Another recent gallery show experiment.
I run gallery show every night now on a retina mac book pro while watching tv. Both for testing purposes, and to push me to understand how to make it better by observing it work, both when it succeeds, and when it fails.
Read more…
Anyone who is interested in the generative process i used to make images like this one, or my last image post, should read the text associated with the recent posts on my personal daily art blog. Anything recent there that is tagged with gallery show.
The posts pretty clearly spell out what i'm doing. Or if not, i'm happy to elaborate with a more detailed post here that very specifically spells it out, maybe in the form of a tutorial article if necessary.
There is a post there called Music to My Ears, that discusses how this specific image was made.
I'm using the execution of multiple fully automated gallery show cycles over time to create a series of art image canvases. The image you see at the end of any specific gallery show processing cycle usually is built up from the current and previous gallery show cycles interacting in some way. And you can certainly see that going on in this image.
This particular image is just one i grabbed from that series. The series of images is automatically saved into an open movie stream by gallery show. You open a new image stream, and then make sure the Enable Write on Gallery Show Cycle menu flag is turned on.
Not every image in the sequence is a keeper, lots of them are junk, you need to sort through that to find the ones that resonate for you personally. And which ones those are could be totally different for 2 different people.
I was using a folder of Shutterstock images we purchased here as the source material for the gallery show run. Gallery show was set to randomly pick a new source image from this folder of images at the beginning of each gallery show cycle.
You could of course be much more creative about specifically choosing what images are in that folder than i was with this experiment. Very specifically choosing specific images that you know will work when randomly combined together in some purposefully designed way. Where as i'm just kind of leaving it all up to chance with the approach i used.
I've been using specific gallery show techniques that randomize effects, or mutate presets in all of these recent experiments. I also use additional specifically designed favorites categories of presets thrown together specifically for some kind of additional effect i'm trying to achieve in my gallery show runs. For the start cycle and end cycle processing options in the gallery show preferences. Things like folders of water wash paint presets, or geometric transformations for the Start Cycle processing. Or finishing effects (like contrast boost or sharpening or gradient lighting) for the End Cycle processing.
So again, i'm using gallery show to create fully automated generative art creation processes. It's not totally random, there is quite a bit of finesse to setting it up to achieve the kind of specific visual goals you are looking for in the outcome (the sequence of output images generated by the generative process). And to be quite honest, i'm barely scratching the surface of how this one little corner of Studio Artist could be used to automatically create visual art. It's pretty limitless if you really start to dive into it.
I can duplicate the generative process quite easily.
Although it will create a new sequence of imagery every time it runs. With visual similarity in the sense that the generative process is 'designed', and does head in a certain visually stylistic way because of that.
I usually turn on history recording when i do these experiments.
So if you save the history sequence, then you can literally re-create the effect by going back to that history sequence. Gallery show preferences give you the ability to add the source image name as a part of the image stream output name, so you could use that to recreate the sequence of source images used as well, at least in this example.
Other gallery show experiments i've been running recently use a new feature that abstracts the whole notion of what the source is. By feeding back the previous gallery show output cycle canvas into the source area . Maybe each cycle, or maybe a coin flip between doing that or randomly loading a new image from a folder, or generating it from a MSG preset, or set of MSG preset procedurally.
Those of you who frequent the users forum or know me personally know that i have an intense interest in 'artificial creativity'. Can computers be creative? Can computers be visually creative?
We could argue this out all day. I view these gallery show experiments as an interesting step in that direction. The artist is involved in the process, but at a very high level, setting up the parameters associated with what is ultimately a fully automated generative process that creates the art work. I setup the parameters of the process, but the computer actually does all the work after that. It doesn't take much of a conceptual leap to imagine the computer also defining the high level definition information, as opposed to a person doing it.
This reply was deleted.
You need to be a member of Studio Artist to add comments!
Comments
Anyone who is interested in the generative process i used to make images like this one, or my last image post, should read the text associated with the recent posts on my personal daily art blog. Anything recent there that is tagged with gallery show.
The posts pretty clearly spell out what i'm doing. Or if not, i'm happy to elaborate with a more detailed post here that very specifically spells it out, maybe in the form of a tutorial article if necessary.
There is a post there called Music to My Ears, that discusses how this specific image was made.
I'm using the execution of multiple fully automated gallery show cycles over time to create a series of art image canvases. The image you see at the end of any specific gallery show processing cycle usually is built up from the current and previous gallery show cycles interacting in some way. And you can certainly see that going on in this image.
This particular image is just one i grabbed from that series. The series of images is automatically saved into an open movie stream by gallery show. You open a new image stream, and then make sure the Enable Write on Gallery Show Cycle menu flag is turned on.
Not every image in the sequence is a keeper, lots of them are junk, you need to sort through that to find the ones that resonate for you personally. And which ones those are could be totally different for 2 different people.
I was using a folder of Shutterstock images we purchased here as the source material for the gallery show run. Gallery show was set to randomly pick a new source image from this folder of images at the beginning of each gallery show cycle.
You could of course be much more creative about specifically choosing what images are in that folder than i was with this experiment. Very specifically choosing specific images that you know will work when randomly combined together in some purposefully designed way. Where as i'm just kind of leaving it all up to chance with the approach i used.
I've been using specific gallery show techniques that randomize effects, or mutate presets in all of these recent experiments. I also use additional specifically designed favorites categories of presets thrown together specifically for some kind of additional effect i'm trying to achieve in my gallery show runs. For the start cycle and end cycle processing options in the gallery show preferences. Things like folders of water wash paint presets, or geometric transformations for the Start Cycle processing. Or finishing effects (like contrast boost or sharpening or gradient lighting) for the End Cycle processing.
So again, i'm using gallery show to create fully automated generative art creation processes. It's not totally random, there is quite a bit of finesse to setting it up to achieve the kind of specific visual goals you are looking for in the outcome (the sequence of output images generated by the generative process). And to be quite honest, i'm barely scratching the surface of how this one little corner of Studio Artist could be used to automatically create visual art. It's pretty limitless if you really start to dive into it.
You asked, can i duplicate it?
I can duplicate the generative process quite easily.
Although it will create a new sequence of imagery every time it runs. With visual similarity in the sense that the generative process is 'designed', and does head in a certain visually stylistic way because of that.
I usually turn on history recording when i do these experiments.
So if you save the history sequence, then you can literally re-create the effect by going back to that history sequence. Gallery show preferences give you the ability to add the source image name as a part of the image stream output name, so you could use that to recreate the sequence of source images used as well, at least in this example.
Other gallery show experiments i've been running recently use a new feature that abstracts the whole notion of what the source is. By feeding back the previous gallery show output cycle canvas into the source area . Maybe each cycle, or maybe a coin flip between doing that or randomly loading a new image from a folder, or generating it from a MSG preset, or set of MSG preset procedurally.
Those of you who frequent the users forum or know me personally know that i have an intense interest in 'artificial creativity'. Can computers be creative? Can computers be visually creative?
We could argue this out all day. I view these gallery show experiments as an interesting step in that direction. The artist is involved in the process, but at a very high level, setting up the parameters associated with what is ultimately a fully automated generative process that creates the art work. I setup the parameters of the process, but the computer actually does all the work after that. It doesn't take much of a conceptual leap to imagine the computer also defining the high level definition information, as opposed to a person doing it.