“For want of anything better”, can it be a philosophy of life? In French, “Faute de mieux”. I learned today that it was the motto of a writer I liked (he died last year).
I asked ChatGPT:
The phrase “for want of anything better” generally suggests a fallback position, something you settle for because nothing better is available or apparent at the moment. As a philosophy of life, it could potentially reflect a pragmatic, flexible approach, but it might also come across as passive or unambitious.
Here are a couple of ways you might interpret this as a life philosophy:
Acceptance and Contentment: In this interpretation, “for want of anything better” can be a philosophy of life that encourages individuals to appreciate and make the most of what they have instead of constantly seeking more or better. This could foster a mindset of gratitude and contentment, aligning with philosophies like Stoicism or certain Buddhist principles.
Pragmatism and Realism: This philosophy could involve making the best of available resources and opportunities, and not getting paralyzed by the desire for perfection. It could mean being flexible and adaptable, making the most of what’s at hand, a concept that resonates with the philosophy of Pragmatism.
However, there are potential pitfalls to this philosophy:
Passivity and Lack of Ambition: The phrase can imply a lack of ambition or aspiration, a settling for less than what one might be capable of. This might lead to a lack of personal growth or fulfillment.
Lack of Initiative or Creativity: It might also suggest a lack of initiative or creativity, a reliance on what is already present or offered rather than seeking out or creating new opportunities.
As with any philosophy of life, much depends on how an individual interprets and applies it. If the philosophy encourages contentment, realism, and flexibility without promoting complacency or stifling ambition, it could be a beneficial guiding principle.
To illustrate this, I looked into a folder of images my Mac made last night. For want of anything better, because I can’t draw, you know. So I developed this skill instead, “prompting”. Instead of drawing, I’ve got the state of mind of “maybe finding something cool in this folder”, like a child on the beach. Shells.
Many of them? Rubbish. But sometimes, I like the light, or composition, or something makes me think it could be a base for a short story…
Yesterday? I made trains. I don’t know why. The light is cool. The vintage mood. Silhouettes.
So if the faces made by AI are not “OK”, I often like them. It’s a good start. Faute de mieux, I could get an idea. Who’s the lady in red? Who is the lonely one?
I know someone who can’t buy as many books as he’d like because he expects them to be in mint condition. And perfect objects don’t exist. They always have a little flaw. Like people, right?
While I make these, I listen to The Pearl, and Ambient II, by Eno and Budd. Here: A Stream With Bright Fish. I know this by heart. Clever quiet piano music, like a slow Satie. Good sound. Not too much sugar. Music as a “place”.
I combined 2 artists’ names, randomly, making hundreds of pictures, “big drama” was the theme. It is sometimes a bit surreal. In a few months, I’ll combine image-making and GPT bots to create a two-lines story for each image, find a few good ones, and post it somewhere on Twitter probably.
Who’s the man? Does he wait?
Moments meant to last? Why? Faute de mieux? For want of anything better?
I wrote my article, then asked ChatGPT to fix my French mistakes 🙂
I am a 56-year-old French individual with no prior experience in coding.
Over the past few months, I have learned to utilize Google Colabs, web pages that house Python code separated into ‘Cells.’ While I do not fully comprehend the code, I have acquired the ability to enter or modify the parameters to generate images using Artificial Intelligence.
Recently, a new Colab was released, featuring a new model. It can be likened to testing a new car, can it not? The process of utilizing the platform is straightforward: enter your desired image prompt, such as ‘red cat, 4k photo,’ and execute the code via the ‘play’ buttons.
However, the default code is quite basic and only generates one image with a ‘batch_size’ of one, which is inadequate for my needs. I intend to produce hundreds of images and store them within Google Drive.
Here is what I did:
I created a copy of the page (which can be done through the menus). Furthermore, I opened a ChatGPT page to receive guidance on how to make the process more clear and refined.
Display the GPU I will be using
Present installation and downloads in separate cells that are easy to understand
Create a clear “settings” section that includes dimensions, number of images, prompt, and more
Store every image in Google Drive.
Thus, I asked ChatGPT the following:
ChatGPT then explains:
I clicked on “Code” within Colab, which created a new cell. Subsequently, I copied and pasted each cell (there’s even a “Copy code” icon available, did you notice?).
