Diptychs

Discussion in 'Abstract' started by ajhingel, Dec 7, 2016.

  1. So why not share examples of diptychs, now that we extensively have discussed what triptychs can look like when it comes to abstract photography ? Maybe diptychs are less complicated to discuss, then triptychs.
    But again, it would be interesting to hear your ideas on why your examples of two abstract photos in a diptych is more than just two abstract photos shown together, side by side - or one above/below another.
    00eGX3-566767184.jpg
     
  2. The two abstract photos that make up my diptych exhibit a congruity of similar curved lines, color, contrast and flowing globular smooth shapes that weave in and out between the two and connect at the lower center by each contributing to and sharing one single bluish green shape while being separated by their different warm vs cool white balances.
    00eGav-566775884.jpg
     
  3. Tim, I agree with your analysis of your diptych above.
    I wonder whether you have tried with a narrow (dark) separation between the two images ? It would break the sharp tonal difference between the two and still keep intact the congruity elements of lines and light. Just a suggestion.
     
  4. I call this triangulist.
    00eGck-566781384.jpg
     
  5. Whereas this one is angulist and the abstraction is the juxtaposed vanishing effect.
    00eGd2-566782484.jpg
     
  6. Nice ones, Bill.
    I especially like your "triangulist" diptych. It would be even better without the blown out areas.
     
  7. Thanks Anders. I guess I should fix those blown-out areas now that I see them :)
    Here with concept abstraction next to the geometrical. And off to bed before anything else happens.
    00eGd5-566782584.jpg
     
  8. Tim, I agree with your analysis of your diptych above.
    I wonder whether you have tried with a narrow (dark) separation between the two images ? It would break the sharp tonal difference between the two and still keep intact the congruity elements of lines and light. Just a suggestion.​
    I tried it, Anders. A white or black center border just distracted me. Besides the blue-green modular shaped form in lower center would now be separated as two halves and not bring the two together that share a design element which I feel would also diminishe their working as one abstract image.
    Bill, the "terminal jump" is an interesting approach to an abstract in its use of recognizable objects that also work as a dominant design element that makes me not see the images as just snaps outside a window looking down onto the streets. I think you found a happy middle ground with this one.
     
  9. noise
    00eGfU-566789984.jpg
     
  10. Good use of sensor noise, JDM. You've given me some ideas. Thanks.
    You might title that "Big Bang Hair" or "Big Bang Germs". Nice demonstration of art meeting science.
     
  11. Thanks Tim, I later realized part of the jump is in time, if you look at the shadow positions. I really like your first combo, by the way. (I wonder how your pyrex photos would look paired with soap bubbles.)
    Anders, on the blowout I decided that for my purposes it's ok, plus I don't relish that kind of correction (not sure I've ever done it well).
    Here's approximately the ~1700th pair from my new generator as I crank it along (til it sees all the portrait orientation pics on the site at 2600 pairs and starts a new session with different combinations). It's fun to use the work of the graffiti artist who is using text for beauty to expand on that beauty in my own abstract way.
    00eGgS-566793384.jpg
     
  12. Looks like I'm hanging by a thread, forum-wise at least. Just got this trying to reply on the latest Philosophy thread (which seems to be going strong with another philosophical fellow). So I'll say a provisional goodbye in case the axe falls here too. Anyone who wants to be sure to stay in touch message me for email. I'll announce website developments on my portfolio page if it lasts.
    • The moderators have banned you from posting until 07-22-2099 because: sick of your spamming; stop it or get a permanent ban
     
  13. I have to plead the insanity defense (or offense). Since the above report, I've saved 14 out of maybe 200 pairs generated that really seem to fit the discussion, but have held back posting in the hope someone else would post, and I'm finally snapping to post this one, which I've wanted to post a single version of to some thread of this forum ever since I took it a few weeks ago, but couldn't make up my mind which version to use. Now my sorcerer's apprentice happens to show me that the combination is even more abstract *and* apropos of the ongoing thread, and you can imagine how mad my artificial intelligence makes me.
    00eGhC-566795784.jpg
     
  14. Great, Bill. So while you're out on your Photo.net hiatus you'll now have plenty of time to draw up and present a proof of concept on your A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) image generator in a TEDtv lecture. Good luck with that happening.
    Us humans at Photo.net who communicate from our heart and soul with our own A.I. (Authentic Intelligence) will move forward to advance the appreciation of human creativity through photography. Not everything can be done by a robot despite what the U.S.'s newly appointed future Labor Secretary says.
     
  15. Thanks for the suggestion, Tim.
     
  16. Bill, quite a number of fine diptychs, which I like very much - some of which are abstract.
    They show, in my eyes, how diptychs, and why not triptychs, can be used to challenge our eyes when looking at photos.
    Each of them deserve to be analysed and explained by attentive viewers.
    Thanks !
     
  17. Thanks Anders! I also arranged the favorites so that the sequence in pnet's slide show would elide - some of that honest manual work that Tim might enjoy, even if it's with the product of a job-eating monster. :) I.e. you can see me doing what I wrote my program to do for me, with what it did.
    What I fear all this worry about automation obscures is that I'm beginning to suspect that there's a huge trove of interesting combinations locked up in each person's vault. I had no idea that I'd be getting so many interesting combos out of my pics. After a year, they are coming faster and faster, out of a pool of ~10K. It creates a special charge when you see two of your pics unexpectedly joined in a meaningful way. No one mentions using databases, but you could probably get equally creative with queries in a photo db.
     
  18. I definitely do see many things in common in Bill's and in Anders's work.
     
  19. Interesting, Julie, because I don't really.

    Maybe that's one of the reasons why I like it. It inspirers me.

    Could you explain your idea further ?
     
  20. You're too modest.
    Of course he has the advantage of his computer algorithm, but aside from that, I think you're almost on the same level as he is.
    I see the same motivation in choice of material, and the same idea of what is abstract. Very similar work.
     
  21. I'm actually more in this type of abstract imagery based on photography. Not a diptych or triptych but collage.
    00eGnI-566812584.jpg
     
  22. That's really cool, Anders. I immediately started to puzzle out an algorithm, so you can tell it affects me :). It would be interesting to see how ostagram.ru would use it to render an original in the same style.
    I wonder how it would look without the edges? They add a cool cubistic effect, but I also found myself trying to see the picture without them.
     
  23. It reminds me of this one I did when I was obsessively leading a big project. (It came off perfectly, by the way, and you may still be receiving a lot of business news via our code. Hint hint to anyone who has a software need :)
    00eGop-566816484.jpg
     
  24. I see the same motivation in choice of material, and the same idea of what is abstract. Very similar work.​
    Julie, I wonder if abstracts derived, sourced and inspired solely and simply by reacting to visual stimuli from which an algorithm can be created to simulate is the only way to create an original looking abstract. Monkey see, monkey do. Monkey only sees pooh, that's your abstract. What makes monkey only see pooh is a mystery, but what can make the monkey see something more meaningful, interesting and enriching? Algorithms fail.
    I'm from a learning based on 50 years of observation that if one uses the same process or system in an attempt to create something original, the process and system must be original as well or else everything looks the same. The slick and polished look and compositions of stock photography is an example where to me it all seems to have been made with the same lighting style, processing and photographer's POV. How does one un-teach that process?
    Julie, I think I now understand more your point made in another AP thread...
    ...I always have a suspicion that people who consciously "do" abstract are simply imitating what they've seen other people claim to be abstract. In other words, they're excited because they think they're doing a good imitation, not because of what it is that they're seeing. "It looks just like [some famous abstract] so it must be really good!" without any idea of what made that [famous abstract] either abstract or good.​
    I don't think that POV fully applies to what Bill is doing with his algorithm, but somehow the source of the process is too hidden to know from where the results are coming from so there's no connection to a real human as the source. He is basically showing a mirror to how we react individually as a sort of reverse engineering to human creativity according to what we see except the reflection in the mirror isn't a human. It's an algorithm left on autopilot where there's no real intelligent and feeling soul driving humanity forward. There's only a simulation of moving forward.
    That's all I can come up with in explaining why I like some of Bill's algorithm built diptychs here only to be kind of disappointed to discover I've been fooled again by my own reactionary sense of taste to visual stimuli. They're not original looking, just interesting, but is that the only value in appreciating an abstract photo?
    The individual photos are created by Bill, but the choices for combining and arranging to create his diptychs are just based on an algorithm made from measuring random reactions from human visual stimuli when viewing his series of individual photos that turns creativity into a play at a roulette wheel. Creativity is now just a game where the results are impossible to question from where they're sourced.
     
