1SecondPainting: Generate abstract paintings in one click(1secondpainting.com)
1secondpainting.com
1SecondPainting: Generate abstract paintings in one click
https://1secondpainting.com/
144 comments
I got this one, which doesn't look abstract: https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/8.png
Looks like this was trained on some weeb gallery, got myself an anime waifu [0] at first click. This instantly made me remember about waifu labs [1].
[0]: https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/5.png
[1]: https://waifulabs.com
[0]: https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/5.png
[1]: https://waifulabs.com
Compare with this https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/5999....
:)
:)
I got this: https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3046....
Even simpler. Blank canvas.
Even simpler. Blank canvas.
I mean, it is similar to some actual pieces of abstract paintings where the texture makes the piece.
Both of your paintings are modern abstract art. ;)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;)
I got this one and thought it was loading...
This was my reaction too the first few times I ran the network. I thought I was going crazy.
I did get this as well! I thought it was some sort of version of Malevich:)
I used plenty of Malevich while training, so that makes sense. Glad you enjoyed.
Technically it is possible to generate that randomly, no?
Obliviously this site is fake, but that’s besides the point.
Obliviously this site is fake, but that’s besides the point.
Almost surely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Technically yes. On the fly would be costly.
It doesn't look so different from Mark Rothko's paintings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untitled_(Black_on_Grey) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._10_(Rothko)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untitled_(Black_on_Grey) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._10_(Rothko)
It looks like the 10 first ones are mangas.
I wonder if there is a pool of pictures the AI gets inspiration from
This is just a gallery of images uploaded to a Wordpress website
Correct! I pre-generated 10,000 random seeds so I wouldn't have to rent a 24/7 GPU. The current plan is to upload a new slate of 10,000 each month.
Strangely, it's not quite the first 10. Number 0 is abstract: https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/0.png
https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/1878.... looks really like cave painting
I got lucky, I think. This one has the feel of having been influenced by Dali or Magritte: https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/9324....
This disturbed me in all the right ways.
this one speaks to me
I got this one, and had the same reaction as you:
https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2.png
https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2.png
Haha yes, I first tested this with procedurally generated anime characters and must have forgot the first 10. Thanks for pointing it out.
Cool!
Please use this technology to make a 4K video of an infinite zoom through the art.
i.e. generate an image frame, zoom in 1% near the center of the image, re-anneal the art to fill in missing resolution, repeat.
It would be analogous to the infinite exploration of the Mandelbrot fractal set.
It might help us intuit the black box of the algorithm as well if it reaches some periodic local minima and keeps reproducing the same art sequence.
Please use this technology to make a 4K video of an infinite zoom through the art.
i.e. generate an image frame, zoom in 1% near the center of the image, re-anneal the art to fill in missing resolution, repeat.
It would be analogous to the infinite exploration of the Mandelbrot fractal set.
It might help us intuit the black box of the algorithm as well if it reaches some periodic local minima and keeps reproducing the same art sequence.
If zoom is possible, depends by method of generation
Excellent idea. I'll see what I can do.
There is definitely a recognizable style of NN-generated art. It looks "piecewise-consistent". After a few years of seeing these I find them really boring and unpleasant to look at.
Many would say the same of the artists the NN’s mimic. Perhaps they’re doing better than you give them credit ;)
I disagree. The gestalt works in a lot of these the same way as in gallery abstract art
I think AI is currently able to generate images I find pleasant to look at, but they have no impact on me beyond that momentary enjoyment. It is still decoration and not yet art, according to my personal definitions.
When I can tell an AI to make an image about the Spanish Civil War and it produces Guernica, then I will be impressed in the way human artists impress me. And then we will have a powerful new tool to communicate. I would like my own personal Guernica each day to help me learn about something happening in the world.
When I can tell an AI to make an image about the Spanish Civil War and it produces Guernica, then I will be impressed in the way human artists impress me. And then we will have a powerful new tool to communicate. I would like my own personal Guernica each day to help me learn about something happening in the world.
But how much of that is context? Is the absence of deeper impact because you're aware that a soulless NN produced these, or is it something intrinsic in them?
I'm not at all an art expert, but I definitely looked at several of them and could easily picture a critic describing the significance of the relationship between the shapes and colours.
I'm not at all an art expert, but I definitely looked at several of them and could easily picture a critic describing the significance of the relationship between the shapes and colours.