To ensure that I understood the process correctly, I asked:
If I ask for hundreds of images, there’s a problem, so:
Afterward, I experienced a crash due to the Colab attempting to process 200 images in a single process. As a result, I asked if it was possible to process one image, save it, and then proceed to the next one:
However, I encountered crashes once again despite ChatGPT’s efforts to assist me. Although I was unable to resolve the issue, ChatGPT suggested adding a line of code to pinpoint the root of the problem. I found it astonishing that ChatGPT proposed this solution:
Subsequently, I executed the suggested line of code and obtained a result. Then:
With the implementation of the suggested line of code, the process ran flawlessly. As a result, images began accumulating in my Google Drive:
However, I faced an issue wherein the images did not appear on the webpage. Consequently, ChatGPT upgraded the code to resolve this problem:
Next, I added an image to the top of the Colab, but it was too large. ChatGPT provided me with guidance on how to display it at 50% of its original size:
Subsequently, I requested that the prompt be “written” over each image, and ChatGPT upgraded the code accordingly.
As a result of these modifications and enhancements, my Colab now looks like this and functions perfectly:
I don’t remember the path I took to discover The Weave. I’m 56 years old and almost completely disconnected from “what’s happening” – even more so because I know that today’s music world is like a vast, uncharted forest.
Nevertheless, I found myself returning to The Weave multiple times a week.
Today, I asked ChatGPT to tell me about them. One member is a guy from Blur (okay) and the other is Rose Elinor Dougall. Ohhh, I remember now that I listened to her 2019 album “A New Illusion” quite a bit. I recall the fantastic cover art, and something clicked in my head: harmonic richness.
Now I want more, and I’m curious to know if Coxon is such a composer, the “full of sharps & flats” type.
Dougall’s “A New Illusion” is a cool attempt at crafting “a cool pop song” (oh, that bass line), while her “Something Real” leans more towards the dreamy side, navigating through intriguing harmonic staircases. The piano in “Christina in Red”…
With “The Weave”, they’ve created a perfect song, an… unfolding. It starts with Dougall’s universe (voice, piano, twisted harmonies) and suddenly takes off like an old New Wave track (Clan of Xymox?). The arrival of the saxophones and the incantatory lyrics make it peculiar enough to raise an eyebrow, right?
This “pop with twisted harmonies” is what I love. The Bird and The Bee. Goldfrapp. Agnes Obel. Vienna Teng.
So I asked ChatGPT for “Female Singers and Strings Arrangements” and got this list. Some names I do not know…
Bat for Lashes (Natasha Khan) (great production & voice, poor harmonies)
Lana Del Rey
Of Monsters and Men (very interesting!)
Aurora (I want to listen more)
Austra (cool universe, original)
Dead Can Dance (Lisa Gerrard)
iamamiwhoami (Jonna Lee) (Don’t Wait for me, Fountain, Canyon: arrangements)
The Sundays (Harriet Wheeler)
Daughter (Elena Tonra)
Emilie Autumn (OMG this universe! Misery Loves Company)
Well, thank you guys! I discovered some cool musicians/singers!
The seashore in Belgium and the north of France can be wild! The light is fantastic, and so is the wind 🙂 Here are a few pictures I took in September 2022 without any post-processing. I’ll be posting part II soon!
Welcome to this exposition that showcases a fascinating amalgamation of abstract fashion, human elements, and vintage aesthetics that resonate with a certain je ne sais quoi!
The exhibition features silhouettes of elongated, androgynous bodies that exude an enigmatic quality. The human form is intermingled with non-representational forms like bubble sheets and pointed papers, leading to a profound visual experience that transcends beyond conventional fashion imagery.
The dream-like and ethereal quality of the pieces invites the viewer to suspend their preconceived notions and enter a world of artistic expression that is uniquely unconventional. Some of the artworks are enhanced with chromatic palettes, adding an air of vivacity to the display, while others opt for monochromatic hues to evoke a vintage essence.
The exhibition presents a rare opportunity to explore the boundaries of fashion, as well as to immerse oneself in the creative prowess of the artist. The abstract fashion showcased offers a refreshing departure from traditional fashion norms, demonstrating a fusion of innovation and imagination.
This exposition is a treat for discerning art aficionados and fashion cognoscenti, offering an unmissable opportunity to delve into the intricate nuances of abstract fashion and vintage aesthetics. The sophisticated and avant-garde vibe of the display is sure to leave you entranced and longing for more.
