4/29/2023 0 Comments Diptic photographyI shoot manual all the time and process intuitively adjusting sliders and creating custom curves to feel my way into the results I want. It doesn't make random decisions based on an algorithm. My camera is a mechanical tool I tell it what to capture. An algorithm can't understand that complex human frailty. Due to your own love for your creation you will rationalize in order to compromise or define your own value system. You are in love with your own creation, an algorithm that you hope to provide valuable use for businesses, a value system I don't share. Tim, in a way, it sounds like you are a painter criticizing the camera for not having feelings, merely recording the scene as it's told using some sort of algorithm to pick exposure (guessing most people aren't doing this manually these days).You personifying a camera as analogy to what I said in my previous post tells me you're on a thought wavelength that can't be reasoned with. Creativity is now just a game where the results are impossible to question from where they're sourced. The individual photos are created by Bill, but the choices for combining and arranging to create his diptychs are just based on an algorithm made from measuring random reactions from human visual stimuli when viewing his series of individual photos that turns creativity into a play at a roulette wheel. They're not original looking, just interesting, but is that the only value in appreciating an abstract photo? That's all I can come up with in explaining why I like some of Bill's algorithm built diptychs here only to be kind of disappointed to discover I've been fooled again by my own reactionary sense of taste to visual stimuli. There's only a simulation of moving forward. It's an algorithm left on autopilot where there's no real intelligent and feeling soul driving humanity forward. He is basically showing a mirror to how we react individually as a sort of reverse engineering to human creativity according to what we see except the reflection in the mirror isn't a human. "It looks just like so it must be really good!" without any idea of what made that either abstract or good.I don't think that POV fully applies to what Bill is doing with his algorithm, but somehow the source of the process is too hidden to know from where the results are coming from so there's no connection to a real human as the source. In other words, they're excited because they think they're doing a good imitation, not because of what it is that they're seeing. I always have a suspicion that people who consciously "do" abstract are simply imitating what they've seen other people claim to be abstract. Julie, I think I now understand more your point made in another AP thread. The slick and polished look and compositions of stock photography is an example where to me it all seems to have been made with the same lighting style, processing and photographer's POV. I'm from a learning based on 50 years of observation that if one uses the same process or system in an attempt to create something original, the process and system must be original as well or else everything looks the same. What makes monkey only see pooh is a mystery, but what can make the monkey see something more meaningful, interesting and enriching? Algorithms fail. Monkey only sees pooh, that's your abstract. Very similar work.Julie, I wonder if abstracts derived, sourced and inspired solely and simply by reacting to visual stimuli from which an algorithm can be created to simulate is the only way to create an original looking abstract. I see the same motivation in choice of material, and the same idea of what is abstract.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |