Real paintings or...?
I would like to draw your attention to the works @coldmonkey. He has made several posts claiming to show his paintings made in traditional mediums(acrylic on canvas etc) accompanied by convincing explanations and pictures of the process.
The pictures look very unusual and “unique” as if possessing almost supernatural ability to capture every detail.
My opinion as a professional artist is that the works he is passing as real paintings are actually digitally derived from photos with the use of progressive filters and layers. Some are very basic watercolor conversions that you can get with a lot of apps these days, such as Prisma, some are more complicated with step by step procedure.
If you study the "pencil" work presented in his posts, you will find few types of very distinct patterns of strokes repeating across the works, varying only in rotation and size, suggesting that they are in fact generated by a computer.
Take notice that all the pictures seem very flat as it is very difficult to mimic thickness of paint in software. The appearance of canvas texture is easily achieved, though.
There are programs that allow you to paint over areas of an image and convert that to an appearance of a variety of mediums from watercolors to pastel chalks with a number of modifiers to control the result.
One of the most advanced programs capable of a lot of this is the Corel Painter, which he happens to mention using in some of his posts on digital art. Below is a demonstration of the Painters auto paint feature:
Another example of such program is the Dynamic Auto Painter:
There are many more videos on YouTube and there is a free trial of the Corel Painter available if you wish to play around with it yourself. It even has the divine proportion tool with that spiral you can throw on layer as in this post: https://steemit.com/art/@coldmonkey/original-art-learning-to-paint-from-inside-your-head-painting-from-imagination-a-steemit-special
The results can be very convincing if you are not paying close attention. With limited time we have to spare to look at pictures properly, it is easy to ignore the subtle hints.
This is not a pleasant thing to write but I can’t keep watching these posts get rewarded over false pretenses and say nothing. So this is my opinion, it is up to everyone else to decide what gets rewarded. The rewards are low at the moment so it may be easy to overlook this, but I hope everyone can now see these works for what they are and be mindful in the future.
I have suspected for a long time that his paintings could not be made by traditional medium, but digital. Because it looks absolutely not like any traditional medium.
But I am too lazy for research this so deep :)
Thanks for your attention to this theme.
Yea, it just bugged me too much. Hope it makes a difference.
I like using Dynamic Auto Painter sometimes to make some images from photos or other creative digital work. I think it adds something to the blog to have original work rather than just stuff that I found licensing to. If I modify a photo or other work extensively I note that at the bottom of the post under the image credits but I'm not real specific about all the steps. For me it is more like something I like adding to support the written content of the post.
It is interesting to see how software is progressing and It kind of makes me think a bit about the nature of creativity and art.
Yea, i think that is cool. it is pretty amazing to see what new software can do, I like to play with them myself sometimes. Maybe AI will someday understand our emotions better than we do ourselves and prepare art specifically tailored for each of us, who knows. My friend makes clumsy robots that make drawings partly dealing with that. I don't know. I still find it meaningful to make something with my hands and share with people, hoping it somehow connects.
Thank you very much for your work, outstanding and commendable.
Thank you for the support.
Thanks for writing this. New technologies are amazing.
They are, too bad the fun features they bring are used in this manner.
You have made a pretty convinvcing case. The patterns you have circled in the top photo are repeated all over the place in that figure.
Thanks, hope it is enough to make some difference.
It's made a difference for me. I had commented on an "acrylic painting" earlier.
I've noticed as well. I'm sure that user is faking it. I had a feeling right from the start.
He uses a lot of triangular shaped hatch-scribbles... but the way they are oriented (and weighted) on the "canvas" would imply that he is constantly rotating his hand/arm around the drawing, approaching from every angle. For watercolor / painting, this would be maddeningly labor intensive. I'd love to be wrong though...
Yeah, I can't see why someone would build an image like that. Even then, to achieve identical scribble each time, that would be something.
I appreciate your doubts, but the pictures are quite real, the fact that my pencil strokes are similar is simply technique. A straight line is a straight line, a brushstroke a brushstroke. In reality the paintings are not particularly photorealistic, if you want to see a really good photorealistic effect view Photorrealitic bulb. Not everything needs to be done by computer. I do indeed have a copy of Corel Painter, and where used I pointed it out. I also have a program for preparing photographs called Zoner Photo Studio. As for accuracy of drawing, that again is a matter of technique and practice.
Such is the nature of the universe.
In the real world, every brushstroke or scribble is an individual, but yours are clearly not. I am very aware what can be achieved through painting if one dedicates to it. I don't believe there is anything you can say to convince me.
I don't believe there is either.