![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When photography came along they said that Painting was dead. They were wrong of course.
And now they're saying it again because of AI. Whether they're right or wrong remains to be seen.
The fact is AI can now produce images that look very much like paintings. I saw one on the site where I go to make my pix that pretty much had me fooled. Or, at least it would have done if I hadn't known better. I don't feel I can reproduce it here without the artist's permission, so what I've done is make my own version of the subject- which happens to be Table Mountain.
Not bad (though his was better) but I reckon it would pass as a reproduction of an oil by a 19th century French landscape painter. I specified it should be in the style of Gustave Courbet and it almost is. Bear in mind that I made it without trying, with very little emotional investment and using an app that cost me nothing.
Having started I carried on because it was fun.
Here's my biggest success- a picture of Sacre Coeur (one of my least favourite famous buildings) in the style of Paul Utrillo. I don't think it's exacly like Utrillo but it's very like a real oil.
AI had problems with Cubism but was capable of producing a nice early pseudo-Picasso.
Old masters presented more of a problem- partly because AI has no sense of period and a lousy grasp of art history. The man in its Rembrandt portrait wore a homburg. Asked for a Holbein it produced a mash-up of Titian and van Dyck. When I said "Madonna and Child by Leonardo" it gave me this horror....
Mind you, had I put more work into my prompts it would almost ceertainly have done better.
Finally, here's its stab at a Hockney.
These pictures prove nothing, of course. I don't accord them any value. They're jeux d'esprit, nothing more....
But I've always admired the great art forgers- the things they got away with, their twitting of the experts.....
And now they're saying it again because of AI. Whether they're right or wrong remains to be seen.
The fact is AI can now produce images that look very much like paintings. I saw one on the site where I go to make my pix that pretty much had me fooled. Or, at least it would have done if I hadn't known better. I don't feel I can reproduce it here without the artist's permission, so what I've done is make my own version of the subject- which happens to be Table Mountain.
Not bad (though his was better) but I reckon it would pass as a reproduction of an oil by a 19th century French landscape painter. I specified it should be in the style of Gustave Courbet and it almost is. Bear in mind that I made it without trying, with very little emotional investment and using an app that cost me nothing.
Having started I carried on because it was fun.
Here's my biggest success- a picture of Sacre Coeur (one of my least favourite famous buildings) in the style of Paul Utrillo. I don't think it's exacly like Utrillo but it's very like a real oil.
AI had problems with Cubism but was capable of producing a nice early pseudo-Picasso.
Old masters presented more of a problem- partly because AI has no sense of period and a lousy grasp of art history. The man in its Rembrandt portrait wore a homburg. Asked for a Holbein it produced a mash-up of Titian and van Dyck. When I said "Madonna and Child by Leonardo" it gave me this horror....
Mind you, had I put more work into my prompts it would almost ceertainly have done better.
Finally, here's its stab at a Hockney.
These pictures prove nothing, of course. I don't accord them any value. They're jeux d'esprit, nothing more....
But I've always admired the great art forgers- the things they got away with, their twitting of the experts.....
