Category: Art Ramblings

More opinion than anything else.

Oh, what beautiful fractals you have, honey!

Posted on May 1, 2013 by Thomas | Art Ramblings,Science | Tags: , , , , |

Fractals, illustration, Alectoris Rufa

lookatme

Ornamental patterns are nice to look at. Nature has some stunning examples. But why are we so attracted by it? A recent study about red-legged partridges shows that we’re not the only ones… makes me wonder how we can use the lessons for artworks.

The study is a bit special (1), in that it doesn’t look just at size or color strength but at the form of the pattern. What seems to matter: regularity, contrast, the smoothness of transition from big to small patches and how twisted the pattern is (and as per usual, bigger is better). It’s those traits that the females get all googly eyed.

As I see it, to be a reliable mating signal, this has to have certain features: It must be costly, so that it shows the health of the male. It must be “honest”, so that weak males can’t simply fake the pattern. And there must be a simple rule behind it – else it would be too hard measure for the potential mate.
So: Based on simple rules, yet hard or costly to create… the females are all over that.

Fractals seem to fit those needs – which may explain how ubiquitous fractal patterns are in nature. As I wrote in an older article, some of these come from possibly very very easy algorithms. Which is generally what our genes like (they “prefer”to be short). I’m sure one must be careful here not to jump to conclusions about fractal influence on beauty. As noted in the study, sometimes just more complex patterns might show the health of the bird. But even then, it could give artists hints – about what kind of complexity is considered beautiful.

To say that humans would share this same taste as birds seems far fetched (we’re not looking for bird-mates after all). But there might be overarching rules for beauty. But there are studies the other way around, that might hint at something. For example a study by Stefano Ghirlanda et al. (2) shows that chickens have a similar taste for beauty in human faces. After being trained to always pick female faces, the chicken starts to prefer certain female faces over others…. stunningly the same that humans like most.

google search for beautiful peackock

Searching for “beautiful peacock” proves: even the google bot got seduced!


This seems to hint that we don’t have special genes telling us which faces to prefer – so that we get perfect offspring. But rather we rely on some basic mechanism that is present in all higher animals.
So if animals react as we do to human looks, then it’s not surprising humans react the same to bird looks? … and if you think about it: have you ever seen a photo of a female peacock?

footnotes n’stuff:
- (1) Paper: Fractal geometry of a complex plumage trait reveals bird’s quality (2012), Perez-Rodriguez, L., Jovani, R. and Mougeot, F., Proceedings of the Royal Society B. [download pdf] [safety copy]
- (2) Paper: Chickens prefer beautiful humans (2004), Stefano Ghirlanda, Liselotte Jansson, and Magnus Enquist [download pdf] [source][safety copy]

Can Game Art Please Evolve?

Posted on April 4, 2013 by Thomas | Art Ramblings,Games Industry | Tags: , , , |

This is starting to bug me – will the games art industry ever grow out its teenage years? And are the artists caught or complicit? Just a snapshot of links I came across this very morning.

I kiss the ground these artists walk on for their technical skills. I couldn’t create that. But that makes it double the shame that they use it on this kind of content.

Dark Queen by Brad Rigney Ben Lo - Infinite cover
Two links from CgHub today. … and I could have picked from many.

What I see there are typical adolescent male fantasies and fears. Super hot girls, luring openly with their sexuality – but dangerous to come close to. Seriously, don’t dare!
And the male, strong prose. Protecting that poor female in the background, holding her back. Surely I’m not the only one noticing how shocked she looks at that immense shiny gun trusting into the foreground.
Or maybe it’s because I talk with a friend about metaphors a lot recently – these things are not just pretty images. They say something with the content. That’s what the artists of our industry have been completely ignoring. What is expressed here? Could we actually instead have a message – maybe even a positive one?

Just to be clear I’m not against sexy girls in art. There are sexy girls in our lives, right? But they don’t all dress with little metal plates on their breasts. They are not just victims waiting for protection. Nor are they gonna burn us with fire (not always anyways).
The symbols get in the way of creating believable art. The woman in the first image above would loose all clothing in a second. Sometimes some tiny strings might just be necessary – I don’t even think they would cover her up all that much. And is nipple-armor really sufficient for battle?

These questions have been already covered wonderfully – I’m not saying anything new here. It’s just that the industry is not moving.
Serving the adolescent male target group has become the only tactic. And while that is a valid group to create art for – even mirroring their fears and desires – it can’t be 90% of the market. Feminist Frequency had a great video about Lego, how they intentionally started targeting this group, and lost their general appeal. And how they’re now in a spiral that they can’t seem to get out of anymore.
You hurt your sales – and maybe you’re even hurting other possible groups?

