Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Robot Produces Paintings With That 'Imperfect' Human Look

timothy posted 1 year,7 hours | from the ok-time-for-your-voight-kampff dept.

AI 74

kkleiner writes "An artistic robotic system named e-David has been developed that produces paintings that appear to be created by humans. Using an iterative process of brush strokes and image comparison, e-David's assembly line welder arm can paint in up to 24 colors and add shading where needed. The robot even cleans its five brushes along the way, according to University of Konstanz researchers who developed the system as an exercise in machine learning."

cancel ×


Interesting (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408237)

how it models imperfection so perfectly

Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408249)

This seems so inefficient, why not just eliminate the messy paints and introduce imperfections algorithmically.

Re:Hmmm (2)

foniksonik (573572) | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408271)

Actually it's more efficient. By allowing the analog medium to introduce imperfections you don't have to.

Re:Hmmm (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408447)

why not just eliminate the messy paints and introduce imperfections algorithmically

But that would completely ruin the potential application in crafting master forgeries.

Re:Hmmm (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408545)

This concept is nothing new - As a musician, I know that the majority of digital recording software supports adjustable rhythm "randomization" to "humanize" drumming, for example. You start with machine-perfect rhythm, then slide the knob down a tad to "Neil Peart," then near the bottom of the knob's travel you get "sloppy drunk John Bonham."

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Hmmm (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | 1 year,5 hours | (#44408761)

I was honestly thinking of all the restaurant chains with tchotchke items... They're very plastic, and even more so in the instances where they are photographs... having an actual painting on a canvas with real texture is much more appealing, even if it is mass produced. I have bought and created a few oil paintings over the years, and to be able to have/create an image then send it of to be "printed" is appealing.. even being able to maybe choose a style of rendering the painting would be cool. There's a lot of possibility here. (but think of the artists) doesn't mean that all artists will be replaced with these robots any more than they were replaced with cameras (a similar cry in the past), it's just a new medium.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Eskarel (565631) | 1 year,1 hour | (#44409739)

This thing certainly won't replace art, but that doesn't mean it won't make life difficult for at least some artists.

The reason being is that there's a big difference between "art" and what most artists actually do to pay their bills, if they're lucky enough to actually be able to pay their bills without having a day job. For a very specific example, a lot of photographers pay the bills doing stuff like weddings and glamour shots. Art it really isn't, but it's something folks are actually willing to pay cash money for to keep the lights on.

For painters, this equivalent is basically portraits and wall filler for people who think, exactly as you have done, that a painting looks nicer. I would suggest that if a machine can make something that looks hand painted, especially if it can do it from a photo, it may eventually replace a lot of average painters. It's not there yet obviously, but given machine color mixing is a solved problem, I'd suggest that it would be far from impossible to make this into a commercial product. It may of course never be made into one because now that the researchers have done their thing they'll move onto the next thing(no one becomes an AI researcher to deal with all the bother of making actual marketable products).

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44412475)

Believe it or not, most people don't speak Yiddish. For the rest of us, "tchotchke is a small bauble or miscellaneous item. Depending on context, the term has a connotation of worthlessness or disposability as well as tackiness, and has long been used by Jewish-Americans and in the regional speech of New York City and elsewhere".

Re:Hmmm (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year ago | (#44414309)

I would think that most people are familiar with the word/statement/phrase.

Light Verse by Isaac Asimov (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408259)

robots (0)

blackks (2999637) | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408263)

about []

hello (-1, Offtopic)

Angela Wilson (2999691) | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408265)

until I looked at the receipt that said $5734, I accept that my father in law was like truly taking home money part time from there pretty old laptop.. there dads buddy started doing this for only about 17 months and just now cleard the morgage on their apartment and purchased a top of the range Mercedes. go to ........Buzz55.m.....check it out.... -->

Re:hello (1, Funny)

wjcofkc (964165) | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408421)

Thank you for that information Angela Wilson! This has been truly enlightening! I will surely follow the path to glory that this lays out! In return, I have a wonderful investment opportunity for you too! I know some folks in Nigeria who need to perform a wire transfer of $500,000 over to the USA. Due to quirks in international law, they need someone stateside to put up a mere $5,000 in order for the transfer to take place. If you help them, they will split the $500,000 with you out of nothing but gratitude! That's right, you can make $250,000 right now for the low investment of only $5,000! I would do it myself, but I estimate that by following your incredible path to wealth, it will take me an entire three-days to make that much, at which point it will be too late! Act now!

