Diptychs

[AJHingel]

<p>So why not share examples of <strong>diptychs</strong>, 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.<br>

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. </p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>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.</p><div></div>

[AJHingel]

<p>Tim, I agree with your analysis of your diptych above.<br>

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.</p>

[photoriot]

<p>I call this triangulist.</p><div></div>

[photoriot]

<p>Whereas this one is angulist and the abstraction is the juxtaposed vanishing effect.</p><div></div>

[AJHingel]

<p>Nice ones, Bill.<br>

I especially like your "triangulist" diptych. It would be even better without the blown out areas.</p>

[photoriot]

<p>Thanks Anders. I guess I should fix those blown-out areas now that I see them :-)</p>

<p>Here with concept abstraction next to the geometrical. And off to bed before anything else happens.</p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, I agree with your analysis of your diptych above.<br /> 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>noise</p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Good use of sensor noise, JDM. You've given me some ideas. Thanks.</p>

<p>You might title that "Big Bang Hair" or "Big Bang Germs". Nice demonstration of art meeting science.</p>

[photoriot]

<p>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.)</p>

<p>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). </p>

<p>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.</p><div></div>

[photoriot]

<p>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.</p>

<ul>

<li>The moderators have banned you from posting until 07-22-2099 because: sick of your spamming; stop it or get a permanent ban</li>

</ul>

[photoriot]

<p>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.</p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[photoriot]

<p>Thanks for the suggestion, Tim. </p>

[photoriot]

<p>Here's a pnet <a href="/photodb/slideshow?folder_id=1094766"> slide show of favorites I've been complaining about</a>, taken from the last midnight-midnight period. Maybe TED will bite that soulless hook. :-)</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Bill, quite a number of fine diptychs, which I like very much - some of which are abstract.<br>

They show, in my eyes, how diptychs, and why not triptychs, can be used to challenge our eyes when looking at photos.<br>

Each of them deserve to be analysed and explained by attentive viewers.<br>

Thanks !</p>

[photoriot]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I definitely do see many things in common in Bill's and in Anders's work.</p>

[AJHingel]

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 ?

[Julie H]

<p>You're too modest.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I see the same motivation in choice of material, and the same idea of what is abstract. Very similar work.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I'm actually more in this type of abstract imagery based on photography. Not a diptych or triptych but collage.</p><div></div>

[photoriot]

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

[photoriot]

<p>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 :-)</p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I see the same motivation in choice of material, and the same idea of what is abstract. Very similar work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Julie, I think I now understand more your point made in another AP thread...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...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, <strong>they're excited because they think they're doing a good imitation, not because of what it is that they're seeing.</strong> "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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>