Music generated from paintings
Grohn
mike
> Music generated from paintings
> http://www.synestesia.com/
>
generated from the canvas and pigment, the music formed a mighty stream
flowing from the Museums of the world. 48 Van Goghs were dissolved to make
this shlock.
Fiona
"mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote
> Grohn <Bry...@ske.pp.fi> wrote
> > Music generated from paintings
> > http://www.synestesia.com/
> >
>
> generated from the canvas and pigment, the music formed a mighty stream
> flowing from the Museums of the world. 48 Van Goghs were dissolved to make
> this shlock.
Personally I agree with the principals, but I want to do it the other way
round I want to generate graphics from audio (i.e. I want to be able to map
certain pitches, intervals, or chords to visual values such as colour,
shade, or shape) to produce a video output.
Fiona
Butterfly Bill
Windows Media Player version 7 can do that, as well as some other
jukebox programs. Acoustica, the .wav edit program, can also do
spectrograms, and I don't know for sure but I'll bet Sound Forge and
some of the other fancy ones also can. These images come from
analyzing the frequencies present, not anything more musically
sophisticated like chords or scales.
-Butterfly Bill
mike
news:b45ko0$2vm$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk:
it's cool, but the process of determining What the graphic is in generate
language (computer language, say) is a human, creative act. suppose we
look at the Van Gogh together? what do we each see? not the mad genius,
of course, because we can't quantify That. but the colors, and then the
colors over colors: the Van Gogh is about light reflecting Off the
surface of the painting, not about the topographic shapes, which can be
generated so much more interestingly in some mapping program... fractal
flowers and all.
mapping the spectral image, then with the light values... is Van Gogh
really the most interesting visual phenomenon? how about the grand canyon
from the riverbank at sunset? it's not that the nature is more
interesting than the painting, but that the painting is an object in
nature too.
>
>
> Fiona
>
>
>
philowerx
>news:b45ko0$2vm$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk:
>> "mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote
>>> Grohn <Bry...@ske.pp.fi> wrote
>>> > Music generated from paintings
>>> > http://www.synestesia.com/
>>> generated from the canvas and pigment, the music formed a mighty
>>> stream flowing from the Museums of the world. 48 Van Goghs were
>>> dissolved to make this shlock.
>> Personally I agree with the principals, but I want to do it the other
>> way round I want to generate graphics from audio (i.e. I want to be
>> able to map certain pitches, intervals, or chords to visual values
>> such as colour, shade, or shape) to produce a video output.
Fiona's comment reminds me of this game I like to play with online translation
services such as babelfish. Take a phrase in your native tongue, translate it
into another language then back to your mother tongue. For fun tranlate through
several other languages then back or from your language to another back an
forth several times.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://ourworld.cs.com/_ht_a/philowerx1/index.html
http://www.mp3.com/philowerx
http://philowerx.iuma.com
! !
..
~
Samuel Vriezen
>> Personally I agree with the principals, but I want to do it the other
>> way round I want to generate graphics from audio (i.e. I want to be
>> able to map certain pitches, intervals, or chords to visual values
>> such as colour, shade, or shape) to produce a video output.
>
>it's cool, but the process of determining What the graphic is in generate
>language (computer language, say) is a human, creative act. suppose we
>look at the Van Gogh together? what do we each see? not the mad genius,
>of course, because we can't quantify That. but the colors, and then the
>colors over colors: the Van Gogh is about light reflecting Off the
>surface of the painting, not about the topographic shapes, which can be
>generated so much more interestingly in some mapping program... fractal
>flowers and all.
The mapping 'ideology' presupposes a quantifiable sort of beauty; I'd
think in the direction of Cage's or Xenakis' approach towards an art
that 'imitates nature in its manner of operation'. And so, Cage mapped
the stars onto music, and Xenakis mapped certain line diagrams.
But Van Gogh? I don't think a mathematical mapping will really produce
an equivalent on the level of symbology and 'meaning', or even
technique...