Oh yah! One more thing! Don't forget to go fuck yourself!

Re:hello (1)

flimflammer (956759) | 1 year,5 hours | (#44408705)

Paid off the mortgage on their apartment?! Holy cow! That's great!

Re:hello (1, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | 1 year,3 hours | (#44409355)

Paid off the mortgage on their apartment?! Holy cow! That's great!

May I venture a guess that you're an American?

In most of the world, there's no requirement that you have to rent it for it to be called an apartment. You can own it, and indeed mortgage it.
And strictly speaking, this is the case in the US too - a condo is just one type of apartment. Although colloquial American word use tend to call all owned apartments condominiums, that's not strictly true. A condominium is only partly owned, while an apartment can be fully owned too, including the land, utilities and shared facilities.

Re:hello (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#44410215)

Well, of course a condo is a type of apartment by the very meaning of the word, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone owning or renting a condo from calling it an apartment. Having an apartment has a pretty solid meaning over here, and a condo is higher on the scale of ownership so people will call them condos. It might be different elsewhere but not in the west.

Re:hello (1)

lpevey (115393) | about a year ago | (#44416405)

>>"Having an apartment has a pretty solid meaning over here"

Not according to the 8M+ people living in NYC. Lots of people own apartments. The vast majority are not condos (they are coops), and people just refer to them as apartments. You were trying to be snarky, but failed.

Re:hello (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#44418765)

Holy quote cherry-picking! Why don't you finish reading the posts you reply to.

It might be different elsewhere but not in the west.

Re:hello (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44421035)

By "west" you mean California? Or perhaps the whole of the USA? I think you will find plenty of countries where people use the word "own" in relation to apartments. Not that they technically own them given the communal nature of the structure but "condo" is pretty much an Americanism.

Mimicing does not make art (5, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408275)

This lacks one vital component: Creativity
A painter may think "I may want to make that woman's eyes a bit more smiling", and then do so. Or think "If I add a stone fence between the buildings, it will look more severe".
Or even "the sky would look better with a green streak".

So while this might be a nice exercise in machine learning, don't insult its good workmanship by calling it art.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (0)

Cyberax (705495) | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408307)

A lot of "creativity" is overrated. Just wait before this robot can replicated that "just a bit more smile"...

And what I'd like the best is the ability to reproduce paintings. I really like art, but I can't stand the 'artsy' types that claim that the original paintings are somehow magical. Sure, photographic reproductions are total shit but if this robot can be taught to make stroke-for-stroke reproductions - it'd be priceless.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (2)

Noughmad (1044096) | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408381)

A lot of "creativity" is overrated.

QFT. It's not the same with paintings, but most people find modern (popular) music creative. AFAIK it's not done by robots yet, but most of it is taking samples from other songs, writing lyrics according to known formulas, and autotuning the singer's voice.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (2)

XcepticZP (1331217) | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408407)

A while back Sid Meier created a program that generated music.

linkie []

Or if you want to hear one of the pieces it created go here. []

Re:Mimicing does not make art (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408497)

Let me know when the robot starts deciding what to paint, and then we'll talk about overrated "creativity" is....

Stroke for stroke copy ~= $500 (2)

sleepypsycho (1335401) | 1 year,3 hours | (#44409221)

Copying stroke for stroke is a different thing altogether. There is a whole industry for this. [] Price ranges with quality. Genuine paintings done by hand go from $200 to somewhere around $10,000 to $15,000 I think. They are not priceless. There is something about human nature the values the original. The price of art is a pure economic ideal. It is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it, so you can't really argue that someone overpaid.

The high end copies entail using the same techniques and materials which can be quite laborious. Some material are hand made and recreation requires a lot of specialized knowledge practice. Working with the material also takes lots of skill and practice. Glazing techniques, etc take a long time are more that stroke copy. Even if the robot can make the exact marks, the materials will come from someone else,

So if the robot is very good a stroke for stroke copy it would be better than what the low end people are producing. However, making the material and some techniques are probably outside a stroke for stroke copy. So I estimate the value at $500.

Re:Stroke for stroke copy ~= $500 (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#44412385)

Yes, I have several reproductions (clearly marked as such) of well-known pictures and I refuse to buy original art except for works of no-name artists. Good reproductions are expensive and still are not perfect. Besides, most artists prefer to paint not the exact replicas but something "in style of" them.