I feel the same way about many human-produced works, regardless of critics' views, so the fact that I'm aware these are produced by NN is probably not the only explanation.
Yeah, it sounds like in that case your criticism may be more about abstract art as a style than it is about whether a given piece was produced by a human or a machine.
Not all abstract art. Some Kandinsky, for example, is more than decoration to me.
"Well you asked me to paint an authentic Guernica so of course I had to bomb Guernica"
This doesn't sound like it would be unrealistic. I think this can be partially solved by two systems: one that paints and one that finds the best painting to match a current event (in the form of a topic). The latter system could be trained on a set of paintings and corresponding topics or meanings, and then uses this training to match newly generated paintings to topics/meanings.
Correct. This is actually quite doable with word embedding or image classification of a topic, semantic analysis, and then providing those as input to a network like the one I used for 1SecondPainting. I love the future.
There are definitely people working on this sort of thing. I recently read this conf paper on generating modified flags based on a topics (e.g. Cyprus + peace):
https://cdv.dei.uc.pt/ever-changing-flags/
Maybe not as technically exciting, as a super generic NN, but I think projects scoped like this are useful to think about.
https://cdv.dei.uc.pt/ever-changing-flags/
Maybe not as technically exciting, as a super generic NN, but I think projects scoped like this are useful to think about.
> It is still decoration and not yet art, according to my personal definitions.
This isn't a personal definition. There literally is a distinction in fine arts study.
This isn't a personal definition. There literally is a distinction in fine arts study.
Judging by the URL of the images themselves these seem to be pre-generated, which makes me think there might have been some human selection process to filter out the badly generated ones.
Still some really cool looking art in there, though. I'd be perfectly happy hanging some of these up in my apartment.
Still some really cool looking art in there, though. I'd be perfectly happy hanging some of these up in my apartment.
The language on the landing page suggests that every time you click Try Now a new image is generated.
> Click the button below for an AI-generated abstract painting. Built for artists, developers, and hobbyists.
Really though there is a gallery of around 10,000 pngs on a Wordpress site.
Fake it 'til you make it!
> Click the button below for an AI-generated abstract painting. Built for artists, developers, and hobbyists.
Really though there is a gallery of around 10,000 pngs on a Wordpress site.
Fake it 'til you make it!
I would say that the part you quoted suggests it's not generated on the spot.
However,the sentence in the huge font right before the one you quoted could be reasonably interpreted to suggest it's generated on the spot. And as you mention it just looks like a gallery of images that was already generated.
It's still cool, but I'm a bit irked at the misleading framing. Gwern's website showed us amazing text generation from GPT-3, that had all been generated beforehand. We didn't have to be tricked into thinking it was generated on the spot to appreciate it, so I don't see why that's needed here.
However,the sentence in the huge font right before the one you quoted could be reasonably interpreted to suggest it's generated on the spot. And as you mention it just looks like a gallery of images that was already generated.
It's still cool, but I'm a bit irked at the misleading framing. Gwern's website showed us amazing text generation from GPT-3, that had all been generated beforehand. We didn't have to be tricked into thinking it was generated on the spot to appreciate it, so I don't see why that's needed here.
The fact that the link says “Try Now” instead of “next image” or something like that is implying that you are using the AI generation when you click the button.
[deleted]
Agreed. I think that the button gives the implication. I was focusing on the quoted part, but you're right.
Completely fair assessment. Thanks for the input. I look up to Gwern quite heavily, so seeing myself referenced in the same sentence is nice - cheers.
The fine-print at the bottom explains it: "On a Tesla T4, it takes on average 0.173 seconds per novel generation."
I don't think you can expect someone to pay for T4 instance 24/7 for some hobby project.
This is correct. I agree with many of the commentators below - I could have been clearer. I simply didn't want to pay for a 24/7 GPU to generate on-the-spot (a little short on funds at the moment), instead opting to replace each series of 10,000 paintings once per month. Glad I could provide enjoyment to as many people as I did in the meanwhile!
>I don't think you can expect someone to pay for T4 instance 24/7 for some hobby project.
That's a needlessly uncharitable interpretation of what is happening here. The site is giving the misleading impression that these images are generated on the spot, and then walking it back in the fine print.
It's a valid criticism, and lecturing people about the economics is not a charitable engagement with that criticism.
