Is it Art if it's Done by a Computer?
What makes something art? Does it need to be done by a human?
I was looking through my photographs the other day and found this computer-transformed version of one of my photos. While the image is of a culvert underneath the road we live on - a fairly mundane photographic subject - I liked the cheerful colors and "brushstrokes" of the computerized version. The colors are richer, and the plants have a beautiful texture and ability to hold light.
By contrast, here's the original:
It's accurate, but the colors aren't as rich and there's nothing ethereal about it. On the other hand, by contrast it makes the colors in the "painting" version look a bit too saturated at first. But after a few moments my brain normalizes the painting version and I enjoy it as a depiction of a playful world of light and color. There's something diaphanous or other-worldly about it that my eyes keep going back to.
Which do you prefer, and why?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I find it almost impossible to pick a favorite, Paul. The CG version has an almost Impressionistic, Idealistic allure that makes me want to spend an afternoon right there soaking up the comforting balance of color, texture, and bucolic ambiance. The natural photo, although lacking the eye-catching splash of intense color, seems to capture visual reality in a more nuanced way...darker shadows and muted colors...that somehow seem to portray a more accurate reflection of the character of Maya: intoxicating beauty interspersed potentially perilous nooks and crannies. But both images are fascinating and gorgeous! Thanks Paul and keep up the good witnessing!
Hi Paul, Being someone who is naturally drawn to warm and bright, I really love the CG version. But I also love the original photo and the contrasts between the warm, bright foreground and the grayer, more neutral background. And I appreciate contemplating the inherent richness of both images. Thanks!