I've been experimenting with the notion of building gallery show processes that auto generate synthesized source images as well as auto-randomized processing for them as dual aspects of a single gallery show technique. So the notion is to try and move away from using singular source images for creating processed images. In this example, the source image as well as the processing applied to it are all generative and auto-mutating at the same time.
It's all part of a process of trying to move beyond working with singular real world source images that are then processed with Studio Artist effects, (and the visual karaoke criticisms associated with that way of working). So the source image itself essentially becomes another algorithmic generated process in the overall series of steps used to create something new and hopefully visually interesting.
So this example is kind of a conceptual sketch, as opposed to some kind of ultimate super designed ultimately realized end goal. And i think that was what the recent Eno discussions are kind of getting at in some respects, Disregarding the temptation of endless polishing available in digital art and music software and pushing the envelope with experimentation using new ideas in the moment, being flexible and open to experimentation on the fly.
You need to try experiments to grow. These experiments may ultimately succeed or fail. But if you don't put yourself out there to try the experiment, you'll never get to your end goal. Or really progress anywhere beyond where you already are. We should not be afraid to fail. We learn from our failures as much or more as from our successes.
Whether our experiments succeed, partially succeed, or fail miserably, we can still learn something from going through the effort of trying out a particular idea. As can others taking a look at what we tried to do.
Becoming comfortable with failure is probably one of the hardest things for people getting started in creative pursuits. We should encourage people to take those risks. They are putting themselves out on a limb and they desire our respect and encouragement to be free to utterly fail, so that they might learn from that and do better when the try again. And we learn as well from their efforts.
Does this particular personal experiment of mine succeed or fail? Probably both if i'm going to be honest with myself. So i try to understand the different aspects of that, and then move forward with that analysis in my thinking for future experiments. That hopefully improve and get better as they progress over time.
If anyone is interested in how you can program gallery show to automatically modify and combine different source images as a part of the overall gallery show processing cycle, i'd be happy to expound on that further. I'm working through it myself. Like many things in Studio Artist, if you think through the range of possibilities, all kinds of new approaches suddenly become accessible for you to experiment with. So i initially thought i needed to add new features to do this. But by thinking things through, i realized could use what was already there in the program to test out my ideas.
And there-in lies the advantage of a program like Studio Artist, as opposed to a set of canned filter effects. You can use Studio Artist that way if you wish to (like a set of canned static effects). But the Studio Artist environment allows for much more flexible creativity and experimentation and personal customization if you are willing to put in the effort to pursue it.
And as always, i'm open to adding new ways to make that easier for people to access. But if we don;t experiment, try out what are in effects 'tests' of different visual effect ideas, we will never grow. Both as individuals, and as a community.