--
Samuel
http://concerten.free.fr
mike
news:3e66978...@news.xs4all.nl:
here, as music, a Van Gogh isn't about meaning and symbol, it's about
reflected light off matter. we can model specular reflection in 3D Max,
and you could port that data into some wave generator device.
otherwise, we're just talking about expressionist/romantic composition:
the Van Gogh Symphony. it doesn't matter if they turn images to data and
then map the data to another form: this is translation, not
interpretation. the interpretation is prior -- in the progaming of the
quantifying program. it's like some joe hanging the painting in a museum:
his van gogh is so many centimeters and so many kilos. that's the
translation, and that's like the activity of making music from van goghs.
might as well make t-shirts too. unless, you want to burn the paintings
and analyse the burning? minerals and organic matter... plus the residual
film of thousands of looking-ats glazing the surface, peerings which are
so much a part of what makes art art. =)
you're assuming that the van gogh means just what you think it means. the
virtue of van gogh is that he couldn't paint as well as david, but that
he still wanted to paint. he painted as he could, and the surface
represents painting for van gogh. in this way, i question your cage's
"mapping the stars... he scored over something, but it wasn't over the
stars... maybe a few stars... not even enough to be as interesting as the
dust specks floating in the sunlight. people like cage mistake something
that they know to be the case for the actual case, naming for a
consistant thing, a thing which, in fact, obligingly stops having more
content just at the point of our inability to see further.
>
>
> --
> Samuel
> http://concerten.free.fr
>
Grohn
> Personally I agree with the principals, but I want to do it the other way
> round I want to generate graphics from audio (i.e. I want to be able to map
> certain pitches, intervals, or chords to visual values such as colour,
> shade, or shape) to produce a video output.
My Synestesia SW uses normally only about 5-10% of the pixels
for music generation and colors are not used for pitches.
I have never seen any interesting videos mapped from sound.
Any good links about that?
Grohn
> mapping the spectral image, then with the light values... is Van Gogh
> really the most interesting visual phenomenon? how about the grand canyon
> from the riverbank at sunset? it's not that the nature is more
> interesting than the painting, but that the painting is an object in
> nature too.
When pictures are mapped to music there will be vertical and
horzontal correlations in the music. I have got the best result
using pictures that have a kind of "gaussian" structure like
the "Ice Flower" in this picture:
http://www.synestesia.com/old/old1.html
As far as I know using colors for pitches has always
been a failure.
Grohn
> The mapping 'ideology' presupposes a quantifiable sort of beauty; I'd
> think in the direction of Cage's or Xenakis' approach towards an art
> that 'imitates nature in its manner of operation'. And so, Cage mapped
> the stars onto music, and Xenakis mapped certain line diagrams.
I would speak about beauty but only about vertical and
horizontal correlation in music generated from pictures.
PS.
Xenakis used on graphics in his UPIC system, did he
never created music from photos?
Grohn
> Fiona's comment reminds me of this game I like to play with online translation
> services such as babelfish. Take a phrase in your native tongue, translate it
> into another language then back to your mother tongue. For fun tranlate through
> several other languages then back or from your language to another back an
> forth several times.
The algorithms used to generate music from pictures and pictures
from music are quite artifical compared to translation of
language having preset semantics and syntax and mapping
from linear to linear.
Still the idea of generating music from pictures and back
to music music is an interesting idea because you can
have an infinite iteration loop even when using
the same parameter in every phase. That idea has
been in my roadmap for a long time:
http://www.synestesia.com/musitives/roadmap.html
but there is still much to do with pictures to music part
and there are so many ideas even for using that:
mike
best to write your own program using something like C++. but, it's all lava
lamp, so why not just buy a lava lamp. if you're into drugs, you probably
will find the beat.
mike
yeah, but i was thinking that the z space will be hypothetical. like when
you have text wrapped around a sphere? you find yourself reading the
sphere?
Samuel Vriezen
>you're assuming that the van gogh means just what you think it means.
Dunno. I just think that if you find a nice systematic way of mapping
a painting to a piece of music, what you get has less relation to your
original painting than to your method of mapping.
--
Samuel
http://concerten.free.fr
mike
@news.xs4all.nl:
yes, that's exactly what i'm saying too. in fact, if this is a creative
forum, then making a video is probably a stronger visual activity, yeah,
then just making wallpaper for watchers? what i've found, when making music
videos, is that a counterpoint of visual to sound is way more interesting
then just filler visual alone. i think the trick is to think in terms of
frame and content, where the music and sound switch off being the frame:
so, like a quick set of images against adagio sound steps the viewer out of
music and sight and into synesthesia. you can get to this space on your own
by watching these generations, or any video... like a 1930's film noire
against any music, the Beethoven ninth, say... but, to create a headspace,
a set of topological dimensions for the audience, is a more satisfying
activity. we Are devo, are we not?
Grohn
> Dunno. I just think that if you find a nice systematic way of mapping
> a painting to a piece of music, what you get has less relation to your
> original painting than to your method of mapping.
I guess there doesn't exist any operational criteria
to test that claim. As there is not criteria for
the level of pseudosynestesia. So your claim is pointless.