Artists have to work for the industry – I am part of it and don’t exempt myself from any critique. Sometimes there is no choice and sometimes it’s just fine anyways. But many continue the same in their spare time, when they have a choice. If you do something all life long, maybe it becomes routine too much? Maybe one learns to do the technique better and better – while forgetting to evolve on the subject. You stop to think about the “why” – “why are you doing art”?

Just another example of today’s news – a game people have likeley spend millions of dollar and years of work on:

Star Wars 1313 is probably cancelled now – and it’s said to have been losing steam for a while. Maybe there is a reason. It seems empty in game mechanics (“duck, shoot, roll” for the millionth time). The characters are B-movie cliche’s that movies got rid off after the 80s.
The showing off of testosterone levels again hurts believability: why do the guys jump into space without even checking? Why should I care about it, when they don’t? And will their attitude appeal to a broader audience than hardcore gamers? It might hurt others groups and your appeal in the long run.
This 3D-art has the same syndrome: Detail, detail, detail – shows off super high skill! But no style and no heart.

Mindless entertainment is OK. But if it’s mindless, don’t expect people to miss it when it’s gone.
And if nobody will miss your art, why spend your lifetime creating it?

Dutch Taxes vs. Art – Round 2

Posted on May 6, 2012 by Thomas | Art Ramblings | Tags: , , |

Just last year the Dutch government raised the consumption tax on visual art from 6 to 19 percent. I really don’t demand a special status, but raising it just this year again to 21 is gonna be tough. Clients barely had the time to get used to the higher prices… apparently galleries had a drop of sales by 25 percent. One can only guess what the aggregate of 15 percent higher prices will do. Never mind that they hack at all other pillars of support at the same time.

I rambled before about the particular oddity of cutting funds to visual arts in Holland, so I keep this short. If you are an affected artist or think either way that the Dutch government should reconsider: Here is a petition you can sign (featuring 17.000 signatures already).

The extra funny part: Any art that is on a stage (called “podiums art”, so theater and singing) will go back to 6 percent. Now should give the lawmakers credit for following a divide and conquer strategy … or do they simply don’t spend any time thinking laws through? Hmmmm.

Dutch Art in 2020

Gallery visit in 2020.

Brain Plasticity and Traditional Media

Posted on August 13, 2011 by Thomas | Art Ramblings,Science | Tags: , , , , |

The term neural plasticity describes the fact that our brain is highly flexible to adapt. Everything we learn changes the our structure of neurons physically. I think the way how this works relates to the question whether you should paint digitally or with traditional media.

Here is a TED-Talk by Michael Merzenich, outlining some of the new discoveries:

That was the short version – and there are some obvious things to notice relate to art. For one: You can still progress when you get older (Phew! I can put the rope away.)*. But the thing I wanna draw attention to here is the role of sensory input: It is absolutely essential. Already a baby does not get taught word meanings by its parents from the start – but rather collects all sensory inputs and reconfigures the brain, so that it can later distinguish what’s important and what not. If all you hear is noise as baby, you won’t be able to understand language – because you wouldn’t know what to listen to.

Here is a longer version where Merzenich speaks it out more directly:

He notes there layers abstractions. We rely on them more and more in old age, and pay less attention direct sensory input. Thus our brain loses the ability to distinguish it – and falls into decline.
It must not be that way: Smell an actual flower – he suggests. Go for walks! Enjoy little things. Don’t live too much in your head! (There I had to twinge a little myself).

Digital art is exactly removing that: The real physical contact with the medium. It’s a heavy layer of abstraction. You usually don’t even have your hand on the art – you move your mouse or tablet-pen somewhere, and see the result on the screen. No friction, no smell, no touch. You also limit your movements – only your fingertips do the job – no arm waving, no smudging with the palm, no scratching, rubbing, licking (just theoretically, I swear).

Neuro-blasticity

Neuro-blasticity

Now I can not say how much of an effect this has directly on your painting skills – I know of no specific studies. But seeing how central sensory input is for our neural structure, it must make a substantial difference in the long run. And it makes sense: Our development is adapted for a physical world. It relies on sensory input, because that is how we used to interacted with the world. We are not made for mouse and screen. Using computer-modeling-tools helped me get better at drawing perspectives, I’m sure. But using clay gives you a real feel of 3D space that you will not get on a computer. These things are not just additive, they will create synergies in your brain.

