Well, you can’t because those painters are all dead. But Mark Frauenfelder says that there is now AI software developed using 45,000 portraits that will take a headshot photograph of you and produce a pretty good facsimile of a classical portrait.
Pretty cool.
It’s interesting. I fed it a few historical portraits and Homer Simpson, which resulted in some pretty odd output.
Why would anyone have a portrait when photography is so advanced?
Simulating an inferior rendition seems less than desirable, but then, I’m not into “art”.
Still, if I had to choose, I would choose whatever artist is the most photorealistic in style, since they’d deviate the least from a real depiction.
That was fun. I used four different photos of myself, and three of those made me look like a guy. I cannot pass for a dude in real life, so an algorithm recognizing me for who I truly am was nice. In one photo I even got a beard—my long hair that was around my face got rendered as a beard. Unfortunately, in the fourth photo my face was rendered more feminine than it really is.
I also found interesting how my nose shape was changed in every single image. My nose always became narrower and longer, the upturned tip of my nose was straightened. Apparently, according to some artists, my actual nose isn’t pretty enough.
How people define “old masters” is rather interesting. If the definition is “a long ago dead artist,” then yes, they are all dead. But if you look at the style how the paintings are made, then you will quickly realize that there are lots of still alive artists who can emulate the same “old master style” and create visually similar paintings. There are even artists who specialize in using authentic antique pigments and art materials.
@#2
Unlike you, many other people are into art and like it.
Andreas, indeed. But then, so are many others into surgical body modification, and I don’t get that, either.
(When the best you can say about something is that it appeals to many people, it’s a tell)
@#4
In case you haven’t noticed already, people have different interests. Personally, I don’t waste my time searching for online discussions between soccer fans just to type, “I don’t get soccer, it’s a useless waste of time.” When other people who like art are discussing it among themselves, you showing up and typing, “I don’t get art, it’s useless,” is at best a waste of everybody’s time (and at worst such behavior can be intentional trolling).
Yes, it’s a tell that many other people see you typing “I don’t get art” is pointlessly useless.
Personally, I love art and I support people who want plastic surgery. That being said, it’s not my job to convince you that art or body modifications are beautiful and valuable. I couldn’t care less what you think about art. You are welcome to see it as useless. If you are trying to invalidate my opinion about art or asking me to convince you about the value of art, I’ll just ignore the provocation.
Um, I’m pointing out I have different interests, so yeah, that did not elude me.
Nor do I.
Such entitlement! There was no notice in the post that those who didn’t care about art (I like a lot of art, but it’s hardly necessary) can’t also express their opinion.
(I do recall you consider blurring half an image and shading the other half to be art, whereas I see a blurred picture half in shadow)
PS (can’t resist)
You cared enough to be indignant about it, and to tell me so.
(Had you cared less, you would not have written your little screed, no?)
And of course immediately we have someone with no knowledge of photography stepping up to pontificate nonsense.
Hint: photos are no more a true representation than paintings.
Clearly entirely ignorant of art, yes. Photography is, unfortunately for you, art, just like painting is.
Curt:
Bullshit. What they are is not idealised, without some image processing.
<snicker>
There’s nothing unfortunate about that, I get it. “Art” is whatever anyone says is art.
(A dog turd on a plate can be art, if someone calls it that, as is a blank canvas)
John Morales
Do you actually think that portraits are meant to be an exact representation of the subject?
chigau, no. I suspect they’re meant to be flattering to the subject, generally.
(Historically, that was what paid the money)
John @2: If only Rembrandt had a decent camera, think of the time he could have saved, and we wouldn’t have to look at all his “inferior renditions”! And that van Gogh; couldn’t even paint a crow!
@6:
Nonsense! You’ve turned contrarianism into a performance art form, and it certainly seems necessary to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Leibovitz
Did you read the small print? How will the photos be used afterwards?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/faceapp-old-age-face-photographic-filter-mobile-app-development-russia/
When painters paint portraits, they are not necessarily simply aiming at an accurate likeness. Many are also trying to capture, even obliquely, an important aspect of the subject’s personality, using subtle elements in the eyes, mouth, and other features that are expressive. It is the successful implementation of that which makes a portrait memorable. Do we really care if the person who sat for the Mona Lisa looked exactly like that?
With photographs, one just captures an instantaneous image that may or may not represent that person’s personality as the photographer sees it. One could take a ton of photos and then pick the one that comes closest to what you are trying convey but I think a good portrait artist has a better chance of achieving that goal.
“With photographs, one just captures an instantaneous image”
That isn’t a portrait. That’s a mugshot.
A portrait photographer has the same parameters as a painter: lightning, colours, viewing angles, facial and body expressions, makeup, clothing, etc. In the background something to represent the model’s career. John Hegdecoe loads there the whole life, Irving Penn used just two gray walls in a 45 degree angle. And then all the retouching in prostproduction. I could go on…
I’m disappointed that the ai tool does not seem to bother with the baroque style, with its fidelity to detail coupled with dramatic light and shadow. Disciples of that style really had to know what to keep and also what to conceal to make a great scene.
Yet they can be made a damn sight more faithful to reality than any painting.
That does not disagree with what Mano said. There might be more thought put into a portrait, but they are still instantaneous images.
wtf?
that failed blockquote didn’t show up in preview! Well in case it is not clear, that was a quote of Curt and reply, followed by a separate quote of Lassi and reply.
[I corrected it -- Mano]
Anyone remember the famous shot of Churchill? It only occurred because the photographer grabbed the cigar out of his mouth.
Holms @17 says:
Sometimes true, sometimes not, depending on the situation. To give just one obvious example, a photographer without a view camera or shift lens is certainly at a great disadvantage in trying to deal with perspective as compared to a painter. (And if you don’t know what a shift lens is, or how to manipulate perspective by shifting the lens and film planes of a view camera, you may want to consider your ignorance before further pontificating on photography.)
And John Morales, in his inimitable way, has convinced me yet again that he is right by replying to my comment with, “Bullshit.” I bow down before your intellect, John; you have clearly and succiently proved that you are correct here.
(For anybody else who has passing thoughts that photos are “real,” next time you take a photograph stop afterwords and look at all the things in that situation you left out. Even things directly in the frame, in high-contrast environments.)
Which is why I said “can be made” rather than “are always”. Obviously if you don’t have the right equipment for the shot, then it won’t be be particularly “faithful to reality”.
Curt:
That is meet. Your obeisance is duly noted.