Computer paints 'new Rembrandt' after old works analysis

When is a Rembrandt not a Rembrandt?

A team of technologists working with Microsoft and others have produced a 3D-printed painting in the style of Dutch master Rembrandt. The portrait was created after existing works by the artist were analysed by a computer.

After they had been digitally tagged by humans, data on Rembrandt's paintings was gathered by computers which discovered patterns in how the Dutch master would, for example, characteristically shape a subject's eyes in his portraits. Then, machine-learning algorithms were developed which could output a new portrait mirroring Rembrandt's style.

I just came across this, and although it didn't surprise me much, it made me think on the leaps that technology has made in just a few years.

Looking at it's definitely a Rembrandt.
What else can we expect in the near future? I predict that in the future we will need to start using carbon dating to determine if a work of art is an original or a fake.
And how does something like this affect our perception of what constitutes an artwork?
Can we truly call something a masterpiece if it was made by an algorithm and a 3d printer?
And yet I'd like to see they come up with a new Van Gogh or a new Dali.


Article

a reply to: athousandlives

Once computers master music and art the last of the real magic in this world will slowly dry up in my opinion.

a reply to: athousandlives

Can we truly call something a masterpiece if it was made by an algorithm and a 3d printer?

NO. Art takes creativity, imagination and passion. Something a algorithm will never do.
It is, at best, a cheap copy.

He was a true master, the likes of which have become all to common place today (where we have artists of near equal quality languish as total unknowns from birth to death).

What has happened here is, essentially, a computer painted a picture in the style of Rembrandt. Like countless humans have done while mimicing his work.

a reply to: athousandlives

Here's the e-Rembrandt, lifted from The BBC Source Link

Wow, if it didn't tell you, it'd be all but impossible to tell it wasn't a real one.
That's impressive.

My band GODBOT is exploring just such an idea. It is just me and my buddy both doing guitars and vocals along with computer algorithms programming drums bass and what have you. I say we stumbled onto free energy just in a form that you wouldn't expect. We teach the machines our idea and it tells us it's, we can say no try again or sometimes it makes the hair stand up on my neck. It is uncanny how "real" the drums can sound and more importantly feel. Sometimes we have an idea and hear it in our head one way and the computer does something completely different than we expected and it changes the entire feel of the song. An example is on Soundcloud. It is called No More Pain by GODBOT. It is a demo version that we went as far as letting a bot called Landr Master it. Somehow the sum is bigger than the parts hence the free energy, there are some crazy harmonic frequency things going on in that recording that the human part of the band had no part in creating the we honestly cannot figure out where in the signal chain it is coming from. Isolate the tracks and it is gone, but together the magic happens.

The 4th "member" is a computer programmer and 3D artist who will be adding a visual layer to complete the project. We decided to embrace this new gadgetry and use it beyond a simple practice tool, or device to enhance the human input but rather give it a voice. To explore those interactions between "Us" and "It". To find that bit of divinity in the circuitry the venerable Ghost in the Machine if you will.

Im sure most of membership has already watched the video of G.W. Bush being "controlled" in real time by another person. Amazing video trickery I am sure everyone can see the many uses of that tech. We personally have a machine that learns guitar parts and creates its own accompanying rhythm section along with vocal processors that can ad harmony or back up singers in either gender at selectable pitches while adding any number of effects such as reverbs or delays. I imagine soon we will be able to real time select the Elvis, or John Lennon patch and transform any voice into an exact match of whoever you would want to replicate. Hell, we already had a hologram Tupac Concert and that was years ago!

And many think it is hard to trust the media already, wait until it is common knowledge how long they have been able to present anybody in any scene they would ever want. Scary!a reply to: athousandlives


Eta* The GODBOT Souncloud page should not be viewed as a finished product as we just created it less than a week ago as a means to share ideas with other artists. We will be posting "real" material through a distribution Contractor. Soundcloud has a great community of users with much insight on recording and provide advice to each other about each other's projects.

I bet the guys who wrote the algorithms would disagree. The beauty and elegance can be found outside the pixels in the passion of the Artist who created the code. I am not sorry to say but some of the most beautiful things on Earth are strings of Ones and Zeroes. They put hours of effort into their work with a keyboard instead of a brush and care as much about is as any creator thinks of his creation. Wanna put some odds on if one of the guys called this program his "Baby" or not?

Art can have a very WIDE definition.

a reply to: DAVID64

a reply to: dogstar23

And here I thought art would be the one endeavor that is safe. Personally, I think the painting has soul; although the gaze is off-kilter, like he has a lazy eye.

originally posted by: DAVID64

NO. Art takes creativity, imagination and passion. Something a algorithm will never do.
It is, at best, a cheap copy.

So that credit must surely go to those that programmed the computer?

a reply to: DAVID64

I completely agree with that, I might have worded it badly, I was in a hurry.
I was thinking of a potential situation, where we are unknowingly presented with a flawless computer generated painting, let's take this one for an example, and told it's a newly discovered Rembrandt.
The style is Rembrandt, the lighting/coloring is Rembrandt, even the brushstrokes are Rembrandt.
True to the artist in every way, an art collectors dream.
Imagine this painting goes on auction and sells for millions and ends up in an exclusive private collection.
I'm thinking the computer could even add some weathering effects to make it look like a 400-year-old painting.
Just me thinking out loud, but I predict a future where the only way to know if a painting is an original is by carbon dating it.

I wonder how long before the technology arrives where a highly advanced chiseling robot will be able to recreate the Pieta or make a sculpture in the style of Michelangelo. (If it doesnt exist already)

a reply to: redhorse

Lol, I remember seeing a few paintings in the past (maybe even by Rembrandt himself?) where the subject very proudly stared at us with a big fat lazy eye.
So it could just be part of the algorithm.

That's cool, I guess bots really have no limitations, only the limitations of its programmers.
So we got painting, music, I wonder what other art forms will they be able to learn from and convincingly recreate.

It is just me and my buddy both doing guitars and vocals along with computer algorithms programming drums bass and what have you.

What program are you using for that may I ask? Interested as well.
Cool song btw

I showed this to my sister, that is a painter and studied art and art history, and I could see by her face even before I told her that she was noticing something strange with the "painting". After I told her what it was she said that it made sense, because she was thinking that it looked like a painting done by someone with a good technique but without talent, as that was the first thing she noticed, that the "painting" lacked the signs of talent of the real Rembrandt paintings.

One of the devices is called the Trio+ by digitech(the plus sign is important and it notates the new version with more functions and a looper added. Most reviews on YouTube don't do it justice. Each song can have 5 parts and each part can be up to 4 min. We literally taught it the guitar parts and choose the drum and bass we liked best connected directly to our preamp straight into the DAW. Drum tracks done in as long as it took to click record and let it play its parts. Again, we didn't program the drums the machine does that part, same for bass. That was the tool that got us started anyway. As far as mastering the bot is Landr.com you can let it do one track for free then for like 9$ a month master all the tracks you want. If you listened and are wondering on that song I was the one who sang the 1st verse. Thanks for your kind words!

Last year the Trio won NAMM guitar show the new one won this year, I wonder what the next one will do??!!

As far as the visual art part our buddy is trying to write us a code that will create new Artworks as our shows go on based on the noise coming from an ambient mic in the room. Some songs might make sharper lines, melody might soften them while key and notes will dictate color. So at the end of the show everything including that loud fan's screams for some Skinard between songs will make it onto the "canvas". Maybe we can work it where people can order Tee Shirts with the art from Their show and make the audience a part of the show. At least we hope he can figure it out, I feel sure he will as he has made a lot of stuff that people know and use.

a reply to: athousandlives