That's a needlessly uncharitable interpretation of what is happening here. The site is giving the misleading impression that these images are generated on the spot, and then walking it back in the fine print.
It's a valid criticism, and lecturing people about the economics is not a charitable engagement with that criticism.
That seems backwards. I think GP's point that the critics on HN are themselves being uncharitable towards the site (or maybe just missed the explanation) by acting like it's a nefarious bait and switch, rather than considering the possibility that the author of the site is just trying to save on computing costs.
He or she's not lecturing anyone about economics. In fact, if we want to talk about charity, I think that accusation is about the least charitable thing I've seen so far on this thread!
He or she's not lecturing anyone about economics. In fact, if we want to talk about charity, I think that accusation is about the least charitable thing I've seen so far on this thread!
I'm not seeing how either of those interpretations are accurate. The page title and body text say one thing, the fine print walks it back. The balance of emphasis definitely puts forward the impression that images are being newly generated.
And the commenter most definitely was criticizing a very strawmanny 'expectation' that they pay 24/7 to serve an image generation app, which is projection of a view that wasn't expressed by anybody and is certainly not the most charitable reading of what people mean when they say the message creates a misleading impression.
For one example, a more reasonable 'expectation' would be that the language be changed to say it's a gallery of images already generated. Which is different from the uncharitable and unreasonable assertion that everyone is expecting them to pay to maintain a server.
And the commenter most definitely was criticizing a very strawmanny 'expectation' that they pay 24/7 to serve an image generation app, which is projection of a view that wasn't expressed by anybody and is certainly not the most charitable reading of what people mean when they say the message creates a misleading impression.
For one example, a more reasonable 'expectation' would be that the language be changed to say it's a gallery of images already generated. Which is different from the uncharitable and unreasonable assertion that everyone is expecting them to pay to maintain a server.
The title literally says "generate abstract paintings in one click" and it is not doing that. I clicked on it expecting it to generate abstract paintings in one click, and now my disappointment is uncharitable?
First of all, my post was quite clearly interpreting a prior comment, not making a claim of my own about whether anyone should be disappointed.
But since we're here: the gnashing of teeth on this thread about having been "mislead" does seem to me to be a bit out of proportion. This person really does seem to have developed a cool toy that uses AI to generate convincing abstract art, but many here aren't saying about it because they object to some of the wording on the landing page!
It's their own fault, of course, for writing the page the way that they did. But still...
But since we're here: the gnashing of teeth on this thread about having been "mislead" does seem to me to be a bit out of proportion. This person really does seem to have developed a cool toy that uses AI to generate convincing abstract art, but many here aren't saying about it because they object to some of the wording on the landing page!
It's their own fault, of course, for writing the page the way that they did. But still...
I think people are just making a normal, perfectly correct and reasonable observation that the description was misleading, because it really was.
But the hallmark of many internet comment threads is to try and get additional mileage out the conversation by subjecting said reasonable observations to the ritual exercise of switcheroos, contrarianism, idiosyncratic distinctions and unusual interpretations. Which leads to the original wisdom being repeated, which makes it seem like it's being blown out of proportion.
But I think the simpler explanation is just that it's a correct observation and that it's not that complicated.
But the hallmark of many internet comment threads is to try and get additional mileage out the conversation by subjecting said reasonable observations to the ritual exercise of switcheroos, contrarianism, idiosyncratic distinctions and unusual interpretations. Which leads to the original wisdom being repeated, which makes it seem like it's being blown out of proportion.
But I think the simpler explanation is just that it's a correct observation and that it's not that complicated.
Fair enough. FWIW, when I originally weighed in, this conversation about the description being misleading was way up at the top of, and seemingly dominating, the entire thread. But I'm glad to see a bit more discussion about the actual work up top now.
What if they stockpiled enough images so that everyone was guaranteed a fresh image? Would there be any difference then?
No. They could've just said something like "get a new abstract painting in one click" and used phrases like "never before seen". But as-is, their claim is just not true.
What's the difference? For the sake of argument, what if they had an infinite number of images pre-rendered?
Still no, since you’re not _generating_ the image at the point of clicking.
That matters for two reasons, first because words and semantics are important, clear and correct communication is important. Second, the technology required to generate new paintings (cheaply and quickly) on demand is different from the technology required to generate a very large (infinite) number of paintings up front. They’re both interesting but for different reasons, and one shouldn’t be misrepresented as the other.