I believe, that creating a system that can analyze the precise colors (using a spectroscope) and a robot that can mix pigments to produce the desired reflection spectrum is absolutely feasible. It'll be expensive but its reproductions would cost next to nothing.

And it'll open some new possibilities. For example, I'd really like to tweak colors _just_ a little bit on some of the paintings - it'll make them much more vivid. And some paintings (Leonardo's artwork, for example) by now look really bleak and could use some creative refactoring.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (1)

The Cat (19816) | 1 year,32 minutes | (#44409875)

A robot will never create art. They are machines. Art requires a soul.

Re: Mimicing does not make art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44410383)

So you claim that you recognice human art from robot art?

Re: Mimicing does not make art (1)

The Cat (19816) | about a year ago | (#44410437)

Yes. Human art requires an artist.

Re: Mimicing does not make art (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about a year ago | (#44410487)

I think what was being asked was "would you be able to spot the work created by a human, amongst those created by a robot". I ask because I've been to the Tate Modern numerous times, and quite frankly some of the stuff showed no sign of creative talent nor intelligence. Of course, you can argue that art it subjective (and I would completely agree), but then there are critics who don't believe that [] :

The public doesn't know good from bad. For this city to be guided by the opinion of people who don't know anything about art is lunacy. It doesn't matter if they [the public] like it.

I like to quote Brian Sewell, because it makes people aware of what an utter cunt he is.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year ago | (#44410759)

And machines can't have souls because... ?

Re:Mimicing does not make art (3, Informative)

asmkm22 (1902712) | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408339)

You should read the article...

It specifically mentions how the machine is not remotely "creative" or even trying to mimic creativity.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44410115)

Reading the article lacks one vital component: Creativity.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (5, Interesting)

hazem (472289) | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408345)

When dealing with most visual art, you're restricted to viewing the end product. If I go to the Louvre or the MOMA, I can look at the finished products but cannot see the process by which they were created. These paintings, for the most part, are "art", based solely on their end-state; and the fact that they are in a museum of art.

So what happens when you have a painting made by a machine put up in a gallery next to a painting done by a human being, and you can't tell which is which? A "Turing Test" of sorts. What if you hook the viewers up to an FMRI and see that both paintings generate an equivalent emotional response in the viewer?

If the machine-made painting is "not art" because it was made by a machine, what does that mean for human-made painting? Is it no longer art because it was indistinguishable from something that we've determined is non-art?

At that point, what is the definition of "art"? And the criteria for determining what is and is not art?

Do you remember that guy who had paint forced up his rectum as an enema, and then he stood over a canvas as is sprayed back out? This was considered art (by the artistic community). If that meets the standard for "art" then I'm willing to give a robot (and its creators and programmers) the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (1)

swillden (191260) | 1 year,5 hours | (#44408719)

And the criteria for determining what is and is not art?

The key criterion is creativity and expressive/emotional content, and wherever that comes from, that's the source of the art.

In this case, some of the robot's paintings are quite artistic... but it's not the robot that selected the subject, captured the right feeling, chose a composition that accented it, etc. What happened here is that the robot reproduced some artistic images that were created by a human. Art? Sure. Robot art? Nope.

In the case of your hypothetical art Turing test, where only the end product is available, sure it's quite likely that we couldn't distinguish between the computer renderings and human work, and we'd call the computer renderings art... but the creator would be whoever provided the computer with the input -- code and/or data. Human-created art in the medium of computer-controlled paintbrush, for example.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (1)

Kjella (173770) | 1 year,4 hours | (#44409105)

I swear that if you took random sunsets from Google Maps and turned them into artistic-looking drawings/paintings they'd pass the "Turing test" with flying colors without any human being directly involved in the capture or composition. With all the bizarre things called art, it's almost impossible to say something was not somebody's "creative vision" even if it's actually a random machine-picked choice.

The key criterion is creativity and expressive/emotional content, and wherever that comes from, that's the source of the art.

In my experience it seems to be far more the audience's ability to project their expressive / emotional content onto the work, where it came from and what the artist wanted it to mean might be totally irrelevant - or at least in total contradiction. Take for example this [] example of abstract art, simply a white canvas. What does it mean? Whatever you want it to mean, I guess.

