Will the Robots not just be our masters, but eventually our "Old Masters" as well?

Portrait of Edmond Belamy, 2018, created by GAN (Generative Adversarial Network), sold by Christie’s for $432,500. Image © Obvious (via ArtfixDaily.com)

We have always heard comments about modern and contemporary art (usually abstract) along the lines of "my kid could do that", and we have seen paintings by elephants and monkeys. Now the computer has entered the picture, and a huge price was obtained for a painting generated via computer artificial intelligence.

In this article, "Is artificial intelligence set to become art’s next medium?" a work created by computer algorithm sold for 432,500.

There are many aspects of life and work where computers and robotics are not only helpful, but can actually do a better job than humans. Will this means of producing art be one of them? While the visual appeal and technical qualities are undeniable, there is one significant difference as far as I am concerned.

A 2015 paper :Quantifying Creativity in Art Networks by Ahmed Elgammalyand Babak Salehz from the Art and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at Rutgers discussed whether artificial intelligence could evaluate the creativity of artworks. Their conclusion, in short, was yes, it could. I wonder if they have plans to now study the computer generated art for creativity. We could now have computers both creating and critiquing works of art!

Over time, our relationship to art changes, as do fashions and trends in art. But I think there is one constant we can rely on (at least for now, I hope):

While computers can "create" art, unlike humans, they don't have a need to create art.

Reusable Universes: Shih Chieh Huang Worcester Art Museum

Is this Contemporary Art of the future ? ?  Worth viewing the exhibit to appreciate the possibilities of recycling . 

June 24 - November 12, 2017
Contemporary Gallery

Reusable Universes: Shih Chieh Huang features the work of Shih Chieh Huang, who combines his longstanding fascination with technology and the materials of modern life to transform mundane manufactured objects into novel and remarkably complex sculptural forms. Huang elevates circuit building, transistor rewiring, and other hardware operations into an art that connects not only with our senses but our sense of humanity between today's virtual and analog existence.

 For more information go to :

http://www.worcesterart.org/exhibitions/reusable-universes-shih-chieh-huang/

The Museum Visit

Paintings and other items combined in this arrangement at the Barnes Foundation, Philadelphia.

As part of my art history classes I require students to visit a museum and report on works of art. And by museum, I mean an actual museum, not a book or an on-line gallery. There are several good reasons for doing this.

Photography and its delivery of images can be deceptive; when printed in a book, a painting may not have the life and subtlety, or in some cases, the impact of the actual work. When viewed on-line, the image created by the illuminated pixels on your screen again, may present an image more vibrant than the original. Whether these are good or bad effects, they are still at least one step removed from the physical artifact.

What do you see when you see the actual work of art? For one thing, the scale. It is not uncommon when coming across a work of art you have only seen in reproduction to be struck by the size. No matter how good the image, facing a wall size work involves you in a totally different way. By the same token, you can search in vain for a work you have seen pictured, because you didn't realize how small a painting it was.

Another aspect missing in reproduction is texture. Until we have some new technology (and we undoubtedly will), images are flat and smooth,  but the surfaces of the art work will be readily apparent in real life (sometimes even providing a temptation to touch the art work).

A third aspect to the museum installation is the relationship among the various works on display. Sometimes this will be an arrangement of works similar in technique, country of origin or historical period, but as is seen more often now in museums, juxtapositions to compare and contrast, making the viewer see artworks in new contexts.

Not that there aren't downsides to the museum visit. In addition to "museum fatigue", when we try to take in too much, this pace can also cause us to spend too little time having a personal interaction with the art. There was an interesting article in the New York Times October 9, 2014 by Stephanie Rosenbloom that suggested we slow down when visiting a museum.

From the article:

When you go to the library,” said James O. Pawelski, the director of education for the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania, “you don’t walk along the shelves looking at the spines of the books and on your way out tweet to your friends, ‘I read 100 books today!'” Yet that’s essentially how many people experience a museum. “They see as much of art as you see spines on books,” said Professor Pawelski, who studies connections between positive psychology and the humanities. “You can’t really see a painting as you’re walking by it.”

I have noticed when in museums, particularly ones with iconic works, the number of people photographing not just the works, but taking pictures of their companions in front of the work, or even "selfies" with the works. The reasons for this must be varied, and probably interesting. Have you done this? What does it say about your relationship to art? Reading the linked article may give you some thoughts.

Vermeer and Camera

Vermeer's "The Music Lesson"

The other evening we finally got to see the film "Tim'sVermeer". In short, this is the story of Tim Jenison, an inventor and entrepreneur who became interested in the "photographic" quality of  the Dutch painter Johanne Vermeer's work, and wanted to see if technology aided the artist. His theory is that a primitive (by our standards) optical device, the "camera obscura", which was well known at that time, was used for drawing. He did not understand, however, how this would have aided in the color. Bit of a spoiler, a mirror was also required.