  25. Tim, in a way, it sounds like you are a painter criticizing the camera for not having feelings, merely recording the scene as it's told using some sort of algorithm to pick exposure (guessing most people aren't doing this manually these days). I'd love to hear your reaction to ostagram.ru, which gives me some of the same feelings you have, though I try to embrace it in spite of that sort of resistance, since the times they are a-changing. (PS - still waiting for Trippy Diptych 2!)
    I'm right now adding 'click in the grey area next to the next-keyword-match icon' to show what keywords match, which may give a warmer feeling.
    Although in the end I want my site to really have feelings, for now I view it as a tool to explore my own feelings, especially as I begin to see how I project agency on it that it doesn't have. It's like getting on a bike and riding around in Plato's metaphor of the cave, rather than sitting there and waiting for my mind to make the associations on its own.
    00eGpC-566817284.jpg
     
  26. In the spirit of the mechanical here's a macro of my Bodum French Press filter components made by humans in Portugal.
    00eGpF-566817584.jpg
     
    matt_martin|6 likes this.
  27. Tim, in a way, it sounds like you are a painter criticizing the camera for not having feelings, merely recording the scene as it's told using some sort of algorithm to pick exposure (guessing most people aren't doing this manually these days).​
    You personifying a camera as analogy to what I said in my previous post tells me you're on a thought wavelength that can't be reasoned with. You are in love with your own creation, an algorithm that you hope to provide valuable use for businesses, a value system I don't share. Due to your own love for your creation you will rationalize in order to compromise or define your own value system. An algorithm can't understand that complex human frailty.
    My camera is a mechanical tool I tell it what to capture. It doesn't make random decisions based on an algorithm. I shoot manual all the time and process intuitively adjusting sliders and creating custom curves to feel my way into the results I want. An algorithm doesn't have intuition. It only attempts to emulate it. The process will always be the same which will always produce the same results which is the byproduct of artificiality which lacks intuition.
    The human brain is a huge mass of trillions of cellular interconnected electrical pathways whose complexities are so vast that they can heal the sick person possessing it. There's a news story I saw last month where a woman with a painful rare condition who knowingly takes placebos to function. That's mind over matter no algorithm will ever come close to emulating. That's a mystery on a spiritual level.
    I see no spirituality in your algorithm because of the reasons for and how it was sourced. And I'm not interested in going to a Russian site to check out more similar image generators.
     
  28. (PS - still waiting for Trippy Diptych 2!)​
    Here ya' go!
    Love the discussion we're having BTW. I think my switching to French Press coffee brewing has fueled most of my comments. I wonder if an algorithm can emulate that.
    00eGpf-566818684.jpg
     
  29. The process will always be the same which will always produce the same results which is the byproduct of artificiality which lacks intuition.​
    Artificiality provokes and inspires me. I work with it in my own (mostly non-abstract) photos.
    ______________________________________________________
    artificial = made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally
    ______________________________________________________
    Interesting that, in what I quoted above from Tim, artificiality seems to be related to a machine though it's typically been used to describe things humans make . . . like art (artificial). A tree is natural. A painting of a tree is artificial.

    To my mind, abstract art has always had more artificiality than other types of art, and that's one reason I have such a fondness for it. If I compare a Monet to a Mondrian, the Monet seems more natural, the Mondrian more artificial. Same with a Van Gogh compared to a Kandinsky.

    I think in artifice there is a lot of revelation and it can sometimes be even more revelatory than what's more natural.

    I don't view what Bill is promoting as artificial, just as I think there's something misleading about the term "artificial intelligence." I might prefer to use a phrase something along the lines of "mechanistic intelligence."
     
  30. That's mind over matter no algorithm will ever come close to emulating.​
    I don't think that the human brain is any less based on an algorithm when compared to that of a computer or AI. Both are input devices. The main difference between the human brain and an AI is of course the aspect of consciousness and soul. And having a consciousness is perhaps what contributes the most to our perception or illusion of having a free will. But we may not be as free in our ( creative ) choices as we nevertheless sense we are.
    Speaking of AI and creativity, There's an interesting TED talk on how computers are learning to be creative and how "neural nets trained to recognize images can be run in reverse, to generate them."
    https://www.ted.com/talks/blaise_aguera_y_arcas_how_computers_are_learning_to_be_creative
     
  31. "neural nets trained to recognize images can be run in reverse, to generate them." I think that's how ostagram.ru operates.

    Anders, I agree with the mechanistic vs. artificial intelligence distinction, and mechanistic is how I think we ourselves are, projecting from what we understand of the world so far. I wonder where would the line would be if we could design a biomechanical device that seemed to have intelligence, if that would be mechanistic in the sense of a silicon computer. In any case, I bet the farm that something could come of the pursuit in silicon.

    TD2 - Tiny bubbles.. Tim, wouldn't it be interesting to feed those pics to ostagram.ru? :) I haven't figured any pics I want to try, and not sure what signup info they want.

    On one level, I just want to see interesting shapes resulting from combos, the subject can be secondary, like this one.. oops, see next post.
     
  32. This one. Interesting enough to chew on for a few seconds as part of the general fare, though not a favorite for a gallery.
    00eGqm-566821784.jpg
     
  33. Trippy Diptych II is somewhat like my 'terminal jump' in being variations on a theme, compared to TD1, which melds two into something new like The Shadow, above. Maybe someone has written a thesis on the ways two photos can interact. In a way, I find that scarier than mechanistic intelligence.
     
  34. Fred, not the kind of artificiality I was referring to. I was talking about an artificial creative process that has all signs for detecting intuition and spontaneity removed from the results. The signs of this can only be detected looking at a series or collection of work created with an artificial process. See enough of them and a pattern begins to emerge that becomes tiresome to look at. Bill is posting enough of them to prove this.
    A painting is not artificial because it shows all signs that a human made it using a time consuming process involving a lot of spontaneity and intuition based fiddling around with the paint and brush to work with the surface texture as a tool of expression. Why else would some aficionado of the arts describe and/or study brush stroke styles in a painting? That and other elements in the painting is at the core of what makes it an original human creation.
    Let's make a distinction between an artificial look as a style in a piece of work like a Mondrian or Kandinsky which can exhibit a human touch from an artificial process whose sole intent is to let the process determine the results without any human intervention or influence.
    I don't think that the human brain is any less based on an algorithm when compared to that of a computer or AI.​
    Phil, you're not looking deep enough, nor are you capable of knowing that or having any proof. I take it my mentioning the ailing woman being cured taking placebos got past you or you didn't read it. There's a deep connection to the power of emotions involved with helping that woman by taking placebos an algorithm will never emulate.
     