“Olympia” is a painting by Édouard Manet, created in 1863, and “The Birth of Venus” is a painting by Alexandre Cabanel, created in 1863 as well.
While both paintings depict a female figure in a reclining position, they differ significantly in style and intent. Manet’s “Olympia” was a departure from traditional painting, and its bold and controversial style caused a stir when it was first exhibited. The painting features a nude woman, Olympia, staring directly at the viewer, with a black servant bringing her flowers in the background. Manet’s use of flat, bright colors, bold brushstrokes, and a highly contrasted lighting scheme challenged the traditional notions of beauty and realism in painting, and he sought to create a more modern, contemporary art form.
On the other hand, Cabanel’s “The Birth of Venus” adheres to a more traditional style, drawing on classical art and mythology. The painting shows the goddess Venus, who has just emerged from the sea, standing on a shell, and surrounded by cherubs. Cabanel’s use of soft, muted colors and smooth, polished brushstrokes was more in line with the academic art of the time, which emphasized technical skill and idealized beauty. Cabanel’s painting sought to capture the timeless and idealized beauty of the female form, as well as to pay homage to the classical art of ancient Greece and Rome.
Overall, while both paintings depict a female figure, they represent two different approaches to art-making in the 19th century. Manet sought to challenge traditional notions of beauty and realism, while Cabanel sought to create a timeless and idealized image of the female form.
The tension between precision and freedom is a persistent theme in various forms of art, from classical music to graphic design.
On one side, some artists strive to achieve a high level of technical perfection and exactitude in their creations. For example, in photography, the use of high-resolution cameras, precise lighting, and advanced editing software can result in highly polished and crisp images. In classical music, performers may spend countless hours perfecting their technique and interpretation to deliver a precise and flawless performance. In pop music, some artists rely heavily on computer-generated sounds and autotune to achieve a highly-produced and polished sound.
On the other side, many artists embrace the imperfection and unfinishedness of their work, favoring a more intuitive and experimental approach. For example, in painting and sculpture, artists may purposely leave certain parts of the canvas or sculpture unfinished or rough, allowing the viewer to imagine the work as a process rather than a finished product. In architecture, some designers may prefer an organic and fluid design approach, allowing the building to evolve over time rather than adhering to strict blueprints. In graphic design, using hand-drawn elements or distressed textures can add a more organic and natural feeling to the work.
Overall, the tension between precision and freedom is a fundamental aspect of the artistic process, and the choice of which approach to take can have a significant impact on the final result. Some artists may prefer the crisp and polished feel of exactitude, while others may embrace the beauty of imperfection and the freedom that comes with experimentation.
Art is a paradox. On the one hand, it seeks to capture reality, to depict the world with fidelity and precision. On the other hand, it aspires to transcend reality, express the artist’s inner vision, and explore new possibilities of form and meaning. This tension between representation and invention has shaped the history of art, from the naturalism of the Renaissance to the abstraction of the avant-garde.
Some artists, however, have sought to challenge this tension by embracing imperfection and experimentation. They have rejected the conventional standards of beauty and skill and instead have explored the unpredictable and the spontaneous. The writer and semiotician Umberto Eco has argued that the flaws and inconsistencies of a work of art can reveal its deeper meanings and intentions.
Umberto Eco and Brian Eno are two prominent figures in their respective fields of literature and music. Yet, both share a deep interest in the role of imperfection and experimentation in the creative process.
For Eco, the idea of “unfinishedness” and imperfection in art is not only present in historical works of art, but also in modern ones. He argues that “unfinished” art leaves space for the reader or viewer to engage with the piece, and it allows the work to evolve over time as new interpretations arise.
Eno has a similar view, seeing art as a process of exploration, where the goal is not to create a perfect final product, but to discover new ideas and sounds as they emerge. He famously compared the process of making art to “making soup” – adding different ingredients until something interesting emerges.
In the world of painting, this perspective is evident in the work of artists like Cy Twombly and Jackson Pollock, who sought to capture the essence of the creative process itself, rather than creating perfect, finished works of art. Twombly’s scribbled lines and Pollock’s splatters represent a rejection of the traditional view of painting as a means of representation, and instead, focus on the physical act of creation.
In music, we can see this approach in the work of experimental artists like John Cage and Karlheinz Stockhausen, who sought to break down the traditional structures of music and create new sounds and structures.