Jenison, an art novice, finds he can make an almost perfect replica of a photograph using his technique. He then moves on to the next step, working as he believed Johannes Vermeer (1632–1675)  did.

The film takes us through the process of recreating the physical setup of the studio arrangement, including replicating the items appearing in the painting "The Music Lesson".

There are two art experts and authors appearing in the film.

Philip Steadman, author of  Vermeer’s Camera, examined the paintings of Vermeer and through geometry believes he has proof that the painter used a camera obscura to create the drawing/composition.

Artist David Hockney wrote Secret Knowledge, where he is convinced the use of technology (in terms of lenses, etc.) was in use by a number of artists, and earlier than believed.

I found this all intriguing, and like any modern person, found myself "googling" into the night to learn more.

As contrasted with the "Vermeer" replica in the film, it doesn't seem that these two authors actually put their theories to the test to create a painting. There were also some interesting comments in some of the reviews and articles below. The film comments that there was no underpainting or drawing in Vermeer's work - but this is contradicted by critics, as there is evidence of underpainting, and the fact that drawing done in chalk would be obliterated during the painting process. The film oddly enough shows Jenison's painting having a drawing marked on the canvas.

Another quibble was the selection of the work; probably for dramatic effect, the work selected is in the Queen of England's collection, and much was made of the fact that it was not available, but that Jenison was given an opportunity to see it privately, when in fact, the work is on view for special exhibitions, including the National Gallery.

So, still not conclusive. Did Vermeer rely on this technology? Use it in portions of paintings or only certain paintings? Or did he simply have a unique "eye" and a repertoire of artistic "tricks" to create illusions. When I look at images of  all the known Vermeers, they seem to vary in their "photographic" appearance, with some looking decidedly "painterly".

Young Woman with a Water Pitcher, ca. 1662. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Marquand Collection, Gift of Henry G. Marquand, 1889 (89.15.21)

Study of a Young Woman, ca. 1665–67, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Wrightsman, in memory of Theodore Rousseau, Jr., 1979 (1979.396.1)

Perhaps more people will be inspired to experiment with these theories (or maybe Vermeer's equipment will turn up at a yard sale) and we will have a more conclusive ending to this story.

Some additional resources.

You can find just about everything we know of Vermeer here. See a page of this website dealing with Vermeer's possible use of a camera obscura here.

Some additional reviews, commentary and interesting stuff:

http://www.webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/

http://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/2614_Tims_notVermeer

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/jan/28/tims-vermeer-fails

http://www.artsatl.com/2014/03/review-67/

Looking at Art through your Viewfinder"

"Purma Special" Attributed to Raymond Loewy  (American (born France) Paris 1893–1986 Monte Carlo)

There was a time when photography was almost universally prohibited in museums. Of course, in those days, the hauling about of equipment, and the large flash units would be annoying to other visitors.

Why are people doing this, and what is it doing to their museum experience. Certainly, many want to record the time when they finally come face to face with that iconic work that they only knew from pictures in the art texts. Others may want to make a collection of references for their own use. And some want to simply record part of their vacation, posing the family in front of Whistler's Mother they way they would pose with Goofy and Pluto at Disney World.

But there seem to be others who are obsessed with recording most, if not every item they look at. During one visit to the Phillips Collection in Washington D.C., a man wandered with an Ipad making a catalog of every item that was on view. And a woman was having great difficulty dealing with the reflection on a Berenice Abbott photo while she tried to photograph the photograph. What was the goal? I am sure there was a museum book/catalog that would have the images (professionally photographed under good conditions), and you could buy a postcard of the Abbott photo in the gift shop.

While visiting the Musee d'Orsay in Paris (home of some of the most famous impressionist paintings), groups of tourists moved from one to the next, photographing each. Were these mementos adding to their experience? Were they now removing themselves from their encounter with art, keeping it "at camera's length"? Is the visit not real until it is recorded? And will these digital images, like the millions of color vacation photos taken over the years, simply exist, unlooked at, not in shoeboxes, but in some computing cloud limbo?

In a Sunday New York Times Article Sept. 29,  "Hey Starry Night, Say 'Cheese' " , art critic Deborah Solomon discusses the phenomenon of picture taking, which has only grown with the availability of smartphone cameras. She feels that overall this will be good for "visual literacy", and enhance, not diminish our relationship with art. If only I could feel so sure of that.

Photo:

"Purma Special" Attributed to Raymond Loewy (American (born France) Paris 1893–1986 Monte Carlo)
Manufacturer: Purma Camera, Ltd., England 1937
Metropolitan Museum of Art, John C. Waddell Collection, Gift of John C. Waddell, 2000