  35. But we may not be as free in our ( creative ) choices as we nevertheless sense we are.​
    Sometimes I wonder if our consciousness gets out of sync with what we perceive: did I intuit that X was going to come around the corner, or did a part of my brain see this happening before it reached my consciousness?
    See enough of them and a pattern begins to emerge that becomes tiresome to look at.​
    Isn't that true with photos by most humans too? It is for me, anyway. Post some more for variety!
    In case anyone has been pining to see the matching keywords, you can now click next to the green + on my pairs page and see them displayed for the current pair as long as the mouse is down, as in the wobbly pic.
    Moreover you can toggle back and forth with the previous pic on either side by clicking in the grey area next to it, and clicking in the grey area next to the red minus toggles both photos to their current opposites. Holding that area down for a second will cause a reset to the latest pair, which is what new matches are always based on.
    All this lets you puzzle out the choice of the software a step further.
    00eGrH-566823084.jpg
     
  36. I wonder if this log entry would count as brush strokes, with the downstream process being analogous to paint flowing from brush to canvas. Numbers are picture counts for the keyword. (In that we don't necessarily expect to be aware of the editing done to a photo, brush strokes are a tenuous requirement - hiding artifice is the highest artifice in some quarters.)

    --- Thu Dec 8 23:39:51 PST 2016
    Before
    114 corner
    --- Fri Dec 9 00:04:07 PST 2016
    After
    1 roof_corner
    2 corner_points
    21 corner_point
    35 street_corner
    52 corner
     
  37. Bill, I have been out for a while, but see your comment on my collage above (9.38 a.m - whatever that refers to!)
    Yes, I agree, there might be an algorithm for that type of transformation.
    However, if you find or develop one, I believe that I have made my point and will look for other ways forward.
    What I tend with this type of collage, which I have done many of, is to try to create an image of what happens in our eyes, mind and soul when we contemplate a view - here a Chinese mountain forest - and slowly we seize seeing the distinct elements of trees, hills and mountains and some kind of essence of the view is developed inside you, which is, I think, more human and more real, than what we call "reality". This is what we bring with us when we close our eyes and leave the view.
    Below a contemplation of a brick wall, which is even a triptych !
    00eGrO-566823584.jpg
     
  38. There's a deep connection to the power of emotions involved with helping that woman by taking placebos an algorithm will never emulate.​
    And would it be anything lesser of a power if those emotions were based on a self-regulating algorithm? I'm not talking about an algorithm emulating emotions but about the emotions itself being an algorithm.
     
  39. There's a deep connection to the power of emotions involved with helping that woman by taking placebos an algorithm will never emulate.​
    Actually, the placebo effect is exactly how I intend to emulate presence: by meeting enough of your expectations that you believe there is life there, in spite of anything you know.
    On my algorithm getting boring, you are actually just seeing my selections from many pairs of my photos (leaving out the ones with other photographers too), so it would be interesting to see if another person's selections from the same number of pairs generated in their own personal session would get boring as fast. (Not to mention someone using it on their own photos :)..
    Anders, I am totally on board with your approach, since we are both picking apart the process of perception. And I agree that when an algorithm is worked out, it is time to move on creatively, either to something new or by building on the algorithm, like with turning a photo classifier into a generator and other utterly creative stuff going on in that field. But I hope the algorithm will still go on to feed many souls, as a new shipping optimization algorithm will allow more mouths to be fed without the engineer who designed it needing to be around.
    00eGuS-566835784.jpg
     
  40. Actually, the placebo effect is exactly how I intend to emulate presence: by meeting enough of your expectations that you believe there is life there, in spite of anything you know.​
    So you're going the metaphysical route to rationalize the effectiveness of an algorithm. OK, I admit all of our existence could be a simulation defined by our senses and emotions. We don't know if this is real life. But when the lights go out for each of us at the end of our adventure on planet Earth nothing beats our reality as the best simulation over what we currently can accomplish with algorithms.
    See enough of them and a pattern begins to emerge that becomes tiresome to look at.
    Isn't that true with photos by most humans too? It is for me, anyway. Post some more for variety!
    Not if they're photos that show me something I haven't seen before. Garbage in, garbage out. Right? An image of lines, forms, shapes and color is only as good as the smallest element. Have you tried including in your collection royalty free stock photographs to develop a more accurate algorithm? Yours are getting long in the tooth, don't ya' think. I mean they look like they were shot in '70's industrial complexes and vacant streets and buildings, not something that grabs the eyes.
    And as for posting more of my abstracts I'm beginning to suspect you may add them to your collection to improve your algorithm. Who's to know years from now after your algorithm takes off and makes you a lot of money. mmh, I wonder why Fred and Phil haven't posted any photos? Maybe they suspect the same.
     
  41. Anders, I like your colored brick wall photo, but why the thick red border?
    Just a suggestion that I adopted from Bauhaus influenced typographical design and layout designers is any extra graphic element such as a dividing line or border should be no more than the thickness of a third of the dominant element which in your case is the thickness of each individual brick.
     
  42. Tim, I don't see the placebo effect as metaphysical. It's a cause-and-effect button I want to push. It's an interesting question whether it goes to the nature of our existence. I'm not banking on phobrain changing the experience of death, for example. A royalty-free stock collection would be great if I had time to find and master the open-source Google tagging AI. As it is, keywords are a huge manual labor that I'm not going to do for anyone's photos I don't have a relationship with and like enough.
    Anders, on your wall, I think more about flags than the process of perceiving the wall, unlike your previous collage. The non-white parts are too dark to see enough detail to process, so I fall back on the symbolic. I like the details in the white part though. I agree with the rule of thumb for borders Tim proposes.
     
  43. Tim, I don't see the placebo effect as metaphysical.​
    Then what did you mean by the second part of your statement referencing placebo?...
    ...by meeting enough of your expectations that you believe there is life there, in spite of anything you know.​
    Life where? And why is it in spite of what I know? I took that to mean that you think what appears to me as life like can be simulated by an algorithm to look authentic and fool me which I don't think an algorithm is capable, yet.
     
  44. I've added another folder, with more color matches this time, based on ~300 pairs seen so far in an hour of my second pass through the pairs page. It was pretty grim work at times, but I managed to snag a belly dancer and a frog for Tim, at least. Again the meta-slideshow is arranged by human hands to blow. your mind. and pump you up.
    Life where? And why is it in spite of what I know?​
    Somewhere 'in' the screen. Because we all know that silicon isn't alive in the sense that we are. I.e. like the woman taking a placebo on purpose to get the placebo effect, you should experience the same effect as you do from something you really believe is alive. One step beyond suspension of disbelief, if you will.
    00eGww-566842584.jpg
     
  45. "Bauhaus influenced typographical design and layout designers is any extra graphic element such as a dividing line or border should be no more than the thickness of a third of the dominant element which in your case is the thickness of each individual brick." (Tim)

    Tim, Never heard of such a Bauhaus thumb rule - (have you got a link?) but it made me go back to my Bauhaus books to see if I could find examples. What I found was mainly examples of architectural designs by Florence Henri and Gotthardt Itting where indeed there steel structures use the dimensions you refer to, whereas a polyptych of Peter Keler used significantly larger lines and borders as does Josep Alberts made a glass mosaic for the waiting room for Gropius office in Bauhaus, with its black dividing lines which are significantly larger than the mentioned rule.

    After all, as so often when it comes to such thumbholes, they might be followed in design context by some - see the textiles of Anni Albers (1926), still Bauhaus - but creative freedom makes room for whatever variation the artist find appropriate. It might worthwhile looking into the renaissance diptychs and triptychs to see how they designed cabinets framing the paintings - but I will leave it here...
    My own considerations concerning the brickwall was mainly, that I saw it as a vertical diptych with a base, more than a triptych, and wanted to use the separations to underline that by using the colour of the lower part and large separations.
     
