This is either...
A bad photograph
or a good painting!
.jpg)
(1)
How do you, we, us as a society,
(2)determine what is good
(3)and what is bad?
(4)Tell me what you think. I really want to know!
images(1) to (4)courtesy of pixabay.com
👍
ouzo and out,
@onceuponatime
There is a plan!
(It's unfolding NOW)
https://web.telegram.org/#/im?p=@officialbeos
.
.
Please spread the word about BEOS
It's not quite bad photography but I am curious if it will make a good painting. So I ran it by deepdreamgenerator and came up with this.
So now it is a painting? And it is "good"? Could the whole process have been done by AI? Was an "artist" really needed? I'm confused :-)
If bad photographs can be turned into good paintings by artificial intelligence.........
I think it's a trap :-)
I believe the platform for deepdreamgenerator is AI driven. Many things don't need humans in the end. Frw years ago i was re-practicing Chinese calligraphy when i saw an ABB robot doing that with 2 hands simultaneously.
I dunno if I'd agree with you that that's a bad photograph, if it is one. If one looks at the beautiful works of Christopher Dydyk, and other fine-art photographers, whose photographs are more like impressionist paintings than classical photography, one can see that the distortion of these boundaries is something that yields stylistically unconventional photographs which are conventionally aesthetically pleasing--or maybe that's just me.
Maybe in terms of good/bad you're talking about some skill level? Impressionist painting is a difficult skill and a photograph can be composed by one click, but that leaves the realm of aesthetics and approaches the topic from skill.
Or perhaps human value of the aesthetic is, in part, derived from skill; that is to say, perhaps due to supply/demand exchange value under the capitalist mode of production there is the construction of value such that perceived aesthetic value is correlated with price. Maybe this ties into the more postmodernist idea of sign value.
Just some thoughts.
The ability to provide that visual as a painting is rare I assume. The ability to create the very same visual to a perceiver with a good enough camera depends mainly on your ability to afford the camera. The visual provided to the viewer is practically indistinguishable. It seems that technology, especially AI, is going to greatly diminish the value of many skills. I wonder which ones will remain valuable?
I mean, one route--the most depressing of all--would be the absolute disintegration of the human proclivity to value art. I doubt this, though; even with the use of technology, innovations will always come and therefore be able to distance themselves from others and create sign value. Even if this sign value is produced by AI, it still exists (as much as sign value of art produced by another human). I suppose here is a situation where death of the author comes in handy!
And regarding cost/skill difference, I'd argue that in photography there's a different type of skill. A photographer has to find some scene such that the image has good composition and the likely uncountable other elements that go into a photograph (or at least an aesthetically pleasing one by common standards). Not to mention that the more money one invests in painting, the easier it is to paint. Paintbrushes, for instance, are a perfect example of this. Also, having all the colours you'd even need removes the skill element of colour mixing, too, so in a number of regards the ability to produce "good" paintings is contingent upon expensive tools, too. Both media have similar but incomparable elements of skill and, to some extent, cost (cost is comparable in the sense that it's a linear value that can be compared, but how that converts into art is dependent upon other things, also).
"the absolute disintegration of the human proclivity to value art" from any standard beyond pretentiousness is pretty far along already, wouldn't you say?
My theory:
Looks actually like a Bad Quality photo, does not mean it's a bad photo. Looks like it's taken with a phone or a digital camera with software zoom not optical zoom. It can be through a glass that it's not that clear or even a not-good/blurry lens, the reflection in the water it's pretty realistic, does not mean that painters aren't capable or replicating this water realism but it looks pretty photo-ish to me.
It's blurry especially on the borders, and not sharp at all. It's not that grainy because there's plenty of light, but we can see noise in the overall photo in the colors and the light of the picture. I downloaded the picture and ran it through affinity photo with noise reduction in color and luminance, and sharpened a litte, this way looks more like a bad quality-filtery-photo.
I'm not sure. Maybe your version looks even more like a good painting. It would take quite a lot of skill to paint that.
Maybe, i agree. Actually i follow a few amazing realism painters that make me cuestion the photo. But my theory comes from some test i made with DSLR and phone cameras, and i found it more leaned to a bad quality photo. But again, yes, that's why it's just a theory.
I would like to think there is one ultimate truth that was laid out for us by our creator that expresses what is good and bad. Sadly man has tried to offer multiple interpretations of it and water it down where each person has his or her own truth or belief. We have strayed from the original compass of good and bad. Thanks.
You would "like to think" that because it brings you peace, because it absolves you from responsibility of making your own decisions, because that is what you were told by an authority figure, because it came to you in a dream, because of your interpretation of what the Bible is saying, or why exactly?
And from the perspective of what you like to think, are you able to determine whether the first image in the post is a bad photograph or a good paintng? If so, how?
@onceuponatime,
Definitely a great painting in my view!
Cheers~
But what if it is not a painting? After all, it might be a photograph. It could even be a photograph of a painting (or a painting of a photograph). So is it "good", or is it "bad"?
Well, also the answer to this question could be good or bad. It's not a simple question and I think the right answer doesn't exist. Maybe everything is relative, but about life I like to think if something is good for me and it doesn't hurt anyone, that's a good thing. 😊
Posted using Partiko Android
Wow. I have gone to jail before for things that are good for me and don't hurt anyone!
You really should tell us that story one of these days!
It's for sale to the highest bidder :-)
To my mind, I like symmetry or geometric type of images. However I have to say sometimes a black and white minimalist photo can be as, if not more, compelling than a flasy and overly busy piece.
Great question BTW.
Now theres a question! It is all relative isn't it? The individual, the collective and above. I would normally be tempted to give the answer a bash but I am drinking beer and fear my answer would be poor! :OD
Does that make beer good? or bad?
Haha!! Nicely done! :O)
Always good! Well, except for the bad. Oh no, I am caught in a loop!
I was caught in an elevator once (without any beer! Oh no!)
That sounds frankly horrifying!! Which is why I always have an emergency six pack elevator kit with me!
You must have been either a boy scout or a girl guide in drag :-)
A good scout!!
Being good is stupid. Being bad is smart.🤡😇🤑🤩🥂
I suppose that depends a lot on how you define "good" and "bad". If you define "good" as whatever moves you towards your goal or aim, then being "good" is probably smart and being "bad" is a meaningless waste of your time and energy.
I love water and I love photos of water , reflections and so paintings of water too. I like this as a photo I don’t think it’s bad in the slightest. If it were a painting it would be amazing- win win for me because water is one of my greatest loves ❤️
You're easy to please :-)