Square Format

[Dan Daniel]

AI ... What does that mean? Artificial Idiocy? Don't we have enough of our own?

QED:

DALL·E 2

DALL·E 2 is an AI system that can create realistic images and art from a description in natural language.

openai.com

We Let ChatGPT Create AI Art, Here’s What It Made

ChatGPT writes elaborate stories, while DALL-E 2 paints absurd images. OpenAI’s chat bot and art generator are two sides of the AI coin. What kind of insane creations would they make if we let them work together?

www.howtogeek.com

Note that most images from AI shown are SQUARE. The future is square. Go square or go dead!

Next: AI bots critique other AI bots' art works. If we encourage this behavior, maybe they will self-select themselves off into their own forums and leave us alone...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Go AI, might as well be dead. But it's really nothing new. There are more than enough idiocy apps on every phone and digital camera already. Maybe the whole system will get so inbred pretty soon that you won't even need to select an app for that special square look. "Square seeking square to have square kids with the same recessive genes, human or otherwise".

 

[Dan Daniel]

Some people blame Diane Arbus, but I blame the Rubik's cube.

 

[Pieter12]

Photographers shooting for advertising and editorial generally need to “shoot loose” to allow for the designer or art director the freedom to crop the image to accommodate text and other elements. Not to mention any image that goes to the edge of the paper has to bleed (extend beyond the trimmed size) by anything from 1/8 to 1/4”. The square format gives a lot of leeway for things like that.

 

[eli griggs]

Square is simple to compose. I think of creating a record album cover. http://Longmontlakeproject.com is all 6x6.

Good stuff, thanks for sharing.

 

[eli griggs]

Some people blame Diane Arbus, but I blame the Rubik's cube.

It's the Greek's Golden Section you need to blame for compositional math.

1.618 ratio is the underlying basic formula for pleasing arts, including architecture, and statuary.

I've never thought about it before but, I suspect it may have been used in the design of 'clasic' automobiles,;as well

Does anyone have a particular example of a vehicle using the "Golden Mean", which is based on a square format?

Cheers

 

[Pieter12]

It's the Greek's Golden Section you need to blame for compositional math.

1.618 ratio is the underlying basic formula for pleasing arts, including architecture, and statuary.

I've never thought about it before but, I suspect it may have been used in the design of 'clasic' automobiles,;as well

Does anyone have a particular example of a vehicle using the "Golden Mean", which is based on a square format?

Cheers

Interestingly, there is a recent article about a neurological study of how people process art using MRI scans. "Basically, the brain breaks a piece of art down into its essential qualities (like contrast, hue, dynamics, and concreteness (whether the painting is abstract or realistic), and then decides whether those qualities are pleasing or not. This is more or less the same way the brain decides if it likes food or not..." No golden section, no rule of thirds. I guess when one says it's a matter of taste, it really is a whole lot like taste.

 

[Don Heisz]

The ancients were observant. And they noted things that coincided. There's no necessity to the golden ratio, but employing it does tend to generate things that people like. Maybe it would be different if we had two eyes vertical to one another rather than horizontal.

 

[Dan Daniel]

The ancients were observant. And they noted things that coincided. There's no necessity to the golden ratio, but employing it does tend to generate things that people like. Maybe it would be different if we had two eyes vertical to one another rather than horizontal.

Did Picasso's eyes move like this?

 

[faberryman]

Interestingly, there is a recent article about a neurological study of how people process art using MRI scans. "Basically, the brain breaks a piece of art down into its essential qualities (like contrast, hue, dynamics, and concreteness (whether the painting is abstract or realistic), and then decides whether those qualities are pleasing or not. This is more or less the same way the brain decides if it likes food or not..." No golden section, no rule of thirds. I guess when one says it's a matter of taste, it really is a whole lot like taste.

Can you provide a link to the material you quoted? Thanks.

 

[Pieter12]

Can you provide a link to the material you quoted? Thanks.

How the Brain Creates Your Taste in Art - Neuroscience News

Using a combination of machine learning and neuroimaging data, researchers revealed a neural basis for aesthetic appreciation.

neurosciencenews.com

 

[eli griggs]

There is a "universal" ratio that most humans find pleasing and why you'll see it in Greek Statues, where the lenght of a standing human figure measures about nine head lenght, vs. the average seven we actually and naturally have.

Nature even has its own spiral math for corn ears, sunflowers, pinecones etc.

 

[Don Heisz]

Did Picasso's eyes move like this?

