What do you think about this technology?

I would like to discuss scopes of the dynamic painting.
For example this is of one of instances of the dynamic picture "Alternative Reality":

//image too wide

More info you can find here:http://www.sanbase.com

some info:
Dynamic Painting is a computer technology assisting an artist to create images on a computer screen (it's 100% digital, of course) Using this approach it possible create pictures which are not stat.ic, but dynamic. They are changing and developing themselves as time goes. Being a fusion of fine art and computer technologies, it is an extremely attractive non-stop show.

So what you are saying is that the picture moves, randomly? Thats neato, if it does.

The link isn't working for me.

The picture created on fly. Look at the gallery3 for instance: http://www.sanbase.com/art/gallery3.html - all these pictures is ONE dynamic picture at various moments of time. But as you can see the common stylistics are constant because it is the same picture.

Sorry, it was misprint. The link is: http://www.sanbase.com

Personally I don't like abstract art. Random or intentional.

So an artist draws one abstract, and a computer synthesizes the rest?

Im not sure I understand it correctly.

Neat, but one wonders if the synthesized images would actually be considered art.

I'm not sure that it is abstract. IMHO: Abstract is Kandinsky, Pollock etc. Look at this one, for example:

//image too wide.

Is it looks like an abstract painting? I don't think so.

Not at all. The artist creates the esthetic approach and the basic principles of creation of a picture, and then the computer, based on that, creates millions of variations of the subject.
I think it's Art, why not? Computer cannot 'syntesize' something without a human. Order to your computer - "Create a picture!"
The computer is just the means. An artist has his tools - brushes, a sculptor – a chisel. I create paintings, and the computer just displays them. Off course, I do not generate the infinite number of all possible combinations and permutations. I generate the initial color palettes and forms (approximately 1,000 of initial images are done manually). Furthermore, I create the program, which transforms colors and shapes. In other words, I prescribe its future behavior. After that, the painting begins to live on it own. It's like DNA. I create DNA of the picture instead of completed picture.

I understand your point, and Im sure we would have many different opinions on this.



However, those tools don't use themselves to create a work. With the absense of human input it just seems synthetic to me.

Its not to say that it isn't good, it just lacks a human element to it. A synthetic Diamond still looks like a diamond to an untrained eye.

Even if the artist programmed the software to make a piece 100% the way he wanted it to, but was not there actually to create the image - Id have to think there is something missing. The human element.

Its an interesting argument.

OK. This is Art WITH human element:

//image too wide

You are ready to pay for this masterpiece $11,000,000? No? Well, you wish to pay $100 and to hang up this picture on YOUR wall?.. I do not think so...

OK, Dynamic painting is not Art. It is an element of design. Why not? The question is: what it is more preferable for you - the Rotho masterpiece or a dynamic picture which varies all time?
For instance this one:

//image too wide

I wouldn't hang your picture on my wall

No problem, 613flavah! Thanks God we live in a free country!
By the way: - it's spam!

Not exactly sanbase:

http://www.ozzu.com/announcements-rules/ozzu-rules-and-regulations-t697.html

Take your time and read our signature rules.

sanbase, if you'd READ THE RULES and pay attention, my blog reference IS IN MY SIGNATURE as per the rules. Thanks for coming out!