The Next Rembrandt 

Yeah lol, so much negativity in these comments, and i'm an art student

hahahaha

We'll all be screwing Robots?

If someone someone else creates art does it stop you now? Then why would a machine stop you?

@Ondřej Perný fuck em.

I agree. That painting is like l “ a no soul image “ . Lest try Just set a real Rembrandt painting, side by side with that computer image .

+David Parker Would love to see a Bernie Sanders done in this

That'd be fun.👍

Well, your wish came true in a much powerful way than anyone expected. Now you can have paintings of everyone in any style you want.

And that TopazLabs can't do creative generative upscale like 1:25 yet.

+wronski11 deepart.io/

+IC Rainbow It's a fun site, the quality is not quite there yet, but seeing the developments of neural nets for art, while thinking about the future potential of such a tool is quite exciting.

Have you been dipping into this medical stuff yourself?

I'm an artist, we know that even if the computer can creat a data of proportion and all another measurements used on a (paint, painted for any painter) it is great but it always is going to be a copy of the emotion and motions that the painter creat.

Hopefully, never.

+KGiustOD This isn't about averaging.

+Nizouniz It reminds me so much of that Apple vs. PC commercial where the PC guy remembers his vacation using a spreadsheet to demonstrate how much time they spent doing an activity, sure it may be useful data, but it kinda misses the point.

+deltaray3 What would you rather they have chosen?

***** ***** The problem is this video doesn't show enough details of how they made the painting, its just that on the surface it looks like that's mostly what they focused on. I would have choose to analyze how he used his brush, what colors he choose for certain situations, who the subject was vs. what was conveyed in the painting and so on. Sure thats harder to do with computers and information but there's the challenge.

i agree, this seems very unreliable. it is not clear how much of this work is done by the machine and how much of it is polished by humans

+Stefan jeez, of course not, thats the point, to imitate him using a computer

+Mateo Sjollema So, it is not the next Rembrandt, merely the next IMITATION of Rembrandt :)

Thats the truth, yet it would not have existed without him

+kellieskins Good luck :)

Are you still interested, I have something in mind

Hi, Rob I would be willing to make you Rembrandt-like painting.

Hire an artist from an established atelier

i agree. if he was somehow revived and made one more painting it would probably come from his soul, not be yet another commissioned painting of a rich guy

What is this song in the beginning find out?

+Felipe Forero Go and average the images yourself and tell me if you get the same result. This is not remotely the same thing.

Yep, they confuse statistical correlations between pixels with what an artist actually does.

+UncleJackOnline This is not the same thing as averaging images. Go and do it and tell me if it looks even remotely similar.

+FragMentEditing its exactly what they are doing, morph one face into another, the face between the two is the average, they just used more than two images to make the final image. That is the data the are talking about in the video. Its just their software then fine tunes the image removing and duplicated lines nfar better than any standard home user software

Definitely not averaging Images. Look up Deep learning and neural networks before downplaying a huge achievement in the domain of AI

@@UncleJackOnline Dude, I know this is two years old, but averaging images is now where even close to how this works. Please look it up instead of speculating?

Lex, No?, that's not what art lovers and collectors feel

+Laurie Bruckmann To produce a portrait through manual labor of painting has nothing to do with art per se, and technology makes the genius of lighting effects reproduction by means of one's eyes and hands becomes obsolete and irrelevant. No genius today let alone in the future will want to devote his life to acquire such skill like Rembrandt anymore.

+Laurie Bruckmann I would suggest that a lot of hard work and study went into the process of making this, just in a different field. Unless you think you'd be able to easily sit down and write a deep learning algorithm or a bio-metric analysis system? Who is to say these people aren't geniuses in their own way?

What is this song in the beginning find out?

+Myconix Hopefully soon, I want to take a much closer look at it :)

Try this 2695 x 2305 image: theinspirationroom.com/daily/interactive/2016/6/the_next_rembrandt.jpg

thanks.

Ekaterinya Vladinakova You are welcome, sir!

Good eye. I noticed that too. But I think they were mostly focused on the portrait and person oppose to the overall composition. Still, using algorithms alongside a 3d printer and able to create a piece of art that could be easily confused with an apprentice's work IMO is still impressive considering the capability of technology that's associated with this line of work was just a few years ago.