Samuel Vriezen
Well, we could do it like this:
You take 12 ways of mapping paintings to music, and apply each to 12
different paintings, and then take the 144 results and give a number
of test subjects the assignment to group those 144 results in 12
groups of 12 again. Then you can analyze the correlation between the
subject's groupings with the original paintings vs. with the different
mappings.
--
Samuel
http://concerten.free.fr
Grohn
> >> Dunno. I just think that if you find a nice systematic way of mapping
> >> a painting to a piece of music, what you get has less relation to your
> >> original painting than to your method of mapping.
> >
> >I guess there doesn't exist any operational criteria
> >to test that claim. As there is not criteria for
> >the level of pseudosynestesia. So your claim is pointless.
>
> Well, we could do it like this:
>
> You take 12 ways of mapping paintings to music, and apply each to 12
> different paintings, and then take the 144 results and give a number
> of test subjects the assignment to group those 144 results in 12
> groups of 12 again. Then you can analyze the correlation between the
> subject's groupings with the original paintings vs. with the different
> mappings.
That doesn't test your original claim. You should first tell what
you mean by "relation to your original painting".
Samuel Vriezen
I am now working on the proper definitions and processing the research
information. I hope to be able to publish the results soon.
--
Samuel
http://concerten.free.fr
mike
operational criteria? what about granularity? -- the amount of data being
recognized?
his claim is only pointless only to the simple processor of groovy.
groovy.
mike
big mistake here is to think that there is just one way of revealing the
painting, since the painting is not a two dimensional surface at all. van
gogh painted in real, moving light, for spaces involving real, daily
moving light. the painting is an event of light reflecting off serveral
surfaces, varying with several light colors and intensities as the day
goes on. as a color photographer, you know that the kodak moment is a
crude summation: effectively, this discussion is the discussion of
reproduction of paintings. for expression of the feeling of a painting
with sound, composing music is the more advanced activity.
mike
the system of recognition of the painting is meaningful enough. a
colorblind person will also see the painting as a painting. speaking of
original, why not just make some original art?
mike
hope it's a book with lots of pictures! =)
Grohn
> >
> > You take 12 ways of mapping paintings to music, and apply each to 12
> > different paintings, and then take the 144 results and give a number
> > of test subjects the assignment to group those 144 results in 12
> > groups of 12 again. Then you can analyze the correlation between the
> > subject's groupings with the original paintings vs. with the different
> > mappings.
> big mistake here is to think that there is just one way of revealing the
> painting,
Right. If you have a landscape, there are also infinite number of
making paintings of it. And even taking photos...
LG
htto://www.synestesia.com
mike
well, i was thinking that the reality here is that the painting, for
rendering as sound, isn't a landscape, it's a surface made up of
substances with different translucencies... as is a photo a wonderful
impregnation of light on medium through the distortion of lens (don't,
cause i use leica and zeiss lenses and they still don't recreate
"nature"... the painting and photo are new objects of nature in
themselves.) it is the distortion which we use to play with the visual
content and present a visually interesting space for the viewer which
makes the art of imaging. a child might be only interested in the thing
the picture light-value documents, but the sophisticated viewer is
interested in the new mental space created by the image. a sound
generation of a painting is just one more representation of that
painting. its interest will depend on how the representation is
actualized into the media. here, you're the artist when you devise the
methods and formulae for conversion -- if you think this isn't the
creative here, then you're seeing your process in a narrow sense, the
engineer's sense, of saying that pigment and oil and canvas is the true
truth of the painting, and that a tube of Tauber's is as good as a Van
Gogh. with music generation from image, you're presenting a
representation, and that makes it an art object and forces all the
responsibility of the artist upon you.
Rick Taylor
> philowerx wrote:
> > Fiona's comment reminds me of this game I like to play with online translation
> > services such as babelfish. Take a phrase in your native tongue, translate it
> > into another language then back to your mother tongue. For fun tranlate through
> > several other languages then back or from your language to another back an
> > forth several times.
>
> The algorithms used to generate music from pictures and pictures
>
> http://www.synestesia.com/musitives/ideas.html
It's been something I've been working at for some time now {with varying
degrees of success}... Actually... I want things to work as one rather than
as disparate streams of information.
The programs mentioned on most of the synaesthesia pahges are pretty
nifty... Personal preference for generating sound from images is Coagula.
...Apparently some folk get good results from Svelte... there's half a dozen
programs out there that will generate midi from images...
As far as visualization... there's a ton of vj stuff that lets you sequence
video in real time... {{Which has been my process until recently}
{"visualization" stuff doesn't give you any control.}} After Effects... There
are probably plugins for premiere...