  46. I just posted another folder, phobrains gone wild: spring break at the OK corral, a celebration of a life event starting soonish. Before you click, the link is to a pair that has a quality that I find hard enough to define that I call it abstract, but it seems there should be a more specific word, like umami. The folder in general leans even more heavily on color matching, and after some downtime, I have plans to make it use multiple algorithms, in a permutation of what the single-page version does.
    I culled a bunch of pairs from the two oldest folders (glued pairs and glued pairs: series) to make room, so slideshows there make different juxtapositions now. Now that I've reached my limit, there will be regular turnover of photos.
    Due to toggling single pics back and forth with the previous ones by clicking next to them, on the color option especially, where each pair is opposite the previous pair in RGB 3D histogram space (for a few days at least), criss-cross comparisons can sometimes be interesting. (Clicking to the left of the '-' inverts both sides, and holding it down for a second reverts both to most recent.) The pair of flags is an example.
     
  47. I think we need a "Algorithm forum" on Photonet :)
     
  48. ...the woman taking a placebo on purpose to get the placebo effect, you should experience the same effect as you do from something you really believe is alive.​
    An algorithm doesn't and can't know what an effect is to a human, Bob. Besides that the placebo effect has nothing to do with how we humans perceive a life like experience. Algorithms know nothing about the meaning and the experience of being mystified and mystery itself.
    Your meta slide show needs to be made in another program that doesn't require Adobe Flash, so I'm going to pass on it, sorry.
     
  49. My own considerations concerning the brickwall was mainly, that I saw it as a vertical diptych with a base, more than a triptych, and wanted to use the separations to underline that by using the colour of the lower part and large separations.​
    Just want to clarify that "1/3 thickness of dominant element" suggestion is not a hardened rule of Bauhaus influenced design. It was meant as a purpose driven design approach for cohesive typographical and page layout relationship readability. The viewer sees it but it's not distracting but it does organize visual flow.
    A diptych or triptych is basically a page or an entire frame. Any added nonessential graphic divider to create emphasis or visual organization should not distract from what is being said by the main idea behind the image.
    I just saw the thickness of the border not blending well with the overall design as both an integral part of the bricks. I really don't have a problem with thickness. I have a problem with the red color blending into the red bricks and not the blue or white bricks so now it attempts to suggest that it's part of the idea behind the design. The border should either be neutral to the design or made more obvious that it's meant as part of the design. This is what makes it distracting and a bit confusing. Another suggestion would be to change the color to a gray that is the same darkness as the red.
    Sorry, don't have a link to the 1/3 thickness of dominant element design readability suggestion. I do remember reading a book on page layout design that these guys implemented in their gorgeous typographical and page layout design magazine... http://www.google.com/search?q=Upper+%26+Lower+case+magazine&newwindow=1&biw=1552&bih=954&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTtciZgfLQAhUO6mMKHcsHCU0QsAQIOQ
    I have several old copies I'm hanging onto just to remind me of the good 'ol days of graphic design.
     
  50. Before you click, the link is to a pair that has a quality that I find hard enough to define that I call it abstract, but it seems there should be a more specific word, like umami. The folder in general leans even more heavily on color matching, and after some downtime, I have plans to make it use multiple algorithms, in a permutation of what the single-page version does.​
    Great, Bob!
    Now if you can only come up with an algorithm to measure the efficacy of your curatorial tastes, then the simulation of the human experience of feeling something made without human thought or feelings will be complete.
     
  51. Are you lacking feelings yourself, Tim?
     
  52. You don't seem to have any feelings or respect for the Photo.net moderators seeing you keep flaunting and bragging about being banned and continuing to do the very thing they banned you for, so I thought I'ld speak in the same spirit of cooperation and respect.
    I definitely have no feelings for your algorithm and the spirit behind its use especially since this seems to be a priority of yours instead of staying on topic regarding discussions on photography and keeping your algorithms out of it.
     
  53. It's odd that you keep prolonging the discussion in view of how you don't feel about the subject.
     
  54. Personally, I have no interest in algorithms when it comes to diptychs and triptychs, but I do find some of Bill's examples interesting because they provide opportunities to make us formulate relationships between abstract images in terms of composition,abstract forms, lines, contrasts etc.
    I agree certainly, with Tim, that it is time to stop the ever continuing ping-pong concerning algorithms. Bill has made his point and others too on the subject.
     
  55. in terms of composition,abstract forms, lines, contrasts etc.​
    Anders, I agree. That is about the same list of abstract properties I have in mind when I think about abstraction. That's why the 'umami' pair is odd to me, because the abstraction lies for me in a smoky look that is evoked by different sources of similar colors, which isn't obviously in the list. Does it fall under 'abstract' for you?
    Including the example I linked, so when I delete the folder it won't go away.
    00eHMo-566921884.jpg
     
  56. Bill did not make the above diptych!
    That is the main thought that continuously occupies my mind now with every image Bill posts and it is his own fault. I can't get the fact out of my head that he's using an algorithm to make choices on what two unremarkable images it decides to combine to make the diptych. I now also have to wonder and have doubts about the rest of Bill's photographic work.
    There's more to taking in a photo than just appreciating lines, forms, colors and shapes which can define any photo, not just an abstract. Abstract photos attempt to remove any extraneous elements that don't support, advance or enhance the main idea the photographer wants the viewer to appreciate about the image. Bill has removed the photographer's decision making driving that.
    Bill has introduced and proclaimed with great fervor an artificial process that excludes his decision making as part of his curatorial responsibilities to show how he expresses what he feels about his reality viewing through the camera's lens.
     
  57. So we can't stop talking about algorithms. It's good to know *someone* is thinking about me at least! While I am not generating pairs, I am curating them, and deciding how they are generated. Uncurated pairs would be what you see on my website. My decisions about generating pairs go way beyond the logic of say, Merce Cunningham in dance, or other artists who use randomness.
    Tim, are you totally against randomness in art? If it's acceptable, would a curated random generation process be any more acceptable than curated generation that has a few hundred layers of personality built into it? If you are against any randomness, do you think that people who use it to explore are morally wrong? I'm curious why you can't just discuss images in their own right. E.g. if I am out for a walk and take a random snapshot, is it wrong because I only selected the route and didn't envision the photo first? Analogy from pics to pairs, my generator is taking me for a walk I decide on, though I don't know what I'll see.
    I might mention that some of my best recent work has been in part due to thinking about Tim's objections. I believe they will continue unless he has an improbable conversion experience to the notion that we might be ultimately mechanistic.
     
  58. E.g. I chose a time and route to walk, and found this abstract costume diptych without any other choice but my finding the combo interesting. I am trying to design routes that traverse more pathways than city streets.
    00eHOQ-566925484.jpg
     
  59. Back to the beginning !
    It is neither abstract, nor a diptych. Just a peculiar scene.
     
  60. The chance combination of spots makes it abstract for me, with two separate elements (costumes) having the same geometrical pattern for different reasons. I bend the 2-picture theme to illustrate that I found this pair with even less intention than the pairs I am generating and selecting from, yet it should make Tim happy because the process was natural, if I understand correctly.
    00eHOm-566927784.jpg
     
  61. A diptych, but mostly two photos with share compositional dimensions, but non of them abstract.
     
  62. Two disparate fences forming a sort of right angle coming toward the viewer seems abstract to me. Together they make a shape that doesn't exist otherwise, and the shared theme is a dimension too. Given our different definitions of abstract, I wonder what the hit rate would be for you with my current pairs page. Some meet your standards, but since our definitions are different (although our goals of examining the process of perception are similar), one must always expect you could have a level of dissatisfaction that would require a more user-adaptive site, which might happen.
    00eHP2-566929684.jpg
     
  63. Ralph Gibson on The Diptych in his book Refractions:
    "In music there is a theory that states that a given tone once struck releases additional tones called overtones, which cannot be directly struck on the instrument but are the result of other tones mixing at the same time. I consider two page spreads or two photographs matted for exhibition to be essentially "Overtones" and will then relate to the overall impression the work produces rather than literally reading the photographs at their face value. This is in a very direct contradiction to notions of documentary or modernist thought on photography. I consider these ideas just that. Ideas. They function as a point of departure into subsequent thoughts that cannot be directly accessed. Again, the act of pairing photographs on a page or a wall is crucial to how they will be seen. The images reverberate infinitely back and forth creating a hall of mirrors in the mind."​
    I very much submit to this idea myself in my own photography, not only on the level of the diptych or page spread but also in how all new and past images are connected and related to one another like the weaving of a web, and creating various "overtones" in the process.
     