If you go a good step down from art and say "I just want an aesthetically pleasing wall-piece to hang over the couch in the living room" then I've no doubt the computers can make up something "good enough", really how much time do people really spent philosophizing over their paintings? And that's the way most people use art, now I haven't been to an art gallery lately but rumor has it neither have most people.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (1)

shia84 (1985626) | about a year ago | (#44410885)

I swear that if you took random sunsets from Google Maps and turned them into artistic-looking drawings/paintings they'd pass the "Turing test" with flying colors without any human being directly involved in the capture or composition.

Who tells the machine to take a sunset? Who enables it to choose? The artist.
This robot and any software picking & repainting google images is exactly as intelligent as the painters brush, just a bit more complex, and has no more self-initiative or creativity than a piece of wood.
Taking a picture with an expensive DSLR doesn't make the camera the artist, and mounting it on a self-driving car that randomly takes snapshots still gives all the credit to the person that built this.
And photographing the Mona Lisa with a lens that introduces imperfections (that's what is done here) is of questionable artistic value whether done by a human with a camera or a human with a robot..

Don't get me wrong, I'm often annoyed by those interpret-the-world-into-three-strokes types (likewise, literature teachers who "know" that the author meant to convey this or that theory), but pushing more of the manual work into the tool (brush or camera or robot) doesn't make it an artist. For comparison, a machine will never own a copyright under our current concept of the idea, only the user/initiator/owner/... of the machine will, no matter how automated it is.

In summary, both the guy spraying paint from his ass and the one building and programming a highly complex robot to paint pictures produce art, but it's not the robot or the rectal muscles who take the responsibility and are called artists.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 hour | (#44409783)

The key criterion is creativity and expressive/emotional content, and wherever that comes from, that's the source of the art.

The flaw in this thinking is that it's not possible to actually detect creativity in a painting.
You are inferring the that the human artist is being creative when actually the artist may have spilled some paint, or made a mistake, or is just insane.
Somebody needs to create a collection of paintings, some done by humans and some done by robots and see if people can tell the difference, I bet not.
Sort of a Turing test for art....

Re:Mimicing does not make art (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year ago | (#44410451)

The key criterion is creativity and expressive/emotional content, and wherever that comes from, that's the source of the art.

The flaw in this thinking is that it's not possible to actually detect creativity in a painting.

The flaw in your thinking is that the ability to detect creativity matters.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44410821)

The flaw in your thinking is that the ability to detect creativity matters.

The flaw in your thinking is that you don't get to judge what constitutes creativity. Thus, you don't get to decide what is "the ability to detect creativity" either. So yeah, try again?

Re:Mimicing does not make art (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year ago | (#44412633)

The flaw in your thinking is that the ability to detect creativity matters.

The flaw in your thinking is that you don't get to judge what constitutes creativity. Thus, you don't get to decide what is "the ability to detect creativity" either. So yeah, try again?

Who said I (or anyone) needs to judge what constitutes creativity?

Re:Mimicing does not make art (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | 1 year,5 hours | (#44408865)

I've always wanted to see something like this happen. Get a robot to make a bunch of paintings, but tell everyone they were painted by a person. Art world goes crazy saying how great and original they are, then release the news that they are really just done by computers, and ask the art world to explain their initial reaction. That, or have something like the next big popstar just be a computer generated model. Have other people write the songs (they do anyway), and have the voice provided by someone with lots of talent, yet unattractive. Graphics aren't good enough yet, but perhaps they could get there in the next 10-20 years. Put the news out at some big concert.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (1)

stymy (1223496) | about a year ago | (#44413177)

The paintings made by a robot may indeed be art, but the artist is the person (or people) who wrote its algorithms and gave it the seed data (a photograph or whatever) that resulted in the painting. Until a robot can come up with good composition, the real artist is still the one who took the picture it used.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (1)

hazem (472289) | about a year ago | (#44413667)

One of the coolest examples of machine learning was the TD-Gammon program done by Tesauro at IBM ( What makes it remarkable is that while Tesauro wasn't a particularly good Backgammon player, he managed to develop this program that "learned" how to be a great Backgammon player - in fact, it learned strategies that no human players had ever tried before, "TD-Gammon's exclusive training through self-play (rather than tutelage) enabled it to explore strategies that humans previously hadn't considered or had ruled out erroneously. Its success with unorthodox strategies had a significant impact on the backgammon community." So here we have an example of a program exceeding the capabilities of not only its programmer, but most "expert" players as well.