That matters for two reasons, first because words and semantics are important, clear and correct communication is important. Second, the technology required to generate new paintings (cheaply and quickly) on demand is different from the technology required to generate a very large (infinite) number of paintings up front. They’re both interesting but for different reasons, and one shouldn’t be misrepresented as the other.
The site title claims that the user can "generate abstract paintings", but really the user can "view prerendered images".
It's misleading. I don't care if they clarify somewhere else on the site. The intention is clearly to mislead from the get go.
It's misleading. I don't care if they clarify somewhere else on the site. The intention is clearly to mislead from the get go.
That is a good insight which is not so obvious. The author should have written a white-paper for more credibility.
But I would not be surprised if the actual generation of a new painting takes less than a second as generative networks can be run quite fast to generate new image. I assume the author had the challenge of creating this new "generated" content on-the-fly in browser from the trained model and hence just loads from already generated thousands of images for convenience of the user-interaction. But yes it is a little misguided approach for Karma.
But I would not be surprised if the actual generation of a new painting takes less than a second as generative networks can be run quite fast to generate new image. I assume the author had the challenge of creating this new "generated" content on-the-fly in browser from the trained model and hence just loads from already generated thousands of images for convenience of the user-interaction. But yes it is a little misguided approach for Karma.
The are pre-generated, by chance I got the same image within 10 clicks
URL to images is https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/XXXX....
URL to images is https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/XXXX....
Seems like the author is a fan.
https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/1.png https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2.png https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3.png https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/4.png
https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/1.png https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2.png https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3.png https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/4.png
Likely they used transfer learning on an anime face model.
Close! I used anime to test the basic functionality/UI of the site. Transfer learning was in fact done on the FFHQ512 dataset from Nvidia (I figured the complexity of its features was a little higher, which would lend itself well to abstract textures).
The first ten images are... interesting.
I discovered the same thing. I, umm... don't think these were generated by the neural net?
Actually, I'm pretty sure those are generated by a neural net. There are clear artifacts on the images that give it away. Maybe the author experimented with different source material before going for abstract paintings.
A real life easter egg!
I don't think there is a filter or the filter is real bad
https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/8866....
(is there such thing as bad abstract art :-))
https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/8866....
(is there such thing as bad abstract art :-))
Found another example of bad RNG:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Klein_Blue#/medi...
Beautiful.
I got one which was just an anime face (not similar to, an actual professional quality animation) which leads me to believe it's passing through images it trained on (or making extremely minor changes to them).
Congratulations on the project!
This looks very similar to my project: https://art42.net
I've used the higher resolution model 1024, and I also chosen to generate the picture in advance. It's expensive to generate them realtime.
Thank you. I love the clear, intelligent user interface of your site - it's given me a lot of inspiration for future projects. Keep in touch!
they look awful compared to OP's
this is exactly what i thought !
This isn't live/dynamically generated, but if it was, what would be a good way of architecting it in a basic implementation? Say you keep the WordPress site, do you then just send a request to some endpoint that is served by python which keeps the model in memory for quick responses?
When I was doing AI lyrics, I just ensured that the same seed generates the same text. So server just pregenerated several thousand texts into a queue, which you drain from instantly upon a click to get random.
The generated texts are then cached, and if not visited for a while - expire. But thanks to the ability to regenerate the same text from seed are still accessible from URL.
https://github.com/losttech/BillionSongs
The generated texts are then cached, and if not visited for a while - expire. But thanks to the ability to regenerate the same text from seed are still accessible from URL.
https://github.com/losttech/BillionSongs
Good thinking. Yes, that is correct.
Very cool! Wonder how the copyright works on this sorta stuff. Since you fed your AI with actual images of other people art... but a art student would study other people’s art too. So not sure if AI would be seen as a copy or a derivative work. Seems like if you were designing a game and needed random art to fill frames on a wall could be cool to use these. But I feel like the legal part of doing that might be a little murky and unclear and probably even varies by country since still a very new technology.
Definitely something I considered while feeding it a tremendous number of famous paintings (Rothko, Pollock, etc). Considering the nature of random seed generation/traversing through latent space, I don't see a strong legal case to be made for infringement. The law has done crazier things, though, so I'll keep an eye on it.