Take a look at www.opendx.org or VTK { http://public.kitware.com/VTK/ }.
{Tho' I'm still trying to get audio data to import... :}} DX is basically a visual
synthesizer... Learning curve on either of these is really high though...
...You could use fractal stuff and similar algorithms... {Fractint does sound}
--
Rick Taylor - rickt...@speakeasy.net - {exile} - ex...@speakeasy.net
In a universe of free choice, unrestrained by divine tutelage, received
dominant ideas, or unshakable norms of "civilised" behavior, one can
do anything one chooses. {Free Noise Manifesto}
Rick Taylor
> ...You could use fractal stuff and similar algorithms... {Fractint does sound}
...Then... there's always Common Music or CSoundAV.
Rick Taylor
Fiona
"Butterfly Bill" <butter...@grapevine.net> wrote
> "Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > "mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote
> >> Grohn <Bry...@ske.pp.fi> wrote
> >
> >> > Music generated from paintings
> >> > http://www.synestesia.com/
> >> >
> >>
> >> generated from the canvas and pigment, the music formed a mighty
> >> stream flowing from the Museums of the world. 48 Van Goghs were
> >> dissolved to make this shlock.
> >
> > Personally I agree with the principals, but I want to do it the
> > other way round I want to generate graphics from audio (i.e. I
> > want to be able to map certain pitches, intervals, or chords to
> > visual values such as colour, shade, or shape) to produce a video
> > output.
>
> Windows Media Player version 7 can do that, as well as some other
> jukebox programs. Acoustica, the .wav edit program, can also do
> spectrograms, and I don't know for sure but I'll bet Sound Forge and
> some of the other fancy ones also can. These images come from
> analyzing the frequencies present, not anything more musically
> sophisticated like chords or scales.
Thanks for trying, but... err, no. None of the above even attempt to do what
I am thinking about. Creativity is expressed through the control of the
medium (or media) and the tools, the above offer no posibility of
controlling the output, and are, as someone else pointed out, merely
high-tech lava lamps.
Fiona
Fiona
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.remo...@xs4all.nl> wrote
> mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >you're assuming that the van gogh means just what you think it means.
>
> Dunno. I just think that if you find a nice systematic way of mapping
> a painting to a piece of music, what you get has less relation to your
> original painting than to your method of mapping.
But defining the method of mapping can be considered creative expression
too, so what's the problem? If fact you could create a number of different
mappings for a single painting and generate the Van Gogh variations.
Fiona
Fiona
"Grohn" <Bry...@ske.pp.fi> wrote
No sorry, only what's inside my head, and that doesn't translate too
clearly. Hence my quest for software to do the job. Actually, thinking about
this for a few days, colours probably map better to instruments or timbre
than pitch.
BTW, I released a CD about three years ago called Synesthesia, wonder who
has the rights on the name :-)
Fiona
Fiona
> >
> >> Personally I agree with the principals, but I want to do it the other
> >> way round I want to generate graphics from audio (i.e. I want to be
> >> able to map certain pitches, intervals, or chords to visual values
> >> such as colour, shade, or shape) to produce a video output.
> >
> > My Synestesia SW uses normally only about 5-10% of the pixels
> > for music generation and colors are not used for pitches.
> > I have never seen any interesting videos mapped from sound.
> > Any good links about that?
>
> lamp, so why not just buy a lava lamp. if you're into drugs, you probably
> will find the beat.
But it doesn't have to be that way, the currently available popular
products, are as you say lava lamps, but then that's what the punters want
(well at least, that's what M$ assume the punters want). But I am no C
programmer (thank God), so I am not about to start trying to write programs,
but the possibility should be there to generate quality visual output from
music, after all, there is a lot of data in score that could be read as
numbers as well as music.
Fiona
Dan McGarvey
and Max. They're both Mac platforms exclusively.
Supercollider is free, and there's a 3.xx.xx version that you can manipulate
video with. It's code-based, so if you've got the patience, it would be a
relatively easy to create an SC patch that would do your visual bidding with
real-time sound input.
Max is more interactive, interface is like the feel of old analog patch
interfaces, and it too can do things with video and A/V tweaking.
I have yet to find anything on a PC platform that even remotely touches what
these programs can do.
Dan
--
Dan McGarvey
http://mcgarvey.2muses.com
"One napkin ring to rule them all."
"Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b4g10n$aoc$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
Fiona
"Dan McGarvey" <Daniel....@colorado.edu> wrote
> I'm going to suggest you look into two pieces of software: Supercollider
> and Max. They're both Mac platforms exclusively.
