, but please loose the pretentiousness. What you're doing is not a new form of art, I was doing self generative CG art years ago (yes in galleries), others way before me. And self generative art has been going on since the early part of the 20th century.

You've got a nice algorithm, but stop trying to sell yourself so hard here, repetition doesn't make something true, this is getting on the level of spam.

sanbase
01-19-2009, 09:34 PM
Look it's nice that you're making your art installations and doing well out of it, and I do genuinely enjoy what I see, but please loose the pretentiousness. What you're doing is not a new form of art, I was doing self generative CG art years ago (yes in galleries), others way before me. And self generative art has been going on since the early part of the 20th century.
You are right, there have been many attempts at producing generative art; the history of it goes back to the early days of computer development. But I think you probably missed something. It is not an algorithm or a program. It is a device. This device has power about 1Tfls, so I'm sure you couldn't make something like this years ago. I never said that I've invented generative art but now we can generate digital images (2560x1600) in real-time and with a quality of tradition oil painting. It's next level, new technology and a new art form.



Best regards,
San

Martin_G_3D
01-19-2009, 09:52 PM
What about making interactive art on a mac classic?

sanbase
01-19-2009, 10:24 PM
What about making interactive art on a mac classic?

Unfortunately dynamic painting is not an interactive tool at the moment. We think about using webcamera as an input device, in this case it can be some kind of interactive art but it is not so easy.
Concerning Mac: as I said, dynamic painting is not a program, it's device.

P.S.
take look at the demo (it's a real dynamic picture 'as is')
http://www.sanbasestudio.com/demo/test4.html
or this one:
http://www.sanbasestudio.com/demo/test1.html (http://www.sanbasestudio.com/demo/test1.html)

visionmaster2
01-19-2009, 10:47 PM
looks like a pretty screen saver to me.


.

shuggie
01-20-2009, 01:36 AM
I think you might have a hard time on here, given your somewhat dismisive tone regarding mainstream work (and its worth/complexities). With that said I think this is an interesting development, although I don't really buy into the notion of this art being unpredictable, the variables may allow for infinite arrangements but the constituent parts don't really alter.

ulb
01-20-2009, 01:46 AM
looks like a pretty screen saver to me.


.agreed.

its nice but nothing new, and that phrase "with a quality of tradition oil painting" made me laugh.

ThE_JacO
01-20-2009, 02:40 AM
I can definitely say the thread title isn't all that correct.

It includes the word "you", but I can assure you that it didn't change MY way of looking at art.
I also fail to see stacking cycles and adding 100 pixels per side to stuff that was being done 8 years ago as innovative, let alone revolutionary.

The demo-scene has done infinitely more complex and appealing stuff, with much more refined design elements and more researched, visionary art direction for decades now, and the level of what you show has been matched or surpassed by demos I saw in Sweden several years ago already.

An ok screensaver that totally blows the screensaver budget, but not art. Art being subjective of course, all of this is just my opinion.

sanbase
01-20-2009, 03:50 AM
The demo-scene has done infinitely more complex and appealing stuff, with much more refined design elements and more researched, visionary art direction for decades now, and the level of what you show has been matched or surpassed by demos I saw in Sweden several years ago already.
The demo-scene, as well as computer animation can be attributed to Cyclic Art. Cyclic Art works have a beginning and end, and can be repeated. By contrast, dynamic painting technique creates original images all the time. Thus, a painting acquires another dimension – the dimension of time. Moreover, the period is infinite. The painting is always in the state of a perpetual transformation. It never repeats itself. There is a big difference.

its nice but nothing new, and that phrase "with a quality of tradition oil painting" made me laugh.Don't laught. Take a look at this image (resolution 8000x5765): http://www.sanbase.com/art/exp1.jpg
This image has been created 3 years ago. My latest works made in resolution 14626x9016. I use supersampling when I display it on 2560x1600 screen

P.S.
I'm not an author of this article. The original text is here: http://www.towncrieronline.ca/main/main.php?direction=viewstory&storyid=7660

R10k
01-20-2009, 03:55 AM
...and that phrase "with a quality of tradition oil painting" made me laugh.

Yes indeedy... comparing a flat, 2560x1600 display is so far from any kind of traditional media on canvas (or similar) it's quite ridiculous. Nice work, but that kind of statement is just silly.