Not to come across wrong here: I’m not saying throw your PC’s away! After all, varying the tools you work with, is beneficial too. But consider not to limit your sensory input – remove the layer of abstraction from time to time. Which may give a fresh boost to your painting-neurons.

* = For more on brain aging see also Barbara Strauch’s research: “The Secret Life of the Grown-Up Brain” (here as short video talk)

The Image is in Your Pencil

Posted on July 14, 2011 by Thomas | Art Ramblings | Tags: , |

An interesting Blog post at Seth’s Blog again – called “Better To Do Than To Think“. He applies it there to science: Rather do experiments than spending time thinking of how to experiment. And that is something I sooo much see valid in art that it bugs me.

A common example of the typical artists trouble. ByHeiko Nerenz.

Another great example of the typical artists trouble. By Heiko Nerenz.

When I get a request to paint a specific subject, then sometimes I get a clear image in my head instantly. That makes the job easy – I just have to paint down whats in my head. And funnily there is next to no way to improve upon it.

But if I don’t get this image automatically, then it gets really tough work to get something going from my head. And I do try: Sometimes sitting and just thinking for half a day. Trying in all kinds of manners to create an image in my head. The idea behind this is that even if I spend half a day doing this, it would still save me a lot of time when I work on a five days painting.

Alas, so far my efforts never worked out. There is no better way to get going than to just grab a pencil and start drawing. Work my way through it. At some point the mere amount of work will put you more and more in a direction and you will end up with something. With enough knowledge and experience it is always possible to turn anything into a good image.

So here are the rules:

  1. Better to do than to think.
  2. Start with the smallest easiest thing

Do you have similar experiences? Or know any tricks to get an image in the head? I would be curious to hear about it.

Art in the Shadow of Big Money

Posted on February 8, 2011 by Thomas | Art Ramblings | Tags: , , , , |

Even though nearly no one foresaw the implosion of the housing market, it now seems obvious that it was a bubble. After all a house fulfills a real-world need, you can calculate and compare what it physically gives you. Art doesn’t have those real tangible values – it is all in the eye of the beholder. I think that why, despite the insane amounts of money changing hands for art, it is still hard to say what is really going on.

Here are two documentaries (found in the German Digitalart forum) about what is going on. The first is called “The Mona Lisa Curse” by critic Robert Hughes. It’s a witty look at how the what is happening to art in the billion dollar market.

I think he addresses a bit the direction I’ve been wondering about – how this affects the artist. Specifically of course I only care about my own problems: how it will affect me, as outsider of the huuuuge-sum market.

This system puts certain needs on the art. For example it has to be produced in mass. Speculation won’t work with only a handful of works, because the market would be empty too quickly (one painting per year wouldn’t do). So some art, even if good, will not be adopted.
These properties that fulfill the market-needs will become more important than the artistic qualities. And selection upon these will lead to a fall in quality of the whole market. They just don’t matter as much. It goes so far that many speculators store the art it in their basement still packed – never to be looked at.

And the public adopts the standards of the market. So if Warhol sells well, his art becomes a trendsetter. Even art outside the market will be judged by it. And since galleries aim to become part of the big game, they choose artists according to the trend. Museums will go with it too. If the open market is impoverished of artistic qualities, so is the public.

But I don’t want to paint a too easy picture here. “Artistic quality” is an evasive property… even if Robert Hughes pretends that as famous critic he can decide what is art and what is not, truth is, he knows no more than the speculators. That is the problem, and after all, the beauty of art.

This second documentary called “Great Contemporary Art Bubble” by Ben Lewis goes a bit into how this is not just a problem among the billionaires – since museums and the tax office help to finance this bubble. And he tries to show how the extreme prices may be more foul than it seems: influenced by price driving, manipulation and backdoor deals.
Following is the trailer – the full program I could unfortunately only find in German. Here the link to Ben Lewis: “Die Millionenblase”

Unseeing What the Camera Taught Us

Posted on January 14, 2011 by Thomas | Art History,Art Ramblings | Tags: , , |

I had some discussions about the theory of David Hockney that I wrote about in two recent posts - and it gives me the impression many people have a misconception about what makes realistic painting so tough. Not just people that are not painting, but even experienced artists fall for them.

They think that Hockney's idea of primitive cameras can be dismissed, because other reasons explain the great development in realistic representation in art. For example it is said that the equipment got better over time. While true, that does affect some quality - but not representation of things like perspective and facial expressions.

Van Gogh - "Pont de Langlois" (1888) - tiltshift

Van Gogh - "Pont de Langlois" (1888) - tiltshift
A stunning example of how effects we learned from cameras can enhance art. (Redone from this awesome idea.)