Well that's the end of that then... I don't use Mac. Thanx.
bob nerkul
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Dan McGarvey" <Daniel....@colorado.edu> wrote
>
>> I'm going to suggest you look into two pieces of software: Supercollider
>> and Max. They're both Mac platforms exclusively.
>
>Well that's the end of that then... I don't use Mac. Thanx.
pd is similar to Max/MSP and available for Windows. SuperCollider I'm
still waiting for. A Linux version hopefully won't be more than a
year or so away.
nerkul
--
Edinburgh shops of music, pictured and reviewed
<http://www.pigstick.freeserve.co.uk/edshops.html>
mike
news:4yMaa.22750$F1.1292@sccrnsc04:
better to look at adobe premiere for making images associated with music.
=)
as visual, the images generated by a specific visual generating tool... a
fractal generator say, are already going to be a magnatude more
interesting then a show of follow the bouncing blob.
mike
news:b4g1dp$7l9$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk:
this is cartooning! why not just make your own images? van gogh exists only
in a specific space.
mike
news:b4g2h7$o6o$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk:
>
> "mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote
>> Grohn <Bry...@ske.pp.fi> wrote
>> > Fiona wrote:
>> >
>> >> Personally I agree with the principals, but I want to do it the
>> >> other way round I want to generate graphics from audio (i.e. I
>> >> want to be able to map certain pitches, intervals, or chords to
>> >> visual values such as colour, shade, or shape) to produce a video
>> >> output.
>> >
>> > My Synestesia SW uses normally only about 5-10% of the pixels
>> > for music generation and colors are not used for pitches.
>> > I have never seen any interesting videos mapped from sound.
>> > Any good links about that?
>>
>> best to write your own program using something like C. but, it's all
>> lava lamp, so why not just buy a lava lamp. if you're into drugs, you
>> probably will find the beat.
>
> But it doesn't have to be that way, the currently available popular
> products, are as you say lava lamps, but then that's what the punters
> want (well at least, that's what M$ assume the punters want). But I am
> no C programmer (thank God),
learning it is like learning flower arranging... it tells you about
flowers. you don't have to be a yard-care specialist to do it nor a
professional programmer. C++ is all about modularities and seeing the
world as a collection of dependencies.
> so I am not about to start trying to
> write programs, but the possibility should be there to generate
> quality visual output from music, after all, there is a lot of data in
> score that could be read as numbers as well as music.
ballet is a way of visualizing music.
>
>
> Fiona
>
>
>
Dan McGarvey
news:3e6bb79d...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:43:15 +0100, "Fiona"
> <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dan McGarvey" <Daniel....@colorado.edu> wrote
> >
> >> I'm going to suggest you look into two pieces of software:
Supercollider
> >> and Max. They're both Mac platforms exclusively.
> >
> >Well that's the end of that then... I don't use Mac. Thanx.
>
> pd is similar to Max/MSP and available for Windows. SuperCollider I'm
> still waiting for. A Linux version hopefully won't be more than a
> year or so away.
I wouldn't hold my breath. The designer has a "real" job now and doesn't
update SC nearly as much as he used to when it cost $250 a pop.
~d
Dan McGarvey
>
> "Dan McGarvey" <Daniel....@colorado.edu> wrote
>
> > I'm going to suggest you look into two pieces of software:
Supercollider
> > and Max. They're both Mac platforms exclusively.
>
> Well that's the end of that then... I don't use Mac. Thanx.
>
Your loss.
Samuel Vriezen
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.remo...@xs4all.nl> wrote
>> mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >you're assuming that the van gogh means just what you think it means.
>>
>> Dunno. I just think that if you find a nice systematic way of mapping
>> a painting to a piece of music, what you get has less relation to your
>> original painting than to your method of mapping.
>
>But defining the method of mapping can be considered creative expression
>too,
Yes.
>so what's the problem?
None.
>If fact you could create a number of different
>mappings for a single painting and generate the Van Gogh variations.
So you can.
--
Samuel
http://concerten.free.fr
"Als kunst is bedoeld om debat uit te lokken, en we hebben dat
debat hier gehouden, dan is dat beeld toch niet meer nodig?"
- Leefbaar Rotterdam
Dan McGarvey
news:Xns933979B4FF0FA...@66.75.162.198, wuz all like...
> better to look at adobe premiere for making images associated with music.
> =)
>
> as visual, the images generated by a specific visual generating tool... a
> fractal generator say, are already going to be a magnatude more
> interesting then a show of follow the bouncing blob.
Hey Mike --
Just so happens I'm about to take on a multimedia project and snagged a copy
of Premiere to do the video tweaks at home. I'm interested in seeing what
you've done.