EDIT: And I'll add- the resolution doesn't matter. The effect of light on natural media can't properly be replicated by a display. Perhaps one day you'll have the sharpness, but not the quality.

khendar
01-20-2009, 04:05 AM
Are these "demos" actually dynamic ? It seems that they're exactly the same every time you run them.

Lunatique
01-20-2009, 06:22 AM
Don't laught. Take a look at this image (resolution 8000x5765): http://www.sanbase.com/art/exp1.jpg
This image has been created 3 years ago. My latest works made in resolution 14626x9016. I use supersampling when I display it on 2560x1600 screen


Have you actually seen some of the masterpieces of oil painting in person? A life-sized John Singer Sargent portrait? A Bouguereau? J W Waterhouse? Or modern masters like Richard Schmid? Pino? Jeremy Lipking? If you have and still claim what you claimed, then all I can say is your idea of artistic excellence and beauty is not the same as mine, or most artists I know, or most non-artists I know.

The way light enters the varnish, into the various transparent and opaque layers of paint, which contains various types of minerals and pigment, bounces around, and back out into our eyes, creates an effect that no digital medium can touch, and probably never will (but of course, never say never). Prints in books do absolutely no justice to the real thing. I collect John Singer Sargent books and have a huge stack of them, and when I go see his shows in person, the paintings that made no real impression on me when I flipped through the books would end up stunning me in real life. The difference is profound. It's like taking a beautiful piece of symphonic work recorded in high definition 192Khz/24bit stereo (the original), and then squashing it into mono and then compressed to a 64kbps MP3 (the print)--all the sense of dimensionality and presence is gone (actually, the live performance of said piece would be the real original, not the high def recording). That's the difference between a real oil painting and a print of it. A digital display really not that much better than a print, and CANNOT compare to the original oil painting. Until digital displays come up with a way to portray multi-layer and true dimensionality of impasto (essentially mimicking various thickness and opacity of paint, and various light-reflection qualities of minerals and pigments), it will not come close to real oil paintings.

ThE_JacO
01-20-2009, 08:50 AM
Are these "demos" actually dynamic ? It seems that they're exactly the same every time you run them.
Yes, plenty demos (some conventions had a whole category for it) are generative and NOT cyclic. Most are input reactive, those that take user input or a periodic function for input tend to show more patterning.

There have been plenty though that used pseudo-random time signatures (which most likely is what the generative art here does) to feed the parametrization, and even ran accumulation (usually progressively smoothing higher frequencies into lower to avoid accumulation taking a ton of space) to make sure patterning was scrambled into being impossible to detect.

Oh, many of those things are less than 100KB on disk and can only use 16MB of video memory or less because of comp rules. Those in unlimited tended to be pretty ****ing impressive, and most of them ran at 4 passes of near brute force supersampling in 2k, which places them well above a 14k horizontal raw.

Lunatique
01-20-2009, 09:34 AM
Yes, plenty demos (some conventions had a whole category for it) are generative and NOT cyclic. Most are input reactive, those that take user input or a periodic function for input tend to show more patterning.

There have been plenty though that used pseudo-random time signatures (which most likely is what the generative art here does) to feed the parametrization, and even ran accumulation (usually progressively smoothing higher frequencies into lower to avoid accumulation taking a ton of space) to make sure patterning was scrambled into being impossible to detect.

Oh, many of those things are less than 100KB on disk and can only use 16MB of video memory or less because of comp rules. Those in unlimited tended to be pretty ****ing impressive, and most of them ran at 4 passes of near brute force supersampling in 2k, which places them well above a 14k horizontal raw.

I was briefly involved with a legendary demo group (Alcatraz) when they invited me to join them. Although I never had time to do much with them, the invitation prompted me to do homework in the history of the demo-scene. I had known about the demo-scene for years but never participated or looked too deeply into it, but once I did, I was very impressed by the sheer talent of the collective--be it in coding, design, music...etc. The fact some demos were so incredibly tiny in size, yet were so breathtakingly imaginative and complex was just mind-boggling. To be perfectly honest, the demo scene is far more innovative and imaginative than whatever this thread is about. Maybe sanbase should join a demo group and get involved in a movement that truly inspires and innovates. But then again, the demo scene is about being part of a highly creative community, not about personal gain.