However, there are also many artists who seek to create a sense of exactitude and precision in their work. In the world of painting, we can look to photorealists like Chuck Close and Richard Estes, who painstakingly recreate realistic images using detailed techniques and materials. In music, we can see this in the use of digital tools to create perfect sounds and eliminate any imperfections or noise (and humanity?).
In the modern era, new technologies like artificial intelligence are pushing this debate even further. Some artists are using AI tools to create perfect, idealized images or sounds, while others are experimenting with technology to see what new ideas and concepts emerge.
The debate over precision and control versus experimentation and imperfection is not new, and it is one that continues to this day, even as technology continues to advance.
With the rise of artificial intelligence, artists can now create highly precise and controlled images with ease. However, some artists are still interested in the possibilities that experimentation and imperfection can offer. Some artists are even using AI-generated images with vague prompts or are batching hundreds of pictures using a randomizing process, hoping to discover new ideas by exploring the outputs generated by the algorithm.”
This is true across a range of mediums, from photography and graphic design to classical and pop music, painting, sculpture, and architecture. For example, some architects use generative design software to create highly detailed and precise blueprints, while others prefer to sketch by hand or experiment with different materials to see what comes.
In the end, the debate over precision versus experimentation is ongoing, and it is up to individual artists to decide which approach is right for them.
This “exhibition” features a collection of abstract paintings with unexpected human elements. Through the juxtaposition of abstraction and recognizable human shapes, the audience is invited to experience a sense of surprise and intrigue. Each piece challenges traditional notions of form and invites viewers to question the relationship between abstraction and the human experience. Come explore this unique and thought-provoking display.
Text by ChatGPT. Images made with Stable Diffusion.
Can you tell me about the opposition between painters like Cabanel or Bouguereau and more “modern” painters like Manet?
Certainly! The opposition between painters like Cabanel and Bouguereau, who were associated with the academic tradition in 19th-century French painting, and more “modern” painters like Manet can be understood in the context of the broader artistic movements and debates of the time.
Academic painting, which was supported and promoted by the French Academy of Fine Arts, adhered to traditional notions of beauty and excellence in art, and tended to favor highly finished, highly polished works that followed established conventions and techniques. Painters like Cabanel and Bouguereau were part of this tradition, and their work was generally characterized by a classical, realistic style, with a focus on carefully rendered detail and an emphasis on idealized forms.
On the other hand, modern painters like Manet were part of a movement that sought to challenge and break away from the constraints of the academic tradition. These artists were interested in experimenting with new styles and techniques, and they often sought to capture the energy and dynamism of contemporary life. Manet, in particular, is known for his innovative approach to painting, which combined elements of the traditional and the modern and often challenged the conventions of the time. His work was often seen as rebellious and controversial, and he was a key figure in the development of the Impressionist movement, which sought to capture the fleeting, ephemeral qualities of light and color.
Overall, the opposition between these two groups of painters reflects the broader tensions and debates that were taking place in the art world of 19th-century France, as traditionalists and modernists struggled to define the direction of the art of their time.
Can you write a blog article about this opposition, with more names and a few examples of painters/paintings?
Sure, here is a blog article about the opposition between traditional academic painters and more modernist painters in 19th-century France:
In the 19th century, the art world in France was marked by tension between traditional academic painters and more modernist artists who sought to challenge the conventions of the time.
The academic tradition in French painting was supported and promoted by the French Academy of Fine Arts, and it adhered to traditional notions of beauty and excellence in art. Painters who were part of this tradition, such as Jean-Léon Gérôme, Gabriel-François Doyen, and Alexandre Cabanel, were known for their highly finished, highly polished works that followed established techniques and conventions. These artists often depicted classical subjects in a realistic style, with a focus on carefully rendered detail and an emphasis on idealized forms.
On the other hand, there was a group of modernist painters who sought to break away from the constraints of the academic tradition. These artists, such as Édouard Manet, Edgar Degas, and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, were interested in experimenting with new styles and techniques, and they often sought to capture the energy and dynamism of contemporary life. Manet, in particular, is known for his innovative approach to painting, which combined elements of the traditional and the modern and often challenged the conventions of the time. His work, such as “Olympia” and “Le déjeuner sur l’herbe,” was often seen as rebellious and controversial, and it played a key role in the development of the Impressionist movement.
