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.

Does It Really Matter How Old You Are?

When talking about art, we often refer (with reverence to "the Old Masters), while at the same time, much of our culture seems obsessed with youth. The book Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity by David Galenson looks at the question of creativity in the arts and how it correlates to age.

In this book, the author uses his financial analysis background to look at these two sides of art. He uses some interesting concepts and theories (often based on selling prices of artists, appearances in art textbooks, etc.), but even when you may disagree with his ideas, it does make you look at some of these artists in a different way.

To simplify greatly, he essentially divides the work of artists into two camps: The exploratory, experimental workers (those who focus on technique and continual growth to convey their vision), and the conceptual artists, for whom the communication of ideas comes first, and the means of delivery secondary.

Many of his ideas are data-driven, and he makes a good case (although we may feel, intuitively that "it's not what art should be about or judged by"), but it is undeniably a new way of looking at things.

Some artists discussed had profound effects on the development of art while remaining virtually unknown to most of us (Paul Serusier's "The Talisman"), or well known (Meret Oppenheim, whose fur-covered cup and saucer "Luncheon in Fur" was a key seminal work for the surrealists, yet basically the only work she is known for).

Paul Sérusier "Le Talisman" 1888, Oil

Musée d'Orsay, Paris, France ©photo musée d'Orsay

He contrasts with artists such as Monet, Calder, Cezanne, etc. who spent years developing their own vision and theories, each work an attempt to meet their goal. In the end, he concludes that creativity is not the province of the young or old exclusively, although there may be pitfalls for both groups.

If you get a chance to look at this (and it's in the QCC library), it would be an interesting topic for discussion).

These Photos are Really Sweet!

This article in the online magazine Slate is about a photo series by Blake Little of models covered in honey (warning: some nudity involved). The photos are arresting, and  interesting, but it seems even more so are the comments. Many are focused on the mechanics of the photo shoot, the appropriateness of doing this to begin with, and the usual assortment of "is this art" responses. What do you think?

 

Left: Paul, 2012. Right: Tao, 2012.

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/

Do You Need to Go Outdoors to Paint? Maybe Yes, Maybe No.

Wooded Upland Landscape by Thomas Gainsborough. Is this a real place?

When visiting the Norton Museum in West Palm Beach several years ago, there was an intriguing label telling how Thomas Gainsborough created models of landscapes using such items as broccoli and mirrors to serve as references for his paintings. It seemed that no one else had heard of this, and this made me think that it was something I imagined. But while doing some research on the internet, I came across a reference to this. It was on ibiblio, and while I couldn't ascertain exactly what collection it was from, it seems as it is from a booklet produced by the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. From the booklet:
 

• Thomas Gainsborough, though he was London's most fashionable society portraitist, preferred his beloved English countryside. "I'm sick of Portraits," he lamented, "and wish very much to. . . walk off to some sweet Village, where I can paint Landskips." In spite of his romantic longing for nature, he seldom if ever painted actual views. In accordance with much eighteenth-century art theory, Gainsborough was convinced that nature in the raw was an unsuitable subject. Only after an artist had refined a scene through his sensibilities could he begin to paint.

• Gainsborough's late works, such as this vista of butter-yellow clouds wafting through a mauve sky over a verdant valley, are fantastic reveries. Such idyllic scenery and extraordinary colors do not, of course, exist in the real world; so, Gainsborough invented them in his studio. He experimented with theatri­cal lighting effects, illumin­at­ing his subjects with candles shimmering through colored fabrics.

• Another painter recorded that Gainsborough "framed a kind of model of landskips, on his table; composed of broken stones, dried herbs, and pieces of looking glass, which he magnified and improved into rocks, trees, and water." Here, shiny hard coal may have served for the wet banks of the brook, a crushed mirror for the glistening ripples, and broccoli and brussels sprouts for the foliage. Thus, from a scale model, Gains­borough did indeed "magnify and improve" nature, creating a quiet escape from life's travails. (Quotes from The Letters of Thomas Gainsborough, ed. Mary Woodall [Green­wich, Connecticut, 1963], 115, and Sir Joshua Reynolds, Discourses on Art [1797 edition], ed. Robert R. Wark [New York and London, 1966], 220.)

Wooded Upland Landscape by Thomas Gainsborough (British, Sudbury 1727–1788 London) Date: probably 1783. Gift of George A. Hearn, 1906. 
More information at the Metropolitan Museum of Art website.

 

 

 

At the other end of the spectrum is landscape work by a contemporary artist, Rackstraw Downes. We saw an exhibit of his works a few years ago at the Portland (Maine) Museum of Art. He paints from life, in a photorealistic style. His subject matter is often not picturesque, but is of  places in our environment such as landfills, trash-strewn railroad sidings, etc., with a technique that reminds us of the Dutch painters such as Vermeer.

Lincolnville Beach - Rackstraw Downes 1977

Medium: Oil on canvas

Dimensions: H. 12-1/4, W. 44-1/2 inches

 

Bequest of Douglas Dillon, 2003
More information at the Metropolitan Museum of Art website.

Tim's Vermeer

Tim's Vermeer is a a new documentary focusing on how the 17th century Dutch painter, Johannes Vermeer may have painted his works has will be showing this year (although not likely out here in the suburbs, so we may have to wait for on-line distribution).

 The film is a joint effort between artist David Hockney (who has long had an interest in the collaboration between photography and painting, and Teller and Penn, the famous magicians/illusionists. It is believed by the film-makers that Vermeer may have used a "camera obscura", a device with lenses/mirrors to project a scene from life, to use as a guide when painting. This raises some interesting questions about the use of technology when creating art. It seems to be quite accepted now, and in fact, many contemporary works could not be created without the use of computers, lasers, etc. Is it just the fact that Vermeer painted so many years ago what makes this controversial? Apparently, in the film, a non-artist will use the method to create a painting.

 

Young Woman with a Water Pitcher.

Johannes Vermeer (Dutch, Delft 1632–1675 Delft)

Vermeer has always been something of a mystery; he did not leave a large body of work, and there have been controversies over the authorship of works over the years.

Some questions, that will perhaps be answered when I can finally see this film are: Was it "cheating"? Does it matter? If in fact this was his method, it was not entirely unknown, yet we don't seem to have other artists painting at the same level as Vermeer. Why not? Was it the additional talent that Vermeer provided, or an artistic vision different from what others had?

 For more information about the work shown above, visit the entry in the Metropolitan Museum site.