Picasso had the hard stare.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Interestingly, there is a recent article about a neurological study of how people process art using MRI scans. "Basically, the brain breaks a piece of art down into its essential qualities (like contrast, hue, dynamics, and concreteness (whether the painting is abstract or realistic), and then decides whether those qualities are pleasing or not. This is more or less the same way the brain decides if it likes food or not..." No golden section, no rule of thirds. I guess when one says it's a matter of taste, it really is a whole lot like taste.

The "rules" are just formulations of what the brain already finds pleasing. For example, the brain wants to see things clearly. So the rule is focus your camera. The brain likes sweet tasting things. So the rule is add sugar to cake. The brain and the tongue says that seasoning makes food more desirable. So the "rule" is to add seasoning like salt.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Of course, you're the chef and photographer. You don't have to add salt or focus your camera. You may have other results in mind. But don't ignore what the brain nominally finds acceptable and pleasing and then go from there.

 

[etn]

Did Picasso's eyes move like this?

If not his, at least his models' eyes did

 

[George356]

Some subjects just cry out to be shot square:-

 

[Vaughn]

Of course, you're the chef and photographer. You don't have to add salt or focus your camera. You may have other results in mind. But don't ignore what the brain nominally finds acceptable and pleasing and then go from there.

A recipe for nice, but boring photographs.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

A recipe for nice, but boring photographs.

How do you get pictures that aren't boring?

 

[Don Heisz]

How do you get pictures that aren't boring?

Take pictures of things that aren't boring.

Most people don't judge the photo. They judge the content of the photo. After that, they may consider other aspects of the photo (like composition and exposure and lighting). But probably not.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Take pictures of things that aren't boring.

Most people don't judge the photo. They judge the content of the photo. After that, they may consider other aspects of the photo (like composition and exposure and lighting). But probably not.

I was asking Vaughn what he meant. He said you get boring pictures when I suggested "...don't ignore what the brain nominally finds acceptable and pleasing and then go from there." How does that produce boring pictures?

 

[Vaughn]

How do you get pictures that aren't boring?

Think. Feel. Pay attention. Don't let one's preconceived notions of god, art, and human nature determine one's images. Instead use them as points of departure.

YMMD

Take pictures of things that aren't boring...

-1
There would be no art, then.

 

[eli griggs]

It's no humanly possible to no take boring photographs, as the human race has too many variables, meaning human beings.

Technically perfect photographs can be boring, depending on what the image displays, so can "inspired" abstracts and innovated technics!

Even the best action shots in the World, must find an audience that values and appreciates it image and whatever else went into it.

This conversation comes down this, which I learned many years back with my art(s).

90-95 percent of the people that came into my studio space on the monthly Charlotte Art Crawl, could careless for my work, but that did no matter, because the 10% that lived my work, were my audience, my patrons, appreciating and buying what I did.

I did whatever I felt like, with NO considerations of what a future audience might like or find acceptable.

You see, working to please others is a marketing scheme, and no matter how good at it you are, the majority of humans will find it "ho hum".

Always create as you want and are able, doing your best each time and restarting and reshooting as many times as it takes to please yourself, but remembering even your 'boring work' might be just the thing someone or ones find exciting and desirable.

Let your viewers decide what they like and, those that keep coming back, for your works. they are your true audience and patriots, no the people that could care less for anything you do.

Listing to them is a waste of time, period.

 

[Don Heisz]

Don't let one's preconceived notions of god, art, and human nature determine one's images. Instead use them as points of departure.

Compare that with:

I suggested "...don't ignore what the brain nominally finds acceptable and pleasing and then go from there."

Seems like the same thing.

And I was being sarcastic when I said, "Take pictures of things that aren't boring."

I don't even consider whether or not anything is boring or interesting. It's up to the photographer to make the photo whatever it ends up being.

 

[markjwyatt]

In terms of boring or interesting subjects (though @Don Heisz was joking, it is still a valid point of discussion), one can broadly break photographers into two extreme camps (and there is a continuum between the extremes): photographers who shoot for the sale of photography and photographers who shoot subjects that interest them. Go to Flickr- you will see some people who have nothing but (or at least mostly) color digital train pictures. These people are often interested in trains, and use photography to document their interest. In Missouri, I was taking some pictures at a park that happened to be near a train crossing point. A guy was there in a motor home, and looked like he was there for quite a while (awning out, etc.). He was counting trains, and reporting to a website what he counted. I do not recall if he had a camera (I think he did and that may have prompted me to talk to him, but what I remember is his interest was trains), but clearly some people do take pictures. Then there are people who just like photography, and they may see a train, and take a few nice pictures of them (often more interesting/nicer than the documentary only pictures). Some people like bands and listening to music, and take cameras to photograph the bands. This is trickier (especially was during film only times), so sometimes these photographers become good photographers even if photography is/was not their primary interest. Of course there is a lot of in-between also.