The Impressionists, who included Claude Monet and Alfred Sisley, sought to capture the fleeting, ephemeral qualities of light and color in their paintings. They rejected the highly finished, polished style of the academic tradition and instead focused on capturing the impression of a scene or moment, often using loose, rapid brushstrokes and vibrant, high-keyed colors.
Overall, the opposition between these two groups of painters reflects the broader tensions and debates that were taking place in the art world of 19th-century France, as traditionalists and modernists struggled to define the direction of the art of their time. While the academic painters were concerned with upholding traditional standards of beauty and excellence, the modernists sought to push the boundaries and create something new and innovative. Both groups made important contributions to the development of art in this period, and their work continues to be influential and relevant today.
Great. Do you think there’s a similar “opposition” of style in the AI-Arts of today (Midjourney and Stable Diffusion)?
It is certainly possible that there are opposing styles or approaches to creating art with artificial intelligence (AI) today, just as there have been opposing styles or approaches to creating art throughout history. However, it is difficult to say for certain without more context about the specific artists or works you are referring to.
In general, the use of AI in the creation of art is a relatively new and rapidly evolving field, and there are likely to be a wide range of styles and approaches being used. Some artists may use AI as a tool to generate new ideas or to assist in the creative process, while others may use it to create entire works of art on its own. Some artists may be more interested in using AI to explore and push the boundaries of what is possible with this technology, while others may be more interested in using it to create works that are more traditional or familiar in style.
Without knowing more about the specific artists or works you are referring to, it is difficult to say whether there is a specific “opposition” of style in the AI arts today. However, it is likely that there are a wide range of styles and approaches being used, and that there may be some differences or opposing viewpoints among different artists working in this field.
Write an article for Reddit about all this, the opposition between academic painting and more modern painting in the 19th century is similar to the today (AI art) seek between detailed, perfect portraits people want to make today, instead of pushing boundaries and inventing real new images.
Sure, here is an article for Reddit about the similarities between the opposition between academic painting and more modern painting in the 19th century and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the creation of art today:
As an avid art enthusiast, I have been thinking a lot lately about the ways in which the art world has evolved over time and the various movements and debates that have shaped the course of art history. One thing that has particularly struck me is the way in which the opposition between traditional academic painting and more modernist approaches in the 19th century is similar to the debates and tensions that are taking place in the world of AI art today.
In the 19th century, the art world in France was marked by a tension between traditional academic painters, such as Jean-Léon Gérôme and Alexandre Cabanel, and more modernist artists like Édouard Manet and the Impressionists. The academic tradition, which was supported by the French Academy of Fine Arts, favored highly finished, polished works that followed established conventions and techniques, while the modernists sought to break away from these constraints and create something new and innovative.
Today, we are seeing a similar tension in the use of AI in the creation of art. On one hand, there are those who are using AI to generate highly detailed, realistic portraits or other works that are meant to be indistinguishable from those created by a human artist. These works may be impressive in their technical proficiency, but they can also be seen as conservative or lacking in creativity, as they rely on pre-established techniques and conventions rather than pushing the boundaries of what is possible.
On the other hand, there are those who are using AI to explore new and innovative approaches to creating art. These artists may be more interested in using AI to generate new ideas or to assist in the creative process, rather than simply replicating what has already been done. They may be more interested in using AI to create works that are truly unique and original, rather than simply replicating the styles and techniques of the past.
Overall, it seems to me that the opposition between academic painting and more modernist approaches in the 19th century is similar to the tensions and debates that are taking place in the world of AI art today. While some artists are using AI to create highly detailed, polished works that adhere to established conventions, others are using it to explore new and innovative approaches that push the boundaries of what is possible. Whether you are more drawn to the traditional or the modern, it is clear that both approaches have the potential to produce beautiful and meaningful works of art.
Great! What could be the title (in one line) for this article?
Here are a few options for a title for this article:
“Exploring the Tensions between Traditional and Modern Approaches to AI Art”
“The Similarities between 19th-Century Painting and 21st-Century AI Art”
“Tracing the Evolution of Artistic Debates through the Ages: From Academic Painting to AI Art”
“Navigating the Boundaries between Convention and Innovation in AI Art”
I choose “Similarities between 19th-Century Painting and 21st-Century AI Art” but I’d love to be a bit more precise, can I add something like “- academic or inventive”?