  64. I think Bill's spots photo is a triptych. The dog is so key.
    Gibson makes a great point and the concept of overtones seems very well applied.
    Some of Hockney's work has relevance. He calls them joiners but they could be called multitychs. I might describe them as picturing something literal but having abstract form or taking an abstract shape. It's almost like a tug of war or marriage (is there a difference - LOL) between the literal and the abstract.
    LINK
    LINK
    THIS SHORT VIDEO doesn't quite do justice to his multi-screen project. When I saw it, the four seasons were shown, each on a wall of nine screens (for a total of 36 screens), in a rectangular room so the viewer was surrounded by the seasons, one on each wall. The simultaneity gave it a very abstract quality. And, as you can somewhat see in the films, often the continuity of the full image gets fractured by the timing at which the individual squares of film are shown, which moves the imagery toward the abstract. Furthermore, and this can be true in any photo or film, note how Hockney says "the subject is movement," even though he's supposedly looking at a film of a bush in the wind. He is seeing abstractly.
     
  65. Your meta slide show needs to be made in another program that doesn't require Adobe Flash, so I'm going to pass on it, sorry.​
    Sorry about that, it's the slideshow format photo.net provides. I think it's worth getting Flash for, if that's what it takes, not just for my pics. I might be recycling another folder within a week, so get it while you can (portfolio) if the context of the discussion matters to you. (Flash isn't needed to see pairs chosen personally for you on my site, but you have to click for each pair rather than sitting back and having them mesmerize like photo.net's slideshow does. Both are good.)
     
  66. I abstract a story from this pair - does someone with no shoulders feel chagrined that his idea of a tie is on the hanger? or that the association is being made? - but does that act on my part as viewer render the pair abstract, when the intention was arrived at through structuring a personality based on color theory? As I curatorially fight off the nanobots that are tempting me with pairs, I deal with the phantoms they arouse as best I can, identifying with a replicant in Blade Runner,
    Replace death with skipping over interesting corner cases I could have posted here, and you may shed a small tear. :)
    00eHSe-566941784.jpg
     
  67. Color leads to interesting places.
    00eHSg-566941984.jpg
     
  68. Tim, are you totally against randomness in art?​
    Only when the randomness is created from an artificial process.
    You see if you'ld not even mentioned your algorithm at all and especially in having it choose the selections for the diptych, I wouldn't even be bringing up the issue.
    It especially shows to me a void in your understanding, respect and awareness of the naturalness behind human creativity in the visual arts. Algorithms and robots don't make art. They simulate it. They have to be told by a human what to do, a human that may have flaws in their decision making and possess a lack of awareness to the sensitive nature of creating from an emotional center that will influence the results. Emotion is not included or considered as part of the coding involved with simulating how humans appreciate or create art using robots and algorithms. It's impossible to do that.
    Part of what communicates that a human is part of the process of making decisions in the creative arts is the viewer sees, knows and is aware there is love, desire and intuition as the source driving the process to arrive at the final result. It gives off a unique fingerprint for those who are sensitive to it.
    It shows up as a recognizable pattern of randomness uniquely human. The simulation of the randomness may appear at first as uniquely human but eventually it gets tiresome to the viewer because the nature and characteristic of the randomness is artificial. One starts to get a sense of it which can be downright annoying.
    Combine that with your tooting your horn about how clever you are at creating this artificial process that appears to devalue real human creativity in the photographic arts from which then you have a psychological aspect that makes it a hard sell this artificial process is desirable and valuable to the art of photography. We love our creations because we love the process which is filled with a variety of random events, feelings that move us forward to other numerous pathways that eventually lead to creating something unique. It's not a mechanical process.
    Replace that with an algorithm and it takes the joy, mystery and fun out of the creative process that makes human existence bearable. It's downright depressing thinking about it especially knowing that another human sees it as a great idea.
     
  69. I consider two page spreads or two photographs matted for exhibition to be essentially "Overtones" and will then relate to the overall impression the work produces rather than literally reading the photographs at their face value.​
    Wallpaper functions the same way. It gives off a nice tone to really tie the room together.
    It doesn't make me want to look directly at it though. Is wallpaper art? I guess if it was arranged and presented a certain way, but then what is being communicated, the art of arranging or the art of the wallpaper?
     
  70. > Tim, are you totally against randomness in art?
    Only when the randomness is created from an artificial process.​
    Would rolling dice be an artificial process?
    I make the argument that if you accept randomness of any kind, you have to accept any human artifice, which could include using randomness intentionally.
    00eHTE-566943984.jpg
     
  71. I make the argument that if you accept randomness of any kind, you have to accept any human artifice, which could include using randomness intentionally.​
    Do you see any sincerity in the unique qualities of a parting signature you know to be a mass produced form letter that says "Sincerely yours, CEO John Doe"? (the signature isn't unique because it doesn't have the qualities derived from the random mistakes created from human writing. You know the CEO didn't sign YOUR form letter because you know it's a mass produced print)"
    It does have certain qualities of human generated randomness in how the body of the letter is written by a human, a random letter produced and randomly sent to your mailbox that was intentionally sent to you but without the CEO's personal knowledge. Is that the kind of human artifice you want to use to express your feelings through the act of creative photography? I don't.
    There are qualities of randomness that are desirable and those undesirable. It's a matter of taste based on what you know to be a real human endeavor and the quality of randomness that projects sincerity.
    For me personally I don't like lying to myself when I create something.
     
  72. Both Tim and I, I confess, have a feeling that the other has a stubborn blind spot.
    a void in your understanding, respect and awareness of the naturalness behind human creativity in the visual arts.​
    Amusing to me when I feel I am way ahead of the curve in that respect, and you are just not understanding. I have been living a bohemian artistic life since I moved out of my parents' house. I have been a modern dancer on staff at a major art museum, a reasonably accomplished photographer, have executed paintings that seem ok, and have made much experimental film, most of it while living as a street musician. I was in a group from which Burning Man got its start, and the predecessor group long before that, climbing bridges at night for dinner parties. People I know were messaging they were ok after the big Oakland artists' warehouse fire recently. On top of that, philosophy and science add a certain awareness that many with such inclinations lack, and I have read some psychology along the way.
    Emotion is not included or considered as part of the coding involved with simulating how humans appreciate or create art using robots and algorithms. It's impossible to do that.​
    Mere assertion on your part. Will lead to no resolution of anything, or any change whatsoever, I promise.
    We love our creations because we love the process which is filled with a variety of random events, feelings that move us forward to other numerous pathways that eventually lead to creating something unique. It's not a mechanical process.​
    I am devoting my life to creation, it seems you are just blind to it. As I triage my belief system, a really interesting synthesis is happening in me that makes me feel like I'm ahead of the curve again, as has happened intermittently through my life, times when I realized I had answers to practical problems before most of the rest of the people in the room. E.g. once at the beginning of a computer theory exam at Berkeley, the professor said the answer algorithm was a given order of complexity, but I was confused because I saw a faster way, and took her aside to ask. She got it, and downstream raised her expectations too high as a result by the way. Berkeley had recently helped start the original DARPA internet, and the teaching assistants were writing the protocols that all our communication is passing over now, remembering one bragging about the subtleties. It took me another two years to begin to realize how it would change everything, and I had a frustrated 10 years or so before society caught up.
    Do you see any sincerity in the unique qualities of a parting signature you know to be a mass produced form letter that says "Sincerely yours, CEO John Doe"? (the signature isn't unique because it doesn't have the qualities derived from the random mistakes created from human writing. You know the CEO didn't sign YOUR form letter because you know it's a mass produced print)"​
    I see plenty of sincerity when that same signature is printed on a check.
    Is that the kind of human artifice you want to use to express your feelings through the act of creative photography?​
    I have a different kind of human artifice in mind. Something that in this context make the letter have info in it that is actually useful, like the printed signature on the check. And form letters are like whether the penny will still exist compared to what I'm actually focused on.
    For me personally I don't like lying to myself when I create something.​
    What if it let you be the artist of your choice? Do you look for ways you might be lying to yourself? It's not hard to do to be the way one wants to be. I think about it a lot as I make end game decisions.
    00eHYV-566959684.jpg
     