"Good composition" for the most part can be described by a set of rules that could be explicitly programmed, or even better, that a computer could most certainly "learn". It wouldn't take much from there to put the robot in a location with its own camera and let it find its own point of view and composition to paint from.

At that point, would you allow for the robot to be called the artist? Especially if it's able to learn as it goes and "improve"?

Re:Mimicing does not make art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44413559)

If I go to the Louvre or the MOMA, I can look at the finished products but cannot see the process by which they were created.

That's truly sad. When I see a work of art, I often know exactly what went into its creation. Then I spent two decades living with an artist and going to art shows. When I see a painting or a print, my mind quickly determines what technique was used in its creation.

As far as your "what is art" rant. Consider reading up a little more on it. People have been discussing this idea for longer than you have been alive and your view of the debate is narrow and simple minded.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (2)

Flere Imsaho (786612) | 1 year,4 hours | (#44408931)

So if you were to view a selection of e-David drawn pictures mixed in images drawn by human artists, with no prior knowledge,how would you differentiate them? Isn't art in the eye of the beholder?

Re:Mimicing does not make art (1)

El Torico (732160) | 1 year,4 hours | (#44409137)

Most of what is referred to as "art" is merely the random scribblings of pretentious, cultist douche-bags. I'll accept the lack of creativity if e-David continues to lack those traits.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,3 hours | (#44409259)

Exactly. That's the different between an artist and a machine. Those little "imperfections" are not imperfections at all. All anyone needs to do, is too look at some basic sketches, saw some in a book, "The art of urban sketching". A lot of lines seemingly drawn randomly, and splashes of color for no apparent reason, but when you compare them with the original, you'll see that even those parts that look like brush marks, so called "imperfections" are used to show something specific.

I understand that to a lot of people art most of the time looks exactly like that, splashes of color, within or outside boundaries, but it's not that simple. I suggest to anyone who thinks otherwise, try learn drawing, painting or sketching, or something similar or at the very least look at some picture books, and after a while, no mater how their sense of beauty might be impaired, they'll understand for themselves.

Try creating some "modern art" strangely colored rectangles and dots with a script instead. I think that's one area where computers can compete and win.

Re:Mimicing does not make art (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about a year ago | (#44410049)

don't insult its good workmanship by calling it art.

Nobody did.

Telefaxing images... (1)

pigiron (104729) | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408295)

via the telegraph wire was invented over 150 years ago. It predates voice telephone calls. This machine adds nothing new with its plotter which was invented invented 50 years ago and was immediately hooked up to both wireless and wired transmission at the time.

BTW, the shadow of that tree is physically impossible (and no that doesn't make it "art".)

This "invention" is total phail.

Re:Telefaxing images... (1)

Sique (173459) | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408325)

First, it's not an invention. Second, it does not strive for a perfect reproduction (otherwise we could just take a photo). Third, no one claims this is art.

So your rant: total phail.

Re:Telefaxing images... (2)

umafuckit (2980809) | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408375)

I've got to say, I'm surprised at the negative comments thus far. A lot of engineering creativity obviously went into creating this robot, do you people not appreciate that? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get something this elaborate to work reliably? Have any of you naysayers actually tried to build even a simple robot?

You call it a simple plotter. Really? A plotter is basically a dumb printer. This is is not a dumb printer. It creates the image iteratively by examining what it looks like and modifying as appropriate.

BTW, the tree's shadow would be roughly consistent with the sun being about 15 degrees above the left horizon.

Re:Telefaxing images... (2)

pigiron (104729) | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408509)

"BTW, the tree's shadow would be roughly consistent with the sun being about 15 degrees above the left horizon."

You are in serious need of a guide dog.

Re:Telefaxing images... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408487)

It predates voice telephone calls.

Actually, it's NSA that predates voice telephone calls. Oh, wait, you meant the other kind of predating.

2001 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408315)

I'm Sorry I can't let you do that e-David.

really? (3)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408331)

I don't mean to take away form the robotics work or the research, but the headline appears to be jumping the gun. Most of the sample paintings look like GIMP filters or that machine at Chuck-E-Cheese that draws the kids' pictures while they wait.

I was expecting a flexible arm mimicking Monet's technique or something. At this point I'd be much happier with an elephant painting [] on my wall - it's more "human" than the robot's.