Certainly! Here is a revised title that incorporates your suggested modification:
“Similarities between 19th-Century Painting and 21st-Century AI Art: Academic or Inventive Approaches”
This title more clearly conveys the focus of the article on the opposition between traditional academic approaches and more modernist, innovative approaches in both 19th-century painting and 21st-century AI art. It also suggests that these opposing approaches may be characterized as either “academic” or “inventive,” which helps to further emphasize the tension between these two approaches.
What are two examples of these 19th century times (portrait paintings) to show the difference between academic portrait and modern portrait?
Here are two examples of portrait paintings from the 19th century that illustrate the difference between academic and modern approaches:
“The Artist’s Mother” by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres: This portrait, painted in 1814, is a good example of an academic portrait from the 19th century. It is highly finished and polished, with a careful attention to detail and a focus on idealized forms. The sitter is depicted in a classical pose, with a dignified expression and a sense of calm and composure.
“The Old Guitarist” by Pablo Picasso: This portrait, painted in 1903, is a good example of a modern portrait from the 19th century. It is characterized by a more expressive, emotive style, with bold, simplified forms and a sense of movement and energy. The sitter is depicted in a relaxed, informal pose, with a sad, pensive expression that conveys a sense of vulnerability and vulnerability.
Overall, these two portraits illustrate the contrast between the academic tradition, which favored highly finished, polished works that followed established conventions, and the modernist approach, which sought to break away from these constraints and create something new and innovative.
Yes, but painted in the same decade could be a better example…
Certainly, here are two examples of portrait paintings from the 19th century that were painted in the same decade and illustrate the difference between academic and modern approaches:
“The Kiss of the Sphinx” by Jean-Léon Gérôme: This portrait, painted in 1866, is a good example of an academic portrait from the 19th century. It is highly finished and polished, with a careful attention to detail and a focus on idealized forms. The sitter is depicted in a classical pose, with a dignified expression and a sense of calm and composure.
“Olympia” by Édouard Manet: This portrait, painted in 1863, is a good example of a modern portrait from the 19th century. It is characterized by a more expressive, emotive style, with bold, simplified forms and a sense of movement and energy. The sitter is depicted in a relaxed, informal pose, with a direct gaze that challenges the viewer and a sense of self-assurance.
Overall, these two portraits illustrate the contrast between the academic tradition, which favored highly finished, polished works that followed established conventions, and the modernist approach, which sought to break away from these constraints and create something new and innovative. Both portraits were painted in the same decade, but they demonstrate the different artistic styles and approaches that were being used at the time.
There’s a painting with a nymph on the sea waters painted around 1863 too, with angels around. It’s in Orsay Museum. What is it?
It is possible that the painting you are describing is “The Birth of Venus” by Alexandre Cabanel. This painting, which was completed in 1863, depicts the mythological figure Venus, the goddess of love and beauty, emerging from the sea as a fully-grown woman. The painting shows Venus standing on a shell and being attended to by two angels, who are holding out a cloak for her to cover her nakedness. “The Birth of Venus” is considered to be an example of academic painting, as it adheres to traditional notions of beauty and excellence in art and follows established techniques and conventions. The painting is currently housed in the Musée d’Orsay in Paris.
There’s a place (photography) where indecision is interesting, and this is what I’ll use today.
It’s not really about indecision, it’s “decision displacement”.
A photographer often takes many pictures of a scene, and then chooses one. We all know the contact sheets, with crosses for nays:
In the ending end, you get ONE portrait, ONE place: one photograph. It’s about “content curation”. You have to choose one.
But of course, some artists just don’t. They opt “not to choose”, they show a few pictures.
The simple idea of showing a “contact sheet” was already in itself a variation game. It puts the audience in the position of the curator: “What would YOU choose?”. Something else, probably…
I wrote an article somewhere about Depardon and Shore.
A/ The French photographer shows two pictures in a street in the city of Glasgow. A slightly different angle, different time of the day, different weather. You compare, you watch, and you wonder: why both? What do these picture offer? What do they show? What does the photographer want?
It’s a bit as if the photographer was talking to you. “You see this place? What should I do? This chimney and this crane, they’re cool, right?”.
B/ The American photographer says this too, but to himself: somewhere, there’s only one place from which he’d take a picture. And thus each of his photos are like “magnetic”, there’s a perfection in lines, light, energy…
So you see this picture, and not another one:
In the history of Arts, some artists like to offer variations too. They turn around things, like Monet with haystacks or Picasso with tomato plants.