  73. Amusing to me when I feel I am way ahead of the curve in that respect, and you are just not understanding. I have been living a bohemian artistic life since I moved out of my parents' house. I have been a modern dancer on staff at a major art museum, a reasonably accomplished photographer, have executed paintings that seem ok, and have made much experimental film, most of it while living as a street musician. I was in a group from which Burning Man got its start, and the predecessor group long before that, climbing bridges at night for dinner parties. People I know were messaging they were ok after the big Oakland artists' warehouse fire recently. On top of that, philosophy and science add a certain awareness that many with such inclinations lack, and I have read some psychology along the way.​
    WOW! All that?! And you want to hang out here?! Why?!
    Why would such an educated person who's led a much fuller life with far more opportunities than mine be trying to convince me on the use of an algorithm to augment the creative process, a process by the way that's doing just fine on its own?
    I would think such an educated and cultured person as you would be a success at selling your idea to me, a 57 year old Texas graphic art burnout. Now I expect even more out of you.
    Hey, is that you in your last diptych? You look like Jon Stewart, one of my favorite comedians.
     
  74. Why would such an educated person who's led a much fuller life with far more opportunities than mine be trying to convince me on the use of an algorithm to augment the creative process, a process by the way that's doing just fine on its own?​
    One answer would be that creative, imaginative types are often put off by reactionary responses to art experiments and are invested in publicly fighting against such closed minds. Bill's seems a future orientation. And your description of yourself, "a 57 year-old Texas graphic art burnout" seems appropriately yesterday, has-been, at least in light of your reaction to what Bill is doing. If Bill hasn't been a success at selling his idea to you, it's not necessarily his fault or his problem or his shortcoming. Some people just can't or won't be sold. Lots of artists have been unable to sell. That doesn't lessen what they've done or tried to do. And besides, there's no evidence that Bill is having difficulty with anyone but YOU. Bill may ultimately be a complete failure. I applaud him for trying and for linking art and technology in this way, a linkage that goes back to the beginning of time.

    I mean, come on! We're almost at the century mark since Duchamp's Fountain, since he put a urinal in a museum to teach us something about just how much man's intentional craft was needed in art. Sure, Duchamp chose the urinal and chose to put it in a museum, but I'd be willing to bet he'd have an appreciation for just the kind of thing Bill is playing with. Bill seems to be simply building on this sort of idea, taking it into 21st century possibilities.

    From The Village Voice, 2006:
    "Duchamp adamantly asserted that he wanted to 'de-deify' the artist. The readymades provide a way around inflexible either-or aesthetic propositions. They represent a Copernican shift in art. Fountain is what's called an 'acheropoietoi,' an image not shaped by the hands of an artist."
     
  75. Objectively speaking, given a set of pictures of size N, there are N^2 pairs (AB and BA being different pairs of A and B). Given about 6K pics in my portrait orientated subset, that means 36 million pairs. I'm sure you would not begrudge someone the freedom to look at all those pairs, say one per second for 10.41 nonstop 40-hour work weeks, more realistically 20 work weeks or more, and spend a similar amount of time selecting the best 1,000 or so? Why do you begrudge me writing tools to find good veins in all that ore? That said, I'm not looking for gold, I'm more interested in the mining machinery.
    Which reminds me of a time in my 20's, when my girl friend and I were hitching home with some jellying peyote at the bottom of our backpacks that I was trying to eat as much as I could of before it all went bad. We knew rain was coming, because an old guy we met on the beach where we were about to camp illegally told us. We pitched our tent on sand anyway, and dragged it to the camping area bathroom when the rain collapsed it that night. In the morning, we hung out a bit with the old guy in his camper, where he was living a nomad existence with his younger wife and teenage son - she was a teacher, he was a gold prospector who had struck it rich, with twin rams athwart his watch face that he had carved out of two massive nuggets, interesting to be inches away from on peyote; in a way it just foreign. Note that he was filthy rich and in the conventional way did not give a rat's ass about it. This feature extended to the most interesting part of his unusually interesting story, which I hope I wrote down. What interested him was mechanical engineering involved in extraction industries. First, he had invented a revolutionary patented gold extractor that let him be away from his claim for more months of the year and was a business in itself, then he had invented a revolutionary turbine for extracting oil, and now he was consulting on things that interested him when he was in the mood, waiting for the next big idea to hit. (Interesting to watch his teenage son as this all came out.) Ok, now we're at the crux. At least two years before, he was consulting on top of an oil rig, he got bored and stepped away, off the top of the oil rig. The surgical story involved a redo.
    What reminded me of the story is that I just realized how my interest in mining machinery parallels that guy's. In a way he was defiant about stepping off that oil rig, which some may recognize in me as well. (Too bad about the money part :)..
    00eHYk-566959984.jpg
     
  76. a 57 year old Texas graphic art burnout​
    I find that type to be the hardest to reach, but as my psychoanalyst said early on, "I specialize in the hard cases." You're producing good photos just as I think I'm producing good code, we're just working in different primary media. I'm in my 60's, so looking back I wonder how you'll change with time. If you haven't taken a community college class for a while, I recommend it. Hey, we agree on Jon Stewart! Thanks for the comparison.
    00eHYo-566960284.jpg
     
  77. Why would such an educated person who's led a much fuller life with far more opportunities than mine be trying to convince me on the use of an algorithm to augment the creative process, a process by the way that's doing just fine on its own?​
    It's more that you keep denying me my artistic freedom, so you're like the irritating piece of sand that I'm coating with layers of pearl. Our struggle seems to be a natural process, in this case with the effect of drawing me out when I have been reticent all my life, so there will be some record if all else fails.
    00eHYw-566960684.jpg
     
  78. Batteries running low, I came up with this useful philosophical item: "Discomfort can be more bearable when it is constant and there is no room to cringe." Went to my page and clicked once or twice while thinking, then drew myself back to the screen and saw this pair of recent pics, which due to my dumbly dark eV setting and hinky subject matter seemed fit for the sentiment. I'm not saying phobrain read my mood, because I know there is no code for what I'm experiencing. Nonetheless, it does analyze my click history in simple ways, so I theorize that that level of complexity somehow makes it seem intelligent, which is my first goal. You are used to seeing a lot of intelligence spent on online ordering forms (a lot of mine, at least :), never on a new life form.
    00eHZR-566961884.jpg
     
  79. Algorithms and robots don't make art. They simulate it. They have to be told by a human what to do, a human that may have flaws in their decision making and possess a lack of awareness to the sensitive nature of creating from an emotional center that will influence the results. Emotion is not included or considered as part of the coding involved with simulating how humans appreciate or create art using robots and algorithms. It's impossible to do that.​

    I am not going to go into the debate of what emotion is, or how much machines can/will be able to simulate human behavior. However one thing is for sure, a large part of art is based on not just creation from scratch, but selection. Photography is in many ways a process of selection, if we eliminate the post-processing which is not an absolutely essential part of all photos. Many scenes that photography capture are created from natural processes. Those natural processes follow very definite scientific laws without added randomness of conscious minds. Yet the effects produced by those processes can be artistic. By selecting and cherishing them, we transform them into art.