danshewan
01-20-2009, 09:40 AM
All issues of technical achievement and originality aside, posting the entirety of an article from a newspaper, without any other input from yourself as to why this constitutes news, is incredibly pompous. Since the general consensus of opinion is that your technique isn't really new at all, I'm surprised that this thread hasn't been locked.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would probably have been more interested in reading more about your art without the pretension and self-importance. A link to the article would've been enough.

mccg
01-20-2009, 11:52 AM
I would prefer stepping away from : "It looks like oil-paint, it must be art!"
Otherwise it might endup as a screensaver.

sanbase
01-20-2009, 01:20 PM
I would prefer stepping away from : "It looks like oil-paint, it must be art!"
Otherwise it might endup as a screensaver.Two questions:
1. What is art?
2. What is screensaver?

Why screensaver can not be an art object? You can use Picasso sketch as a post-card, so Picasso sketch is a post-card? Art, not art... It's very subjective.

Sometimes I hear:

- Digital art is not Art!
- Why?
- Because it's digital and they use computers!

:)

A digital display really not that much better than a print, and CANNOT compare to the original oil painting. Until digital displays come up with a way to portray multi-layer and true dimensionality of impasto (essentially mimicking various thickness and opacity of paint, and various light-reflection qualities of minerals and pigments), it will not come close to real oil paintings.
You are right and you are not right. The LCD screen and the canvas are not equal. The screen glows (it illuminates the light by itselves, no external illumination required) and it has very high brightness and contrast. Therefore very often the artwork on the screen looks more juicy and bright. LCD is not INSTEAD of canvas. It's different media. Sometimes it is better sometimes is no.

mullet
01-20-2009, 01:54 PM
wow, this is an interesting thread!.. it's all gone a bit crazy, how long till someone mentions hitler eh?

well, i agree with sanbase's view on the LCD versus the canvas at least - they're simply different and have their own assets - if only we could mix the two together!

But i guess the message is, it's very easy to come across badly on a forum - i still seem to do it - maybe i'm doing it right now!

It's really about posting work and letting others comment - not self proclamation (even though someone else wrote that article, it came across that way)

As for your artwork, it would be cool to learn a little more about it. Maybe you could elaborate - as you've heard in this thread already there's a wealth of experience in this forum - maybe you could learn something new as well?

I think it's cool what you're doing, but for me the creative/artistic interpretation of you're work could be a little more refined, it seems a little mish-mashy at the moment.

I hope you don't take that badly - but forums are for comments and communication, not for showing off.

...well, maybe a little for showing off

R

lovisx
01-20-2009, 04:24 PM
Two questions:
1. What is art?
2. What is screensaver?

Why screensaver can not be an art object? You can use Picasso sketch as a post-card, so Picasso sketch is a post-card? Art, not art... It's very subjective.

Sometimes I hear:

- Digital art is not Art!
- Why?
- Because it's digital and they use computers!

:)



It just seems like you aren't taking advantage of your medium. Instead of trying to recreate an oil painting and make it move, why not do your stuff from the ground up to take advantage. With digital you can use any material, and you aren't confined to 2D space. It seems that you are using oil as a way of reaching out to traditional artists. Which isn't bad, especially if it gives you a foot hold to try new stuff. I think your stuff is intriguing and hope that simulated oil paint isn't the only material you try to use for it. I think that because it's using simulated oil right now, it does seem like a gimmick.

meats
01-20-2009, 05:15 PM
Sanbase -

Congratulations on staying professional under all of these attacks on something that you are very clearly passionate about. I say keep on doing what you are doing (I would expect nothing less). There are very, very few independent digital artists these days spending their days working on things that drive them personally. I'm always happy to see it.

That said - next time, have a friend post your article in general discussions with a catchy title like "Is this a new art form?". People will see it and hopefully discuss. And as a bonus you will avoid looking at all pretentious. ;) Nobody likes the smell of spam.

sanbase
01-20-2009, 06:01 PM
It just seems like you aren't taking advantage of your medium. Instead of trying to recreate an oil painting and make it move, why not do your stuff from the ground up to take advantage. With digital you can use any material, and you aren't confined to 2D space. It seems that you are using oil as a way of reaching out to traditional artists. Which isn't bad, especially if it gives you a foot hold to try new stuff. I think your stuff is intriguing and hope that simulated oil paint isn't the only material you try to use for it. I think that because it's using simulated oil right now, it does seem like a gimmick.
Not a gimmick at all, but one of the most difficult mediums to recreate digitally. I'm an oilpainter first and a programmer by trade. I'm trying to marry the two disciplines to create something new and unique. Imitation of the oil painting is only the first step as I evolve as an artist. Using this technology gives me the ability to create materials that don't exist in nature and I will move in this direction. In any case I think the plot and esthetic of the painting is more important than the material used.