Also, are there filters for Premiere that allow for real-time effects from
audio?
~d
mike
i'd use Vegas Video for that, because i use Soundforge anyway. for my
stuff, i've always brought in the audio as complete, so i'm not the one
to know. but, the concept is really cool: composing and drawing at the
same time!
premiere is pretty much marketed to the home video and wedding fo-
slografers and the audio is just dynamic and some overlays. like,
distortion maybe is what you might find useful in their toolkit.
you can snag a crack for vegas, but it's so cheap that it's worth
getting. my premiere came with Matrox X-100 card, and it's 6.5. vegas 3
is good enough for what we do. i think vegas 4 is added webstuff, but i'm
not sure.
> ~d
>
>
>
mike
have to see the debat as an art object too! not as a judge and jury
determination. and even they, like the mind courts, are just S and M
enhanced commedia.
>
Rick Taylor
> "Dan McGarvey" <Daniel....@colorado.edu> wrote
>
> > I'm going to suggest you look into two pieces of software: Supercollider
> > and Max. They're both Mac platforms exclusively.
>
> Well that's the end of that then... I don't use Mac. Thanx.
Supercollider is available on linux... possibly on win as well. PD is a Max
clone that's available on all platforms {and has an extension called GEM
that does animation}. There's JMAX as well... It's available for linux... win,
I'm not sure of.
Rick Taylor
Samuel Vriezen
>
>have to see the debat as an art object too! not as a judge and jury
>determination. and even they, like the mind courts, are just S and M
>enhanced commedia.
>
What if we turn it around? Paintings generated from music. And I mean
paintings, not pictures; and generated, not inspired by. We'd have to
build a Paint Robot with the ability to wave a nice selection of
brushes around, etc.
mike
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 23:14:17 GMT, mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>have to see the debat as an art object too! not as a judge and jury
>>determination. and even they, like the mind courts, are just S and M
>>enhanced commedia.
>>
>
> What if we turn it around? Paintings generated from music. And I mean
> paintings, not pictures; and generated, not inspired by. We'd have to
> build a Paint Robot with the ability to wave a nice selection of
> brushes around, etc.
the generated painting of chimps and robots are chimp and robot
paintings. the van gogh is a van gogh painting: artists invent the
concept Art -- we don't manufacture wallpapers for happy face, dr. matt
objects existing only to feed a passive viewer. the van gogh isn't any
other thing in the world except van gogh painting.
building the robot is the same as painting a painting. what the robot
does is another thing, that thing having its own rules and reality. we
like painting, not because it shows us things to make us feel good, but
because it shows us the nature of the painter.
it's more than, "Here, yes, this is the Frenchy country, and this is the
picture of it which I own. It's worth a lot of money."
Fiona
"mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote
> (Samuel Vriezen) wrote
> > mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>have to see the debat as an art object too! not as a judge and jury
> >>determination. and even they, like the mind courts, are just S and M
> >>enhanced commedia.
> >>
> >
> > What if we turn it around? Paintings generated from music. And I mean
> > paintings, not pictures; and generated, not inspired by. We'd have to
> > build a Paint Robot with the ability to wave a nice selection of
> > brushes around, etc.
>
> the generated painting of chimps and robots are chimp and robot
> paintings. the van gogh is a van gogh painting: artists invent the
> concept Art -- we don't manufacture wallpapers for happy face, dr. matt
> objects existing only to feed a passive viewer. the van gogh isn't any
> other thing in the world except van gogh painting.
>
> building the robot is the same as painting a painting.
Not necessarily, building the robot could be like making a brush, a violin,
or a computer, the robot is just an inanimate tool until it is commanded by
the artist to act. Creating a work of art is not always a single step
process. When Mozart wrote a concerto it was on a piano, he wrote out the
score, the score was interpreted by musicians (and a conductor perhaps) to
create the final work. You build a robot, program in the commands, the robot
performs actions which result in paint on canvas hardcopy. It's all part of
the creative process.
> what the robot
> does is another thing, that thing having its own rules and reality. we
> like painting, not because it shows us things to make us feel good, but
> because it shows us the nature of the painter.
Do we? I would think that the normal Joe on the streets goes for that which
generates a feel good factor, over that which provides a deep insight into
the soul of work's creator: it's cheesy, it's popy, but if it don't make
people feel good, it won't sell - and regardless of what the rich might tell
you, there is no virtue in poverty.
Fiona
Samuel Vriezen
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> building the robot is the same as painting a painting.