Van Gogh - "Prisoners Exercising" (1890) - Detail tiltshift

Van Gogh - "Prisoners Exercising" (1890) - Detail tiltshift

The most common idea is the romantic view of the natural talented artist. Just some guy born with an extreme talent, that can just do things like no one before. I think this has something like magic - which makes it a likable idea.
What this ignores though is the hard work it takes to paint realistic - not only moving the brush, but seeing the world in this different way needed. If it was just to a simple inborn talent, then surely in the thousands of years before modern times someone would have managed to do what we do today.

Just take colors as an example: Every beginner thinks shadows are gray. It takes years of learning and teaching to start seeing the real colors. Shadows have all kinds of shades from refracted light - like blue when it's in the outside. Refracted light is a perfect example: It is surprising to many people - the first time I learned about it it was like a revelation. But it turns out - its everywhere, and enhances pictures massively. ...So why did I not notice it on my own?

This can be extended to so many effects that I think we only know because the camera taught us. Just think about facial expressions: How could painters possibly have missed them? Yet all the way until the end of medieval times, faces looked dull and emotionless.

Saint Jordi fresco in San Zeno (13th century)

Saint Jordi fresco in San Zeno (13th century)
I have no hard evidence, but somehow I just don't buy that artists before the 15th century aimed to portray emotional detachment in all their art.

And I think it's only Hockney's idea that convincingly explains the sudden change in the 15th century.
Does that take away a bit of the skills we thought the masters like Caravaggio, Velasquez and Hals had? Yes actually, for me it does. It brings them down to a level I can relate to again: Hard working artists, that just used every trick in the book. No magic... well just a little bit maybe.

Another argument that comes often is that artists today would not need to use photos or cameras. I think that's completely false: Not only do even the most skilled painters of our time heavily rely on photo reference or projections (just read James Gurney for example). But additionally you can't ignore all the things we learned simply by studying photos.

But I want to give the question a 180 degree twist: Why do we think right now, that our eyes see like a camera? We just accept the camera image, and assume that an artist just has to get as close as possible to that, to make something realistic.

The difference should give us pause: If we were before the camera not able to notice that we see the world that way, then why are we now so sure that this is how it works? It might as well work a completely different way - that we are still not able to become aware of and put on canvas.

I think the cubists had the right idea - but didn't quite succeed. But if all I assumed before is true, then we can expect it to be tough. It took hundreds of years, and cameras to make us aware of some things we didn't see before - it might need another technology to help us again.
But most of all it is a battle in our minds: It's time to break free from the camera - try to see with our own eyes and brain again.

David Hockney - "Chair" (1985) - photo collage

David Hockney - "Chair" (1985) - photo collage
Although this picture is incorrect in so may aspects, it does look surprisingly right. I think David Hockney (inspired by Cubists I guess) is onto something here.

David Hockney - "Mother I" (1985) - photo collage

David Hockney - "Mother I" (1985) - photo collage

Measuring 2010′s Art

Posted on January 9, 2011 by Thomas | Art Ramblings,Portraits | Tags: , , |

It’s an interesting trend now to statistically measure things of our lives, and things that we would before thought are impossible to put in numbers. So this is the perfect moment to: Say happy new year to everyone! And try apply the measuring my last year(s) in art.

One thing I do is to save every art piece with a number per year. So my fifth painting would be called 05_whatevername. And I can use that now neatly to see how many artworks I did every year. It’s not perfect: I used different ways to cluster images (like sketchbooks are not numbered for every page, but have only one number). My “wage output” is also not counted in there. So no 3D objects for example – and neither artworks I made for employers.

Anyways here we go – my trend for the last 10 years:

Thomas Artwork Statistics

The gray boxes are when I was hired in games companies. So I did more art in this time, but not of my choosing. Still a curious stagnation. And a good trend now – that is much better than in my first freelance time, where I could have as well been productive.
What’s missing too is my private game projects – I started one in 2010. Not sure how to add that – and I wonder what could be other useful measurements. Could there be a quality trend, even if arbitrary? I’ll figure it out next January :) Until then I’ll have some work to do; I don’t think its really possible to keep up the trajectory – but hell, I gonna try anyways.

And while doing that, I can still post some leftovers from last year.

"Edy" - Watercolor on 31x23 cm paper

"Edy" - Watercolor on 31x23 cm paper

Ship Your Art!

Posted on November 29, 2010 by Thomas | Art Ramblings,Work in Progress | Tags: , , , , , |

A great blog post I found the other day about shipping your program early. Found it on “Seth’s Blog“, another unmissable.
I like to read blogs from programmers and entrepreneurs. They think sooo different from artists. But their job is highly creative too – so much of what they say applies to painting.