I’ve always loved pictures but I don’t know how to draw, thus I made plenty of photos, and I collected books – today I’m able to make cool images with prompts and Artificial Intelligence. The skills needed are all about words, how to use them and describe things to get pictures.
In this field, people are always seeking a kind of perfection. Crisp, detailed, perfect pictures. There is a huge catalog of examples at https://lexica.art/
There are programs that can “batch” pictures, so when I make castles, I make 1000 pictures, because styles are fun to explore. These are “combinations” of words and styles.
But with a single prompt, one can also makes plenty of images, and each one will be different from the others, like these towers:
So well, there’s a tool for the spirit here.
When you work on a project (at school, in your company, etc), do you come up with one result? A few variations? Plenty of variations? Who’s the curator? You, in your head, or the client/student/customer? When is it a mistake?
I realized, when I began to work for other people, that my idea of showing plenty of things to the collaborator is a mistake. Then often don’t want to choose.
But sometimes you have to let them choose all the same! Because they don’t know what they want? Because they need to be disturbed by the fact they will HAVE TO choose?
When photography appeared, I suppose that painters asked the same question. Is photography an “Art”? The photographers don’t even know how to draw, right?
Well, it became an Art, and some painters began to USE photographs to get inspired, to remember compositions and light, etc.
AI-Artists needs other skills. They play with Python programs, “settings”, and of course the prompt, the “sentence” we use to summon the models.
To write good prompts, you must think about organizing the words. Still, also you need culture, and visual art vocabulary (including photo vocabulary), but also, like in other arts, a way to combine, to “link” things nobody thought to link before… You also need an eye to determine what’s banal, ugly or cool.
I will always stick to the idea that “A good picture is a picture that stops the eyes”. A good picture must do that in a world surrounded by pictures everywhere.
These days I play with “classic painters”, I make new paintings, and well, that’s it:
Of course, the pleasure is to combine styles, to create new styles:
You can get crap
You can get illustration
Maybe ideas for stories – “here’s the story of the little girl who invented snow friends:”
The AI artist must also be a curator, he constantly has to select what should be shown or not.
Well, you can make your images, for free. Just follow this:
Instead of Focusing on the Patrons You Lost, Focus on the Ones Who Stuck Around
Say Thanks to Your Patrons
Get new content ready for next month
Stop Looking at the Stats
So this had to be in the blog, right? It’s a bunch of tools…
So yesterday I went from 139 to 120 patrons, it’s 10% out.
Today I made portraits of 1850 people. These people do not exist, but I like them. What are their names?
And some quotes:
“The dip is a thing. But it is a thing we have to accept, just like Mondays”
“Since we have no influence in what happens in a patron’s mind, I take it as it comes. Sometimes more earnings, sometimes less. That’s life. Accept and carry on. But most of all, NEVER stop doing what I love to do”
I asked an AI, ruDALLE-XL, to make images of a dream.
This AI is a fun one, it’s easy to disturb her (therefore to inspire her).
It’s not the only one: I asked DALLE 2 (OpenAI, Google’s text-to-image AI) to draw me “Slow Melancholy” and I got this snake shell with leaves. Not bad, good picture composition and light. It looks like a photo, and that’s it.
Now, look at these pictures. The first one looks like clouds over a lake (but on the right, they look like something else). The second one shows some “things”, in the morning on a green land. But what are they? The third one shows the silhouette of a woman. She’s probably on the beach, looking a… well… what?
Our intelligence, or our way of understanding reality, is based on ANALOGY. When we see something, our brain is trained to “link” it with something we already know.
“Oh, it looks like a cloud”.
Douglas Hofstadter wrote an entire book about this idea. He shows us a page full of the letter “A”. Some of them we’ve never seen, but we know they’re “A”s.
It becomes interesting when we see the strangeness produced by AIs.
Image 1: a red sphere emerges from a… flower?
Image 2: something (an animal?), jumps on the sand?
Image 3: some fabric, or maybe a creature under the sea?
We would like to know, but we can’t.
It’s a bit disturbing, or ugly. It’s beautiful, maybe, who knows?
Is it a leaf? An animal? Who’s that lady? What does she think?
Could we write a poem about one of these 6 pictures? Invent a painting from it?