    As for algorithms, stunning artworks have been produced using mathematical algorithms. Mandelbrot set and other fractal algorithms can lead to an explosion of colors, textures and mind boggling mystery. Again, its up to us what we select and throw away. Here Bill selected an example from the pictures his computer program retrieved, because he thought they are worthwhile. I see no issue in that.

    While working on my projects, I once made a terrible mistake in a computer code and produced this (shown below). I have kept this because I find it intriguing. The computer produced it, but I selected it for archival.
    00eHdH-566971584.jpg
     
  80. More on the synchronicity of phobrain: since I posted the above, I got into explaining my picture of the structure of consciousness with an old friend, and went looking for illustrations of the brain that match my intuition, this one being the most compelling. That and life go by, and I finally return to phobrain, which is still on the pair above, click twice, and get this rare sort of pair that again seems like phobrain is trying to match my vision. That's two seemingly apropos comments by phobrain in 4 clicks - not a bad rate.
    00eHdR-566971884.jpg
     
  81. This is the only example relevant to this discussion I could find in my folders for now. The left one is 2D, the right one being the 3D version of a similar theme, but on a different scale. Also the symmetry of the patterns on the right is broken by the vertical line (which could be good or bad depending on the perspective).[​IMG]
     
  82. Also I wanted to refer to this work by Michael Linder, which I like a lot.
    photo
     
  83. Supriyo, I find your wayward graphs inspiring deep thought in me like a grove of trees. Here's a simpler graph involving the derivation of the fractal dimension of a photo (by the free IQM package); only some pics have the wiggly line, but I didn't spot a similar look to them, so I don't use the R value in selecting photos (yet), just the slope of the fit line, which is the standard (Higuchi) fractal dimension.
    On the pair, I like the layered space as the pair emerges at you right to left, with the oppositely-angled stripes anchored by the horizontal ones and the rounded motif top right to round out the formal elements, while the speaker seems to say, "Please keep your abstraction under control, we hold public events here."
    00eHe3-566972684.jpg
     
  84. I still follow this long exchange on algorithms and their merits, although I have decided, since long, not to be interested in the technicalities.
    A number of good diptychs above, in my eyes: "pair_color_drab_doorways", "neuronal haze, "2D, 3D" by Supriyo and Bill. Supriyo's "terrible" example of computer art is however something that I would keep too, if it was printed in very big format.

    The one mentioned above, I like most is, however, Michael Linder's work (Untitled), which is a fine example of abstract digital patchwork, based on photography. Love it.
     
  85. I forgot to mention the pole - it shows the photo is tilted, as confirmed by the corner. The tilting allows horizontal stripe alignment between photos, but since the photo on the left has no vertical reference points, my first instinct would be to have the pole on the right be vertical, and adjust the photo on the left to match the right's horizontal stripes. If I didn't have to fire up my Win2K photo editing machine to do it, I'd give it a try, but better with larger originals anyway :)
    00eHeN-566974084.jpg
     
  86. Anyone who likes what I'm posting might like at least one out of three seen when clicking on my page. For me it is disturbing to have to click by so many good pairs without recording them. I almost hope it settles down when I have been through a few sessions with the current regime, because I have in mind a cooler algorithm, but for now I'm totally respectful of what the one I have is doing.
    00eHeU-566974384.jpg
     
  87. A lot of Bill's diptychs that are created with the algorithm depend on our confirmation bias: seeing connections where there isn't one. This and the free association that comes with it is an interesting subject in itself and sometimes the connection does become real. But it's also different than how photographers have been making such intentional image pairings that start from the idea of the images having an interconnected relationship with each other on a thematic, formal, or conceptual level, etc.
    I'm not sure Bill that if you're seeking to have your image pairs match as closely as possible to those that were made by a human to show that there's an intention or consciousness behind it or if you're seeking to creatively exploit and make the very subject of the work the confirmation bias that is occurring when we're looking at the diptychs made by the algorithm. The latter raises much more interesting questions in an art context.
     
  88. Phil, I think the intention or consciousness part begins when Bill decides he likes what the algorithm chose and posts it here. The next step would be to make the algorithm skip Bill's decision making and post in this thread using some type of upload script.
    It makes the creative process fun, fun, fun!
     
  89. But it's also different than how photographers have been making such intentional image pairings that start from the idea of the images having an interconnected relationship with each other on a thematic, formal, or conceptual level, etc.​
    The way I was putting images together (slides or prints spread all over the place) was by figuring out the next photo to put in my slide show or book, and I would weigh so many pairs and reasons that I gave up trying and took a 10 year hiatus from SLR photography while thinking about it. I have reproduced the thematic approach with my keyword matches (the + option for example) and the rest by using color-based matching, which has more possibilities for interesting juxtapositions. The best way one can test for bias directly is by comparing the pure random option on the single-photo page with the color and keyword options. I should make the random option on the pairs page pick a random pair, instead of a random keyword-matched pair, so pure randomness could be compared using side-by-side pics.
    I totally agree with Tim - no fun at all for me to be out of the loop, and moreover I'm not into simulating people, I want to create a new kind of optical illusion that seems like a life form (new formulation). People can go to my site if they want a dialog with phobrain.
    I'm not sure Bill that if you're seeking to have your image pairs match as closely as possible to those that were made by a human to show that there's an intention or consciousness behind it​
    As a tool, it's a cross between a portfolio manager, a brain teaser, and a psychoanalyst trainer. I've followed my nose to find ways of matching that seem productive, going back and forth working on different approaches, and most critically perhaps, the user responsiveness in choosing which methods to use each time so that it doesn't get boring (those are the algorithms I'm working on). But all that is as a tool for humans, not a simulation of the human point of view. I almost want to avoid normal cognitive intelligence to get at simulating what it takes for us to feel something is alive. It's a projection of the life that pairs seem to make stir in me (oxytocin, I presume). In a way I'm letting myself be a tray of magnetic filings orienting around each pair to get a little reward.
    or if you're seeking to creatively exploit and make the very subject of the work the confirmation bias that is occurring when we're looking at the diptychs made by the algorithm. The latter raises much more interesting questions in an art context.​
    That's exactly the first step in my project of creating the illusion of life.

    Based on recent results, I'm leaning to the notion that being close to each other in color space makes a pair look compatible enough that the eye forgivingly goes on to find stuff that otherwise might not stand out, e.g. the 'umami' pair. This effect is far more pronounced when the photos are side by side than when seen in series, as in my single-photo page. It may be that my algorithm selection algorithm is contributing to this by entraining the results with user timing, or simply by varying the color algorithms used.

    Another sort of confirmation bias comes because of the story of me coming out of my shell with something novel, e.g. experiencing some censorship along the way, and exemplifying how phobrain can play an almost Tarot or I Ching role at times. If I ever get money for research, I'd be doing experiments to eliminate that effect, but in the real world I just want to have fun.
    00eHix-566983584.jpg
     
  90. Looking at more pics with my expanding-on-color-match theory in mind, here's a pair that illustrates it perfectly - it meets no consciously-recognizable criteria such as Phil was describing, yet the pair gives me a little buzz, which is enough to start me analyzing it like I did with Supriyo's pair.
    This raises the question, if color-similar pairs have a high hit rate, how would color-opposite ones do? They could be equally interesting. And all this leaves out more modern image analysis technology.
    00eHjU-566984384.jpg
     
  91. To make something look serendipitous when it's not is perhaps more difficult than to make something fit out of chaos. You could leave the pairings to the algorithm and choose a selection and combination of diptychs yourself to make a book out of for example or any number of books with various combinations and flavors to them ( yet all of them sharing the same motif ). Similar to the way Wolfgang Tillmans' Neue Welt has an intentional yet seemingly random use of image pairings and layers in it in order to give this kaleidoscopic view of a technologically fast moving world and image culture.
     