Also interested to know opinions on that.
This appears to reuse NVIDIA's StyleGAN network, just like artbreeder.io which was previously on HN. If I remember correctly, NVIDIA's terms don't allow non-research use.
As a digital abstract artist who also does generative art, I find making the tiny images sort of funny. How about making a 30x30 inch painting? If it takes 1 second to make a tiny 250 pixel image how long would it take your system to make a 9000x9000 image?
Certainly a good point. Unfortunately, the output size is constrained by the training data (which in this case was ~800x800px). I think it would be kind of a pain to find 14,000 9000x9000 images, though, so I don't know if this will ever be able to fulfill this requirement. ;)
You can upscale tiny image using a different neural network.
I'm curious to know from the people commenting on this thread that they would buy one of these generated paintings whether they would still be interested if the paintings were artworks made by people. I'm guessing that there are two distinct markets here.
2 is a very small number. Peoples personalities and needs vary wildly and are ever changing. And there will be some artist sitting somewhere catering to some unimaginable combo. Thats how we end up with a gazillion Youtube videos.
On the otherhand look at Netflix (or Tiktok though I am less familiar with it) where there is more sophisticated feedback loop deciding what content get produced. They are generating Art, so much Art that personally speaking, I can barely remember who the creator was or what the creators story is. And I have no problem paying.
Yet obviously there are a whole bunch of people very very different from me, part of huge fan clubs and movements built around connection with the creators and their narratives, much like sports fans, political junkies and religions people.
So who knows, we might get a cult or two or seven hundred following different Algos soon.
The number of those cults (and markets) possible is dependent on the personalities and needs distribution of the population. Zuckerberg probably can generate the data. But it changes like the weather everyday. With love, with war, with age, with depression etc etc etc. Where Art is concerned its definitely more than 2 though.
On the otherhand look at Netflix (or Tiktok though I am less familiar with it) where there is more sophisticated feedback loop deciding what content get produced. They are generating Art, so much Art that personally speaking, I can barely remember who the creator was or what the creators story is. And I have no problem paying.
Yet obviously there are a whole bunch of people very very different from me, part of huge fan clubs and movements built around connection with the creators and their narratives, much like sports fans, political junkies and religions people.
So who knows, we might get a cult or two or seven hundred following different Algos soon.
The number of those cults (and markets) possible is dependent on the personalities and needs distribution of the population. Zuckerberg probably can generate the data. But it changes like the weather everyday. With love, with war, with age, with depression etc etc etc. Where Art is concerned its definitely more than 2 though.
If i could get large enough resolution to print something on the order of 20-30" and it still look good i'd spend an hour mining through to find good stuff. Most of them aren't interesting but there are a few that are very pleasing to look at. Plus the backstory is interesting.
Yes, good point. I think a major part of the appeal is the backstory. I do love abstract art, though, so I'm probably a non-representative sample :-)
I really like this as well, and would love a higher resolution generator. I'd definitely put a few that were generated on a wall.
Just pipe the output to an upscaling ai like https://letsenhance.io/ /s :)
Why is this downvoted? Chained and piped AIs will probably be the next step towards building ever more powerful AI systems. There is even a framework to chain Machine Learning outputs and use other systems to improve: https://singularitynet.io/
Commercial site requiring immediate sign-up.
Absolutely! I was planning on providing this, but wanted to keep the model free of commercial services. There are open-source alternatives out there, though, which I may add support for in the future.
[deleted]
Very similar to https://art42.net/, which has a larger selection of images (10,000+, whereas 1secodpainting has only 9989 pre-generated images).
Where is the 'order now' button? I'm not even kidding, I would put some of these prints on my wall!
They are all very low res. Not sure there is a networks out there producing a few hundred megapixels needed for a good large print.
Thanks for the input! I'll add that functionality and let you know as soon as it's ready.
Neat. I made my own abstract painting generator a while back, and is admittedly much more low-tech and produces mostly similar results. It doesn’t pull from a set of pre-existing images either ;)
https://holinaty.com/generative/sketches/?name=029_AutoPaint...
https://holinaty.com/generative/sketches/?name=029_AutoPaint...
If I hung any of these in my house and signed them with random names, no one would be able to tell that they weren’t organically made.
