A conversation with ChatGPT about Art, AI-Art, and how to write a Reddit article about it…

JP

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.

JP

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.

JP

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.

JP

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.

JP

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”

JP

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.

JP

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.

JP

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.

JP

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.

And:

Analogies, Strangeization: How AIs Tango with our Brain.

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.

What will you make?

Strangeization Tool & Eyebrow Criteria (or type this word in my blog’s search engine).

Thanks for reading!

I made a tutorial to batch images with Disco Diffusion V4.1 Google Colab.

I made a tutorial to batch images with Disco Diffusion V4.1 Google Colab.

Couldn’t find any, no blog article or YouTube, which is strange, so I made one.

This Colab is very powerful, it also can make animations and other marvels.

Now you’ll be able to make your own images by yourself. It’s pretty easy, in fact!

Have fun!

Mantiskane makes instrumental music

I invented Mantiskane, a musical entity, a more electronic facet of my musiquettes. It’s maybe Mantis Kane, a guy from another planet, half-human half-mantis.

I made a clip with images I made with the GauGAN NVIDIA model, which is at gaugan.org. This tool is designed to create landscapes, but I tickle it with non-landscape-words, as it fits.

I made more than a thousand flying machines, chose a few dozens and made the music from a simple loop, a pile of sounds refusing to evolve. Piling.

QES Prototypes:

Then I added a “chorus”, a second part based on a military snare drum, it’s here:

QES Prototypes II:

oOOOo

Before that I did it with African mood, inventing a planet, composed a tribal music based on percussions and passing by sounds…

Quick-Eyed Memories:

oOOOo

Before that I worked with the VQGAN+CLIP model of hypnogram.xyz to create SF images. It’s a more “digital art” tool, right? I made an abstract music with a bunch of different slow loops on my Mac.

Space Gates & Titans:

oOOOo

Have fun! Thanks for reading!

Jean-Pascal

Meticulous & Casual: The examples of VQGAN+CLIP on YouTube

You know me, I love “Meticulous & Casual”, it’s almost an inner motto.

I talked here about Nietzsche and his cow:

Three-quarter Strength.  A work that is meant to give an impression of health should be produced with three-quarters, at the most, of the strength of its creator.  If he has gone to his farthest limit, the work excites the observer and disconcerts him by its tension.  All good things have something lazy about them and lie like cows in the meadow.

There’s also this article about the “non finito” in Arts: https://afrenchtoolbox.wordpress.com/2017/10/01/non-finito-inchoate-in-art/

oOOOo

When I write an article here, I’m focused and at the same time I listen to music (here: Poulenc, “Les Biches”), I prepare, but not that much. I re-read, but quickly. It’s always a tango between control and letting go.

These weeks, I revisit my 2 CDs “Farist“, which were made for contemporary dance. I made them with work (awww the mixing of music, a pain in the monkey!), but also with… well you got my point.

To make the clip, I make images with a Artificial Intelligence. It often gives nightmarish creatures! Therefore I posted a bunch of frightening clips – I’ll post them here for Halloween, OK?

So I wanted to created cooler things. So I played for Yuleska (which is a Polish name) with the words “bokeh” or “emerald”. It was abstract enough to give cool little things like:

The music was innocent and it worked.

For the second one, I had a story in mind. A Folletti (who is a little magic boyfaery) in Italy consoles a little girl. So I got Tuscany, wheat fields and angels. It’s a slow waltz.

oOOOo

For these I find/make images with random words. The first in the row? “Icy Bokeh”, that’s it. So I orient, but not too much.

When I edit the clips, I upscale the pictures with Automator (on Mac) piloting Pixelmator Pro, then I throw them all in iMovie. Random order, that I have to correct… or not. I use markers for the tempo, but I don’t follow them all the time. I’m meticulous (I work days on a clip), but I don’t really polish, finish, I let go and so there.

Yes it’s a tool for the toolbox! Where do we need to be meticulous and casual? Sex? Cooking? At work? Poetry writing?

Who are the artists who you know work like that? Picasso? Fellini? Any musician?

Do you like them?

Have a great day! Thanks for reading! I’ll post photos of Brussels soon. This week.

mmm