So trivial! (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408365)

This is the sort of seemingly trivial machine learning achievement that will ultimately coalesce with other seemingly trivial achievements in the field to serve as the bulk of a future, human-level or above AI. Or so I think.

The question is: will we know it when we see it? If we ever do develop a truly sentient AI, will we even be able to prove it?

File under (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 hours | (#44408383)

Stupid Robot Tricks

Glorified printer with paint software (2)

jjp9999 (2180664) | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408399)

Interesting, but it's still not that much different from a printer with an algorithm to imitate a painterly look. There is software (like Corel Painter) that can transform photos to look like they were painted using different mediums. I could load a photo, use an automated feature in Painter, and print it, and it would basically do the same thing as this robot.

Re:Glorified printer with paint software (1)

umafuckit (2980809) | 1 year,2 hours | (#44409559)

One could code a virtual Rubik's cube solver and do it all on-screen with a virtual cube. But isn't the hardware implementation so much more cool? [] So yes, you could pass your image through [FAVORITE PAINT PROGRAM] but that's boring. What's interesting about this robot is the implementation, the fact that you could have produced a similar final image at home by clicking a button isn't relevant.

How sweet (2)

lxs (131946) | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408403)

Robot has a hobby
Builds Volkswagens by daylight
Paints people at night

Photoshop Filter (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408423)

It doesn't look any more natural than a host of 20 year old Photoshop effects.

Here it begins (5, Funny)

Blaskowicz (634489) | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408441)

That robot will be rejected from a Fine Arts academy, failing the entrance exam twice, and from disgust and despise will try to take over the world instead.

Re:Here it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408611)

Way to Godwin the thread, Blaskowicz.

Re:Here it begins (2)

Tablizer (95088) | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408625)

It's a history test for modders

Re:Here it begins (4, Funny)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,28 minutes | (#44409895)

or it goes into depression, it's tortured soul making masterpieces that will be unappreciated in its lifetime. Toward the end, it will cut off its own motherboard speaker and ship it to a porn site.

I would put it on my wall (1)

cphilo (768807) | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408465)

I actually went out and read/watched TFA (gasp!) What is created by this robot is aesthetically pleasing to me. My definition of art is: something that can invoke an emotional response. Some of the pictures invokes loneliness, or struggle. I would call it art.

That Perfect Robot Look (2)

pubwvj (1045960) | 1 year,6 hours | (#44408551)

The irony is that while the robot has been perfecting the human look my wife has perfected that machine look. Her drawings look so real that people mistake them for photographs. She does edit out and add in but it comes out looking so real it is mistaken for reality.

Licker (1)

Tablizer (95088) | 1 year,5 hours | (#44408667)

I will not consider robots human-like until they eat paste.

Re:Licker (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 hours | (#44408723)

Extra humanity points if it pukes it all over the teacher's feet.

Aaron's been doing this for decades (1)

danomatika (1977210) | 1 year,5 hours | (#44408741)

Sorry to see no mention in TFA regarding Harold Cohen's "Aaron" drawing program which has been doing this for decades: [] This appears to similar albeit with the addition of a plotter + penholder. The debate of "is it really art or not" gets replayed yet again ...

No art interest (2)

sleepypsycho (1335401) | 1 year,4 hours | (#44409133)

As a someone with a Masters of Fine Art in painting, I can tell you there is not a lot of interest relating to art.

First: "Our hypothesis is that painting ... can be seen as optimization processes in which color is manually distributed on a canvas until the painter is able to recognize the content" is off base
All the lines in all the work are all the same length and thickness. Almost no artist simple distributes color. Artist chose details and focus.In this case David is being helped because it is using composed photography to copy.

Second: Even if they could get close to copying human style, it is not that interesting precisely because it is following an algorithm. The idea "the machine might enable new techniques since labor plays no role any more" is pretty weak. Artists typical employ computers to do what a computer does well, not to imitate humans. It is quite possible someone will actually do precisely what the authors suggest and use the machines ability for work without rest. There are always artist who find ways to use tools in new ways or to use them to make commentary on the process. This puts the robot in the same league as a chainsaw for carving wood, or paint that drips down from a rope.

As someone who as worked with machine learning a bit, there is not a huge amount of interest here either.

All in all it was probably fun and interesting to work on, but not all the interesting to read about or watch.

Easy (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44410803)

DRAW X+RND(10),Y+RND(10)


Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account