One quality of a good picture today is to stop the gaze, to stop the viewer’s eye, wandering fastly in the world made of images.
AI-made images, some of them, have this quality. Our brain stops because it tries to understand. Is it a bird in the night? Watching what? Why is the moon wrapped in this shape?
Strangeization is a way for the artist to “add strange elements” to a piece of art, in the purpose to catch back an audience who has seen everything and is hard to get attention from.
Here, the process is: make plenty of images with a prompt (words that describe), and choose one.
I read an interview of a French original soundtrack composer, fan of Ennio Morricone.
Well, he talked about his musical qualities, about his multifaceted style (7 styles, he said!), but in the end told that what he preferred was his morriconesque way to accept almost everything, and then his way to work all the time, constantly, year after year.
Indeed, if you Wikipedia Ennio, you’ll find more than 100 classical works and more than 400 scores for cinema and television.
This says something, but can also ring false alarms.
If you produce a lot, there will be fantastic things AND more ordinary lukewarm other things.
It says that one should not be too solemn before beginning a work. It says to stop thinking too much, and to begin, to try, explore and experiment.
It DOES NOT say (in my opinion) that you can be casual when you work. You will work hard, you’ll really do your best.
“Il fallait qu’un bâton de chaise fût bien fait”, says Charles Peguy in France: The chair rung must be well made, not for the boss, or for connoisseurs, but it had to be well made itself, in itself, for itself, in its very self.
I just finished reading Woody Allen’s biography, when he says he’s an “imperfectionist”. I really felt it was the same pattern.
In fact, most of the great artists are like that. Picasso. Mozart. They work a lot, like crazy, they refuse no experience, they’re like “OK, let’s do that!”. Instead of thinking of is it the good moment or find the perfect way to work, they just begin.
Well, I like that because it’s the way I began my blog. I was sooo solemn about it, about the theme, and the perfect way of doing this or that, and when.
When I watched tutorials on YouTube about starting my channel Quick-Eyed Sky, I often found clips like “Errors new Youtubers make”. One was always: “Stop waiting for the good moment and gear to begin: post now, post today”.
Have a great summer! Sorry for the mistakes in this article, I’ll check it in a few days. I wrote it fast, but I want it cool, right?
I remember the little book of Akira Kurosawa, who remembers that when the movies were silent in Japan, there were people in each cinema, playing music, dialogs, and some sound effect. When the talking pictures came, these people were in the streets, protesting. And well…
It’s the same for everything. Electricity killed the oil lamps market. Cars killed the horse cart market. Electric cars will harm the gas stations, little by little (in Norway, today, more than 60% of new cars are electric).
Today I make images with AIs, and that’s cool because… I don’t know how to draw. I just describe what I want, add some little tricks in words (I’m learning) to precise textures (painting, digital, video game?), and I get pictures, plenty of them, all unique and different. The AI invents for me. And batches plenty.
“Luminescent mushrooms in a mystical forest, twilight, fireflies, clearing, bokeh” gives as many as these as you want (hundreds, if you like):
So I found out that some digital artists find it “unfair”. In a way, I understand that!
But what I feel is they should use it, today.
I can switch on the light, but I don’t have an oil lamp. I can drive a car, but I can’t take care of a horse (and I’m short of room in my apartment).
When I post images in forums, like in Reddit, I got things like:
So, people love it, but some want to ban it. And I’ve been banned from many of them! The viewers love them, but the moderators hate them. It’s not “real art” (and is it, after all)?
Today, it’s a bit difficult to use these Google Colabs. And it’s lonnng. If you use the free option, you need one hour for an image. I pay, and I need 6-7 minutes/image.
There are hundreds of colabs, and very soon (this year, next year?) you’ll be able to get images in seconds. Concept artists will use these tools (or teach them), for sketching, to get ideas, for colors, composition, etc.
Some sites offer this already, in a simple form: Wombo Art, Hypnogram.xyz.
There’s no horse-skill in driving fast cars, it’s like… unfair, right? Drivers developed other skills. Today, to get cool images, you have to know what words are useful, and how to combine them. Unfair, maybe, but people have fun, and are creative (in their own way), and I kind of like it.
I began to make tutorials (on YT) for digital artists, how they could use this. I’ll make more, concept art for characters, using initial sketches to create something else, etc.
Maybe it’ll create a new job: “digital ideas provider”. Hmm…