How many artworks did you not “ship” because it was just not perfect? I hear this often. Many artists never finish bigger works, because there is always mistakes and room for tweaking.

Of course there are differences. Iterating an artwork is not always possible. But there are tricks to push it out there: Get time limits! Maybe join contests, or, as I like to do: Draw from real life. The obvious reason is that they force you to say “I have to stop now”. Maybe more importantly, I feel they also force you to only work the parts that really matter.
Because – you know it if you ever painted – any image can be infinite abyss. There is no limit to the time one can spend on even a single background detail.

But it makes me also think: Especially for our digital work it is possible to make new version numbers. Why do I do it so rarely? Just take an artwork from some time ago and make it better with what one learned. And show it off even if it’s not perfection.

Very hard for me… but now… uhh, oh, wouldn’t it be hypocritical if I would not post an artwork that I’m scared to show as it’s not done yet? So well, ok – here is one:

"Origin Princess" - beta version 0.2

"Origin Princess" - beta version 0.2

It’s a painting from one year ago and I started tweaking again. Right now the values are much better (heh,no need to release older version) – but what to expect for version 0.3:

  • Revamped anatomy of the hips and left arm.
  • Redesign of some important edges in the background (the boring long wall edge is bugging me).
  • Fixing the two-dimensionality of the dress.
  • A new pose maybe… if I get an idea for something more meaningful than “holds hand up”.
  • Anything the users might tell me – so if you see somthing you don’t like: Please, write a bug report in the comments. :)

Scott Burdick About the Art Establishment and Beauty

Posted on October 19, 2010 by Thomas | Art Ramblings | Tags: , , , , , , |

These are some very interesting arguments by Scott Burdick about beauty in art (thanks to Sjan for pointing it out). Himself being a figurative painter, he criticizes the modern art establishment for completely excluding this style from museums or the collectors market. These four videos are not only thought provoking, but also filled with jawdroppingly beautiful art.

Here are links to some of the contemporary figurative artists he's mentioning:

I suppose when making such a video one has to go for simple statements. His observation of the state of figurative art in museums is absolutely on the spot - I noted the same when I wrote about my Dresden visit. Aiming to open museums and collectors for this art form is the right thing to do. But the more I think about it - I must I disagree with most of his explanations.

Maybe the biggest beef I have is the things he leaves out (or doesn't know). He can complain about Duchamp's urinal. But back when this was created it was similar idea as these videos: to complain about the undemocratic state of the art establishment. Back then it was the skilled academically trained artists that locked everyone else out.

And:

Pablo Picasso - First Communion (1895) age 15

Pablo Picasso - First Communion (1895)
..at age 15 - not skilled?
Mark Rothko - White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose) (1950)

Mark Rothko - White Center (1950)
Not beautiful?

Beauty for one is not as easily definable as Burdock makes it seem. In a game of poker, a great hand is beautiful. It doesn't matter if its pretty paintings on the cards. That is actually measurable - the irises of your eyes will widen (which is why many players hide their eyes with shades). So beauty can be in abstract concepts, not just in girls with kittens. And beauty is specific to tastes. As a friend pointed out, maybe he is confusing pretty with beautiful?

Anime huge eyes, food: Your pupil widens if you see beautiful things.

Scientific fact: Your pupil widens if you see beautiful things.

I can see beauty in modern art as Pollock, and in some work of Picasso. And there can be beauty in ugliness. The "trash dump test" is misleading. Would we really want to loose all art that is not understandable on the first look?

Pablo Picasso - Guitar (1913)

Pablo Picasso - Guitar (1913)
Does beauty really need to representational?

Tawaraya Soutatsu - Ivy Lane (ca1600)

Tawaraya Soutatsu - Ivy Lane
... got'cha with this one, didn't I? I'ts modern art from around 1600 - before the collectors bubble.

The prices for modern art are not based on any real value. That is true - but how much is this not true for classical art? The whole art market is a bubble - it just won't burst as long as we can afford culture. It has no basic value needed to survive. If any of us would be on the edge of starvation, we would sell a Rembrandt for a carrot. Beautiful or not.

I think this is a typical example of how we humans are generally bad with higher concepts. Things like beauty and "what is art" defy explanation nearly by definition. If we stick to the simpler down to earth questions like: Should museums be more democratic? Should the art establishment stop shutting out entire art forms? I think then we have a ground we can all agree on - and I am totally behind Scott Burdick on his mission.

© 2003-2013 thomas schmall - see contacts.