That really depends on how you create them. If it's a print then no one would care and it would likely fade out after a few decades. If it's painted on canvas then you've just made yourself a painting so might as well sign your own name :)
It made me think about couple years old trend of style transfer using GAN: "make your selfie look like Van Gogh". Generating abstract painting may be reduced to transfering average style of several abstract painters onto random seed image. But then it should be a trivial task, even possible to do client-side, no GPU.
I think it would look much better without the colored border, or any border.
Gorgeous! Would absolutely pay for most of these. Best thing though: this is the first software I've ever seen that advertises "in one click" yet really requires only ONE CLICK.
Can you put an thumbs up / down counter for each image and use the human preferences collected to refine the model further ?
Cool things! I did a similar project and generate tons of art.
Here is art samples https://www.instagram.com/likeplus.plus/
Full HD samples https://imgur.com/a/XMnMi
Generated in real time low res or seconds for HD on iPad
Here is art samples https://www.instagram.com/likeplus.plus/
Full HD samples https://imgur.com/a/XMnMi
Generated in real time low res or seconds for HD on iPad
These are gorgeous! Great work.
Very cool. It would be great to be able to output to various resolutions for printing/framing.
[deleted]
I would like to know how people are judging these painting. I have no knowledge or understanding of abstract paintings. To me the only criteria seems to be does it look "organic", but organic to me is just "not completely random".
As Marshall McLuhan said: "Art is anything you can get away with." (and Andy Warhol later quoted him).
Art is cultural phenomenon and modern art is even more so. You have to study painting and modern art to be able to judge it in context.
In the quality of modern painting is almost completely path dependent and not absolute in any way. Some of those cheap decorative paintings you see on hotel wall would have been masterpiece for artist who sees the style first time in 1920's. Today art critic would not look twice at them because they are just lazily copying style.
Modern art scene is just like any scene. Just because it's usually done by adults and rich people are attracted to it does not mean it's any more or less valuable, or more or less sophisticated than some other scene.
Art is cultural phenomenon and modern art is even more so. You have to study painting and modern art to be able to judge it in context.
In the quality of modern painting is almost completely path dependent and not absolute in any way. Some of those cheap decorative paintings you see on hotel wall would have been masterpiece for artist who sees the style first time in 1920's. Today art critic would not look twice at them because they are just lazily copying style.
Modern art scene is just like any scene. Just because it's usually done by adults and rich people are attracted to it does not mean it's any more or less valuable, or more or less sophisticated than some other scene.
The novelty factor (1920 style looks cheap now because it is copied) is the gamication engine of this scene.
You have to be told this is good by an accepted thought leader who was accepted by previously thought leaders. Meanwhile everyone stands around and pretends to say something but are really trying to copy others.
You have to be told this is good by an accepted thought leader who was accepted by previously thought leaders. Meanwhile everyone stands around and pretends to say something but are really trying to copy others.
This is amazing! Does it mean that our modern artist can utilize these AI paints to create more abstracted and imaginative pictures?
I'll be glad to see that happen when those paints are ready to be sold on Sotheby's or Christies. :D
I'll be glad to see that happen when those paints are ready to be sold on Sotheby's or Christies. :D
I'll never not hate purely procedurally generated art and art projects.
It isn't abstract art if it is generated from a deep net.
The emotion and intentional abstraction of imagery no longer exists.
However, a deep net can absolutely generate more literal artworks, such as portraits, scenery, etc..
The emotion and intentional abstraction of imagery no longer exists.
However, a deep net can absolutely generate more literal artworks, such as portraits, scenery, etc..
There is also quite interesting website http://www.art-supreme.com which claims to be the world's first AI gallery.
Similar to 9GANS: https://9gans.com/
At first I thought this would be very gimmicky but I'm impressed.
Any way we can could actually get a print version?
Any way we can could actually get a print version?
Thanks for the input. I'm working on adding print functionality as we speak - let you know when it's up.
Very few of these look like paintings
Add a pain brush plotter to this and it could get pretty interesting
artbreeder.com is the true king of it's bunch at the moment.
So should every author of the trainingset be attributed?
Any place to get high res versions of these?
Makes a good point while missing the point
i seem to be getting the simple gray box quite frequently
Tax avoidance has never been easier
inb4 a French student steals the model and makes a fortune selling this artwork in an auction.
[deleted]
Hmm.. I may or may not speak French. Thanks for the idea.