That said - next time, have a friend post your article in general discussions with a catchy title like "Is this a new art form?". People will see it and hopefully discuss. And as a bonus you will avoid looking at all pretentious. ;) Nobody likes the smell of spam.Agree. My fault.

vlad74
01-20-2009, 06:31 PM
Sanbase -

Congratulations on staying professional under all of these attacks on something that you are very clearly passionate about. I say keep on doing what you are doing (I would expect nothing less). There are very, very few independent digital artists these days spending their days working on things that drive them personally. I'm always happy to see it.

That said - next time, have a friend post your article in general discussions with a catchy title like "Is this a new art form?". People will see it and hopefully discuss. And as a bonus you will avoid looking at all pretentious. ;) Nobody likes the smell of spam.

Very well said.

I looked at you work Sanbase. I really like the result. Keep it up.

Leionaaad
01-20-2009, 08:07 PM
Imitation of the oil painting is only the first step as I evolve as an artist.
1. I don't really agree with the sentence above.
2. Interesting. the way things are moving gave me quite a feeling, i imagine how it would be if they were moving really slowly "Hey! it moves! look. Now look closer! See?"
3. I have a hard time accepting that feeling and creation was handed over to a machine using a bunch of numbers. "yeah. I say 3.14 and 1.14, please HAL, do the rest."
4. Maybe Dali would like the idea.

gruhn
01-20-2009, 09:25 PM
"what is Art?" seems to entertain people well beyond what should be its capacity.

"it isn't oil paint" had been, I thought, settled by the photography people. Though a quick look at any art history book for its coverage of sculpture, photography and architecture should prove to me otherwise. Perhaps it has been settled differently by different people ;-)

sanbase
01-21-2009, 03:09 PM
2. Interesting. the way things are moving gave me quite a feeling, i imagine how it would be if they were moving really slowly "Hey! it moves! look. Now look closer! See?".Exactly! We plane to make it for living space. On the other hand in case of the waiting rooms the painting should move faster.
3. I have a hard time accepting that feeling and creation was handed over to a machine using a bunch of numbers. "yeah. I say 3.14 and 1.14, please HAL, do the rest."?".The situation is not so dramatic. :) A computer can’t create anything on its own and it doesn’t embody any creativity. 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.
It is no secret that many artists who have found a successful style and form have exploited it for many years by painting similar pictures without much creativity. A dynamic painting can do the same thing at much higher speed, generating many paintings per minute instead of the 2-3 paintings per week that most conventional artists can produce. The real challenge is coming up with an original idea for a dynamic painting as well as producing it; after that, a computer can mechanically generate variations. The computer, as a tool, frees up the artist’s time to do what as an artist does best: create and innovate.

Leionaaad
01-21-2009, 05:49 PM
It is no secret that many artists who have found a successful style and form have exploited it for many years by painting similar pictures without much creativity.

Don't know what to say. I believe many artists found a style of their own and from that point forward most of their works were variation on a theme. Their couldn't get there, without hard work.

A dynamic painting can do the same thing at much higher speed, generating many paintings per minute instead of the 2-3 paintings per week that most conventional artists can produce.
Actually this is why there are only a very few masterpieces. It takes a lot of time and effort (and probably the right person) to make a masterpiece, and just like pearl, it is a result of an interior conflict or something deep enough that words cannot describe. There is no mathematical equation for human emotion. Take feeling away and you have just a nice picture.
When you make something into mass production personality is lost.

I have mixed feelings about the result. I admire the work and knowledge behind it; You did this, who knows what else you can accomplish. Yet I don't care the computer is capable to generate in a month more than Van Gogh in his entire life.

mccg
01-23-2009, 04:58 PM
Two questions:
1. What is art?
2. What is screensaver?