>
>Not necessarily, building the robot could be like making a brush, a violin,
>or a computer, the robot is just an inanimate tool until it is commanded by
>the artist to act. Creating a work of art is not always a single step
>process. When Mozart wrote a concerto it was on a piano, he wrote out the
>score, the score was interpreted by musicians (and a conductor perhaps) to
>create the final work. You build a robot, program in the commands, the robot
>performs actions which result in paint on canvas hardcopy. It's all part of
>the creative process.
I think there is a machine by Tinguely that indeed creates drawings.
It is not so much commanded by an artist to act, as powered by a
cyclist.
>> what the robot
>> does is another thing, that thing having its own rules and reality. we
>> like painting, not because it shows us things to make us feel good, but
>> because it shows us the nature of the painter.
>
>Do we? I would think that the normal Joe on the streets goes for that which
>generates a feel good factor, over that which provides a deep insight into
>the soul of work's creator: it's cheesy, it's popy, but if it don't make
>people feel good, it won't sell - and regardless of what the rich might tell
>you, there is no virtue in poverty.
What interest could we possibly have in those Average Joes we aren't
even polite enough about to assume they might actually have an
interest in art?
mike
news:b4isnh$13t$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk:
>
> "mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote
>> (Samuel Vriezen) wrote
>> > mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>have to see the debat as an art object too! not as a judge and jury
>> >>determination. and even they, like the mind courts, are just S and
>> >>M enhanced commedia.
>> >>
>> >
>> > What if we turn it around? Paintings generated from music. And I
>> > mean paintings, not pictures; and generated, not inspired by. We'd
>> > have to build a Paint Robot with the ability to wave a nice
>> > selection of brushes around, etc.
>>
>> the generated painting of chimps and robots are chimp and robot
>> paintings. the van gogh is a van gogh painting: artists invent the
>> concept Art -- we don't manufacture wallpapers for happy face, dr.
>> matt objects existing only to feed a passive viewer. the van gogh
>> isn't any other thing in the world except van gogh painting.
>>
>> building the robot is the same as painting a painting.
>
> Not necessarily, building the robot could be like making a brush,
no, you misunderstand the use of "building" here. the brush is built with
the idea in mind that it will function in a certain way. same with the
robot and same with the painting.
> a
> violin, or a computer, the robot is just an inanimate tool until it is
> commanded by the artist to act. Creating a work of art is not always a
> single step process. When Mozart wrote a concerto it was on a piano,
> he wrote out the score, the score was interpreted by musicians (and a
> conductor perhaps) to create the final work. You build a robot,
> program in the commands, the robot performs actions which result in
> paint on canvas hardcopy. It's all part of the creative process.
>
>> what the robot
>> does is another thing, that thing having its own rules and reality.
>> we like painting, not because it shows us things to make us feel
>> good, but because it shows us the nature of the painter.
>
> Do we?
we meaning anyone who really is involved with painting.
> I would think that the normal Joe on the streets goes for that
> which generates a feel good factor, over that which provides a deep
> insight into the soul of work's creator: it's cheesy, it's popy, but
> if it don't make people feel good, it won't sell - and regardless of
> what the rich might tell you, there is no virtue in poverty.
this isn't the level of the discussion. it is the level of "make groovy
color shapes to go with music" though. which way are you playing this?
are you just trying to sound smart now? you needn't, because being
creative is way more than sounding like these clever program marketers.
>
>
> Fiona
>
>
>
mike
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:31:40 +0100, "Fiona"
><fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> building the robot is the same as painting a painting.
>>
>>Not necessarily, building the robot could be like making a brush, a
>>violin, or a computer, the robot is just an inanimate tool until it is
>>commanded by the artist to act. Creating a work of art is not always a
>>single step process. When Mozart wrote a concerto it was on a piano,
>>he wrote out the score, the score was interpreted by musicians (and a
>>conductor perhaps) to create the final work. You build a robot,
>>program in the commands, the robot performs actions which result in
>>paint on canvas hardcopy. It's all part of the creative process.
>
> I think there is a machine by Tinguely that indeed creates drawings.
> It is not so much commanded by an artist to act, as powered by a
> cyclist.
the painting chimp is the earlier reference for this debate.
>
>>> what the robot
>>> does is another thing, that thing having its own rules and reality.
>>> we like painting, not because it shows us things to make us feel
>>> good, but because it shows us the nature of the painter.
>>
>>Do we? I would think that the normal Joe on the streets goes for that
>>which generates a feel good factor, over that which provides a deep
>>insight into the soul of work's creator: it's cheesy, it's popy, but
>>if it don't make people feel good, it won't sell - and regardless of
>>what the rich might tell you, there is no virtue in poverty.