  92. Yes, that's the use-it-as-a-tool approach which could be productive for people wanting to make books.
    I am in a bad mood because I just made an opposite-colors option, and changed random-keyword-pair to pure-random, and for now at least I find these choices as interesting as the color-match ones I've been posting. They maybe seem like more work to look at, which is what wore me down with random serial photos a while ago, but there are still enough congruences to make for interesting matches when placed side-by-side. This implies that the photos themselves are correlated enough by my photographer's eye so that lots of side-by-side pairings work, and as Tim suggested for algorithmic purposes I should be working with more generic material from the public domain. The opposite-color option is the yellow '-', the random option '|' for those who want to compare.
    00eHkD-566986884.jpg
     
  93. Without making any comment on the pictures posted to this thread, this goes to what Bill Ross is doing. Not randomness, but ongoing, never-ending, unfinished-ness:
    From the book Unfinished: Thoughts Left Visible, this is Kelly Baum:
    For all of these artists, the finished work of art was anathema. Vexed by the problem of what it meant to finish an object, they adopted myriad strategies intended to defer or delay completion. As a result, the works of art they made dramatize the predicament of finishedness in an artistic landscape defined by abstraction; by seriality, modularity, and repetition; by the embrace of contingency, metamorphosis, duration, and unpredictability; by the dematerialization of objects; by the displacement of craft and artistic skill; by the acceptance of unconventional materials and procedures; and, finally, by the arrival of the viewer as an equal partner in the creative process. These factors compelled practitioners in every medium to fundamentally recalibrate the definition, as well as the value, of finish and finishedness.​
     
  94. the finished work of art was anathema​
    I can get on board with that. I think a self-perpetuating work has a much better chance of still being online and viewed 1,000 years from now. In a way, I want to create a golem that will live after me, reading the web, drinking coffee (I would seriously build this in), and providing a wise presence to those who can use it. Add a research institute to back it up.
    I realize now that since I got worn down by random sequencing of single photos a while back, I have winnowed my photos, so that's one reason random pairs looks better than I expected. Putting matching orientation side-by-side makes them go down easier, and I always like the newest thing, too.
    00eHmV-566991184.jpg
     
  95. The synchronicity seems to persist with the opposite option, at least. This opposite pair (in RGB 12x12x12 space) seems to put words in my mouth confirming what I wrote above. The color-opposite pairs use the same user-sensitive code that the color-close pairs use, so maybe underneath it is the world's first synchronicity generator. :) One step toward personal proof would be Tim's suggestion to import pics I don't care about personally.
    I find that the color matches are relaxing after the opposites and randoms, but have revised my page so all options are available; the icons are almost-symmetrically "+-|+" in different primary colors, where the +'s are the two match methods.
    I played with opposite colors before, but sequentially and with only one color distance function, vs. 10 now.
    00eHmn-566991684.jpg
     
  96. After all my work on keywords and color, I have a weird horror of random, which can easily get the answers of the methods I have worked hard on, as well as make whatever blind mistakes I can decide on. But in this scientific talk, Dance to the Tune of Life, major Oxford brain Denis Noble makes a convincing claim that life has harnessed randomness from the get-go. In my case, keyword and color based selection constrain randomness the most, so maybe that qualifies. I randomly went with a color similarity for this selection because the method remains closest to my heart, and seems to have the subtlest joins.
    00eHny-566994684.jpg
     
  97. A color match in a different region.
    00eHsb-567008884.jpg
     
  98. This opposite one does something novel to me.
    00eHwt-567022084.jpg
     
  99. Back to synchronicity - looking for an off-the-shelf expression of spasming internal pain, I found this one after 5-10 keyword pairs.
    00eHzL-567028984.jpg
     
  100. Have you tried incorporating Google's Vision API in your algorithm? Google's Vision can apparently accurately describe what's depicted in a photograph with a success rate of over 90%. So when running a large database of images through it you could match these descriptions with text that you bring in. For example when writing a poem in the Imagist style I could see the algorithm visualizing the poem by showing images and diptychs whose descriptions match or connect in a meaningful way ( negative, positive, or neutral ) with the text of the poem.
     
  101. Great idea Phil, I like the idea of playing poems. I've been holding off on diving into deep learning like Google Vision in favor of solving some life issues, since it looks like it will be absorbing and likely expensive.
    00eI1c-567034784.jpg
     
  102. There's a Russian saying for when you want to introduce something out of the blue into the conversation, "Speaking of birds," in which context here's another color match I like.
    00eI2U-567037684.jpg
     
  103. Going back to the beginning:
    But again, it would be interesting to hear your ideas on why your examples of two abstract photos in a diptych is more than just two abstract photos shown together, side by side - or one above/below another.​
    I have been finding abstraction in the juxtapositions more than classifying images as abstract and then juxtaposing them. But here is a case where abstractions mirror, like the old year meeting the new. (The photo on the left is probably from the 90's, the one on the right is less than a week old.)
    00eIFz-567089584.jpg
     
  104. This never ending exchange starts reminding me of the craze about "Hexastix sculptures". See
    here: http://www.instructables.com/id/Geometric-sculpture-from-72-pencils/
     
  105. Corner shadows raise budget questions, put whole political system under scrutiny, Hexastix sculptures now also implicated, roots may go even deeper. Another decades-spanning diptych throws light on all of reality: children only, please.
    reminding me of the craze​
    If there's only one person, some might think more a 'crazy' than a craze. :) Still looking for someone else to get on board.
    00eIKQ-567107984.jpg
     
  106. "Still looking for someone else ... "
    No you're not. If Godot actually shows up, it will pretty much kill your little drama.
     
  107. Bill, I have the impression that there is a "craze" going on with these Hexastix sculptures with many joining in.
     
  108. Bill, I have the impression that there is a "craze" going on with these Hexastix sculptures with many joining in.​
    Anders, there is surely a craze about Hexastix. I was joking that with only me posting photos without much response, it's more like one crazy person than a bunch of crazed normal folk, since I'm the only one who has 'the bug'.
    If Godot actually shows up, it will pretty much kill your little drama.​
    Care to prove your point by showing up? When people started finally using the internet and email years after I started talking about them, which is what this reminds me of, that killed some drama, but it is nicer to use those things to communicate with them, and I still get a little drama from telling the story at least. Post a diptych of your own to ruin my day :)
     
  109. Here's a thought for the new year, which unlike Godot has actually arrived, though it looks like it leapfrogged from pre-WW2 days.
    00eIql-567196384.jpg
     
  110. Speaking of WW2, I think this is the ministry of tank warfare in Moscow, in an odd join with a chain link fence.
    00eIsL-567200384.jpg
     
  111. And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
    -- Yeats, The Second Coming​
    Wikipedia: based on search technology, lines from that poem have been quoted more in 2016 than in any of the preceding 30 years.
    00eIsm-567202184.jpg
     
  112. This should help with your New Year's resolutions.
    00eJ7T-567246684.jpg
     
  113. Far and near, on the road from here to here. (Celebrating some wild singing after a hiatus, with new perspective.)
    00eJ9z-567253084.jpg
     
  114. I and an associate have put embarrassing amounts of time into refining the keyword scheme, and it is interesting to step back and see where that fits in:
    --------------- Total pairs: 73235253
    Keyword-matching pairs: 4342608
    While there is value in the keyword matches (if only the puzzle of guessing the keywords and learning the 'language'), 69 million pairs remain to be explored by whatever means available, color-matching being my preference, color-opposite good for a change, and Google-based AI matching a gleam in my eye for now. After the usual synchronistic burst of good matches after implementing something new, there is now enough wading through less-stellar matches on my 4th pass that I have decided to add an overt way to flag favorites, also since screen shotting is getting old. Then a simpler page might display just the favorites.
    00eJIX-567280384.jpg
     

Share This Page