Why screensaver can not be an art object? You can use Picasso sketch as a post-card, so Picasso sketch is a post-card? Art, not art... It's very subjective.


I'm a hobby photographer, here's the same issue. Some pictures just show art and a very few photos turned to art.
It doesn't matter what media you are using and it doesn't matter what technique you are using. It's the way it's acting with you. In this case (living space), it sounds more design related to me. Cause it's melting with usability, practicability and so on.

Just another example: Some of Escher's works look like clear designs, whilst others turned out very artistical.

gruhn
01-23-2009, 07:32 PM
What I see is that the better artists, the ones who get held up for us all to see aren't commercially churning out repetitions of the same thing over and over again. A trip through the galleries in downtown Scottsdale will show that enough of this is happening, or a glance at the latest "Paints just like Picasso" wonder child. But rather they are working out ideas using the tools they have. A personal style is "how I use my smaller tools, the paint/canvas/brushes/chainsaws" and is itself a tool. Personal styles change, but they don't go "Gee, I think I'll paint every painting differently so I can be a useless noob always." A client one day needs a concert hall and the next one needs a museum. A gallery show focuses on man's inhumanity to man and the next month a beloved cousin dies. These are needs which will be fulfilled in terms of creating a piece of artistic residue. They are opportunities to explore the artist's own abilities and the limit/possibilities of the current way of working. They may show "spaces that tall get expensive" "thin yellow water colour doesn't show bitterness" "curving creases express contemporary cultural ambiguity" "end on brush pokes have unsettled angst" and these insights will change the next work or maybe won't show up for five years. But no, the artist is not just churning out copies of itself (not that they don't, gotta pay the bills and morons "just have to have a Fadman." 'Bread and Butter Work' is not an unknown idea.). And the market will respond and pleasantly it will do so conflictingly "How come this Fadman doesn't look like everybody else's Fadman? I was ripped off." "How come Fadman never does anything new and fresh?"

grrinc
01-23-2009, 08:11 PM
If I could kindly ask you sanbase, what do you consider to be the 'art' aspect of this creation? At the most simplistic, I would call this an image generator. Are the images the art? Do you feel you created every last one of them? Or is the whole apparatus a piece of art? I am not looking to disrespect you - I am genuinely interested in how you would describe this as art. From what I have seen of your site, I can see why you are excited about your work- it impressed me.

sanbase
01-24-2009, 05:28 PM
If I could kindly ask you sanbase, what do you consider to be the 'art' aspect of this creation? At the most simplistic, I would call this an image generator.OK. Question: Who have create this image generator? :)

Are the images the art? Do you feel you created every last one of them? Or is the whole apparatus a piece of art? I am not looking to disrespect you - I am genuinely interested in how you would describe this as art. From what I have seen of your site, I can see why you are excited about your work- it impressed me.
Wikipedia: "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the sense or emotions".

I belive that if your product (it doesn't matter how you have created it) is capable to cause emotions - it is an art product. Why you wish to discuss a method? Look at result: http://www.sanbasestudio.com/dvd.htm

gruhn
01-24-2009, 08:05 PM
> I belive that if your product (it doesn't matter how you have created it)
> is capable to cause emotions - it is an art product

It needn't be on purpose? A car wreck?

> Why you wish to discuss a method?

Ask Jackson Pollock.

Leionaaad
01-25-2009, 08:02 AM
> Why you wish to discuss a method?

Ask Jackson Pollock.

What do you mean by that?
I like his works a lot, but I don't know a lot about the man.

requiem
01-30-2009, 03:22 AM
Hey Sanbase,

Definitely a very cool concept you have, and congratulations on making a viable product out of it. I looked at your body of work and it reminds me a bit of early cg art or bryce work. I think the screensaver mention was very valid. Sure it's much more technical and constantly unique, but the output is still remenicent of a screensaver- and no matter how much effort goes into the creation process, the output is the goal. Maybe just a bit more visual development needs to go into it?

Regardless, I hope it does well and wish you the best!

imwoozy
01-30-2009, 03:03 PM
Sanbase -

Congratulations on staying professional under all of these attacks on something that you are very clearly passionate about.

There were no attack. Just i can repeat it again for those who don't know demoscene. This concept by far isn't new, and calling it revolutionary can be explained only by marketing purposes.

CGTalk Moderation
01-30-2009, 03:03 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.