>
> What interest could we possibly have in those Average Joes we aren't
> even polite enough about to assume they might actually have an
> interest in art?
i hate art appreciation classes. if you've ever had to take one, you know
that no one who isn't attracted to visualization ever becomes attracted
to it by being shown paintings.
Samuel Vriezen
>i hate art appreciation classes. if you've ever had to take one, you know
>that no one who isn't attracted to visualization ever becomes attracted
>to it by being shown paintings.
However, they do learn how to spout banalities _about_ the paintings.
mike
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:01:43 GMT, mike <orang...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>i hate art appreciation classes. if you've ever had to take one, you
>>know that no one who isn't attracted to visualization ever becomes
>>attracted to it by being shown paintings.
>
> However, they do learn how to spout banalities _about_ the paintings.
like music appreciation classes too. here in hamerica you get the nicety of
having a teacher who can play the piano playing recordings of short
sections of a piano piece to illustrate a point. what the kids end up with
is some bizarre feeling that classical music must exist in some other
galaxy, shrinkwrapped in plastic.
BCMCC
music from paintings for 20 years. Their isn't one correct way of doing it,
because people bring there own prejudices to the fore when they listen -- once
you verbalize the techniques you use, it is easy enough for listeners to
disagree with what you have done. Here are some techniques and thoughts:
• Surrealism - The textbook definition of surrealism is the juxtaposition of 2
or more dissimiliar objects in one visual sphere. Substitute "musics" for
"objects", "audible" for "visual", and it is a guide for creating Surreal
Music. Music I consider surreal - Sinfonia by Berio, the movement from "Black
Angels" by Crumb when the Schubert quote flattens in pitch when performed,
certain works by Rochberg, Kagel, Pendericki and Maxwell Davies. The problem
is these sorts of pieces have been given the god awful name "Neo-Romantic",
sometimes when there is nothing Romantic in the piece. Certain pieces that are
just tonal have gotten the name Neo-Romantic and they don't have an atonal
element to bring jarring contrast in the heart of the piece. The juxtaposition
of tonal to atonal is one key element here. "Musics" can be layered vertically,
horozontally or just mashed on top of each other. My methods also include the
transformation of one music into another ala Salador Dali.
• Pop Art - There are so many different techniques inside the label Pop Art, one
has to pick and choose. I mostly stay with Andy Warhol because his use of color
translates well to a use of key. Take a popular melody - Say a Sousa March -
strip away all the accompaniment, and create new accompaniment using drones,,
dyads, dissonant chords to the original key, and new block chords as a new
audible foreground while the Souse goes by. Again, I am not basing this on
existing paintings but one of several techniques used in his life time.
The important thing here is let the method behind the painting inform your
composition, not merely images or colors from the canvas.
I realize I have only spoken on painters who are no longer living. Read
magazines like ArtNEWS or Art Jounal to find out who is up and coming living
artist. Go to galaries. Find art that speaks to you. Study the structure of
the painting(s) [not merely color.] If you can't find musical equivalents that
satisfy your artistic vision, go on to the next painter.
BCMCC
Grohn
>
> I have been reading this thread with interest, because I have been generating
> music from paintings for 20 years. Their isn't one correct way of doing it,
> because people bring there own prejudices to the fore when they listen -- once
> you verbalize the techniques you use, it is easy enough for listeners to
> disagree with what you have done. Here are some techniques and thoughts:
What is your method, are you composing or just generating? Any examples available?
LG
http://www.synestesia.com/
http://personal.inet.fi/musiikki/lauri.grohn/
Grohn
>
> I have been reading this thread with interest, because I have been generating
> music from paintings for 20 years. Their isn't one correct way of doing it,
> because people bring there own prejudices to the fore when they listen -- once
> you verbalize the techniques you use, it is easy enough for listeners to
> disagree with what you have done. Here are some techniques and thoughts:
What is your method, are you composing or just generating? Any examples available?
BCMCC
For examples of the Warhol inspired pieces I have composed, go to
http://www.resane.com/collective/bobmccauley/ and click on
the individual movements to the Six Koechel Numbers and Popular
Forms for Orchestra. I don't have any of the Dali inspired pieces posted,
that may come in time.
As for whether I am composing or generating, I'd say I generate pieces when I am inspired by a specific painting, and I compose pieces when I just follow the general rules of an artistic trend. And another thought, George Rochberg said in a Philadelphia Inquirer interview, Sunday, November 4, 2001, "I never learned about collages from other composers. I learned from painters."
BCMCC