+DM That's an empty statement.

+DM No it's not, you dipshit.

+royhatts1 An empty statement from an empty person. ;)

Nope, If you go ahead and read about their work, you will find that they picked the widest dataset of a similar sort that they had - portraits, specifically those of a middle aged, Caucasian males with a beard, wearing a collar against a dark backdrop

+Wesley Heartland Art, so far, is creative communication. When Ai starts to communicate with humans, and especially to do so by producing meaningful representations of what it has experienced "intelligently," then we will have to consider that as art. But Ai is a long way from seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, etc., and sharing what those sensations have taught it about its "life" with the humans that created it. If and when it finds some purpose for doing so, that will leave us with something that's no longer all that artificial. Then we might decide that we've found a better way to produce what we've called children. Or we might decide we need to put it in a zoo. Or exterminate it as an inferior race that's acting like it thinks it isn't.

+Wesley Heartland Who said that Ai has to have a zoo?

+Wesley Heartland Simulated existence doesn't know it exists.

+Eliko Beliko I deg to biffer.

+Roy Niles Haters Gonna Hate

+Cheap and Safe I want to know it too!

+Alex Griessel No.

+Selcuk Turkoglu I want to know it too!

Its just too much effort to create imitation.

+Red Judas Agreed, but isn't that what humans are doing also?

Thomas Harrison Humans are adapting and improving on. We're creating new concepts. The computer here isn't coming up with anything truly new. While yes it is a new painting, it's composed of various other paintings.

+Red Judas That's because AI doesn't exist yet. Only weak AI based on various algorithms. When strong AI will exist it will be capable of creating new things, adapting and evolving. That's it's definition. It will also most likely surpass human level intelligence quite quickly after it's creation because it won't have the physical limitations our brain has.

+gnrcs I am your opinion! But I don't think - like the OP - that, because of this, the robots of the future will try to extinct humanity :)

+Red Judas Wrong, computers can create also.

+Rocadamus yeah I think the computer was feeling "uninspired" that day. At least it doesn't care that it does only a "pretty good" imitation of Rembrandt

+Erik Zurcher "lifeless" is a meaningless term in regards to art. It's not something that actually exists, it's something that you pretentious fucks like to throw around when you don't like something.

+FragMentEditing Centuries of art lovers have found "lifeless" to be a meaningful critique that succinctly relates the emotional experience of being around soulless works of art.

When it comes to painting, us artist fucks will always be one step ahead of you techo fucks

Danie Torrez It doesn't make any sense though. A work of art is an image. How can an image have life or soul to it? It's meaningless, it has no real definition, there's no way to measure it. Saying it's lifeless is just a way to say you don't like it but you can't actually think of a legitimate criticism. A real criticism would be saying something about the accuracy of the proportions, the way the colors work together, the accuracy of the anatomy, and stuff like that. The result of this painting looks good, and that's all that matters. If you don't like it just because a computer made it, that's your problem. Don't try to make up fake excuses for why it's bad.

no no no no! saying its lifeless means this. You are not understanding art or the work of artists and the true connection those that understand art have with a human created painting. Maybe you have only seen crappy art or have no exposure to the history or background to the art or artists you have seen. Speaking as an artist myself, a work of art is not just an image. It is full of meaning, it connects me with the soul of another human who has live as flesh and blood a human existence as have I. You have to be a creator of art, an artists or a lover of art to understand this. Me, as an artist I am not creating a meaningless, lifeless image. I am creating a work of art that is the sum and focus of a actual lived fully human life, in emotion, spirit and intelligence. This, if I am being earnest, true to my feelings and authentic to my self, will show through into my work and be transmuted to other humans that are open to receive my message and who are able to connect to my work in multiple organic living level in a way only a human can. A machine an emulate an artist after he or she has created but never produce a new original, just a variation of a copy

+MrPanetela I wouldn’t feel anything, because the robots would have killed me already.

lol, I seriously believe you too, as it would be easy for AI to create it's own unbreakable perfectly logical programming tool, and use it to reprogram the world's internet of things against us, just as it was posited in the Terminator movies by Skynet.