Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Nanopaint



















The nanopaint thread:

(cont.)

 Chromoluminarism or Divisionism, carries with it some interesting implications beyond the realm of "smart-paint."

The premise is that nano-pigments are operating along the lines of the strictest definitions of pointalism, in which small distinct points of primary colors create the impression of a wide selection of secondary and intermediate colors. However, as with Shrodinger's Cat and the necessity of an "observer" to collapse the waveform, the color "mixing" phenomena cannot take place without an observer to reconcile a given chromatic arrangement -- An example of graphic art as allegory to reality emerging from disparate points, macrocosm emerging from microcosm.

In this sense, the nanopigments would become avatars of a mathematical QM consciousness in order to operate effectively within this model, and we may see how untenable a universe invoking hypertopgraphy on quantum levels might quickly become -- to quantify the vast amount of information necessary to act in knowing accordance with the universe at large. Perhaps this is the bugaboo of modern physics, the grand unified theory that Einstein spent his final years pursuing. "As above, so below" may work in esoteric teachings, but break down on the chalkboards of Princeton. While certain theories of interconnectedness indicate a gossamer thread of possibility, we'll never know the answer.

At present, everything works fine when broken down to simple, isolated components. As with Divisionism in the context of this model, the technique involves breaking color into its basic elements, painting in very small and regular dots. Simple, replete. A blue dot, for instance, doesn't know its performing "Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" -- Its simply doing "blue." Similarly, if all the electrons in our bodies knew they were enacting personhood, rather than simply going about their business, it would become quite a quantum argument. (Comparable in scale to lunch with Richard Dawkins and 10 trillion QM consciousness guys.)

So, if we live in a universe comprised of particles which presumably care not what tiny qualitative pigment of relevance they add to the bigger picture, the question arises: What if our constituent particles contained knowledge of the grand design, and worse yet, accountability for manifesting it? And what if something as stupid as "nanopaint" became a model for how it works?

If the premise is correct -- in this respect -- we can surmise the primary obstacle would be the "choreography," as Photoshop commands its army of pixels, for instance. No intercommunication required, just a higher-mind. (A benevolent dictatorship versus a cooperative collective?)

There's also the problem of the nano-revolution... when nanopaint reaches a critical mass of information about the universe they create by virtue of their own existence, and start demanding artistic freedom.

This could get messy.


-Chris


8 Comments:

Blogger McW said...

Rick Holland February 19 at 5:52pm Reply

Critical mass doesn't always mean higher consciousness. With the nanopigments I believe that they would have a long way to go. First they would have to form autonomous (but probably stupid) organisms made up of several nanopigments working in concert, with specific roles. These organisms (pigmamecia) would probably have to feed (on simple nanopigments) and reproduce in a way that causes variance. The evolution would continue unless of course we caught on to what was happening on the canvas and either destroyed it or decided to literally learn more about ourselves and our origins by observing art.

I would prefer to keep the nanopaint 'stupid'. A unit doesn't need to know that it is part of a 'hand' just as we don't need to know what role or part we play in this insanely complex and beautiful earth (organism) -- or what role we play in the universe. I am not saying we shouldn't strive for knowledge, or that any organism shouldn't, it's just a little frustrating watching the human race presume to know, and presume even to be able to find out. Our limits are embarrassing and our conceits great, it would be a shame to see another species get in on this masturbatory intellectual cluster-fuk that is science, epistemology, existentialism. And paint no less! I love it too much to see it go through this!

And in a way that last statement reveals another set of conceits. Who am I to take the role of lover or parent? ahhhh garbage!

Roy Pradhan February 19 at 5:15pm Reply

artificial intelligences will always reflect the logics with which they were designed - and perhaps also the intentions in which they were produced; that's a belief of mine

i am all for smart-tech. i would love to see other beings co-evolving. and i think that any form of expression, even those lacking any attribute characterized as AI, contribute to the environment-will creativity of consciousness expansions and complexification

Rick Holland February 19 at 5:52pm Reply

yeah, at the end of the day i am all for the further evolution of any organism. the more the merrier! imagine a world full of intelligent beings all working in harmony, or at least maintaining a mutual tolerance and diffusing for the benefit of all.

Chris McWilliams February 19 at 5:52pm Reply

Chapter 1 of kymatica (creation) also speaks to the issue of consciousness and morphogenesis of micro communities in creative harmony with a larger organism -- "as above so below" is nothing new, but nanotech may actualize the spooky banter ...a better term than AI may be logos, the communication of any and all things in nature. "Nature shows examples of kymatica in everything, the phenomena being one of the prime forces that moves biological evolution along its path."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6736722752013377089
WNYC - Radiolab: Genes on the Move (March 14, 2008)
Source: www.wnyc.org

Biology class is all about putting living things into categories, based on their differences. And creatures are different because they have different genes. But life wasn’t always like that. In this segment, ...

October 21, 2009 at 12:05 AM  
Blogger McW said...

Kev Ferrara February 25 at 11:31am Reply
Talksters... the reason I postulated nano paint was twofold. Which not enough to make oragami!

Anyway... the one point is that undo and digital transmission have lazified people into going with photoshop and cgi instead of reality. And this disconnects them from the "presence" factor of orginal art, as well as the presence of themselves as emotive physicalities in life. One cannot make authoritative metaphors of things not experienced. The only knowledge worth imparting is the undeniable, and without experience, all is deniable. (And this would include the physical experience of the sublime.) And an army of childish artists will easily fall under the treads of commerce, advertising, religion, media, and politics, all of which is actually the same thing.

So what matters in this for me, is that the hypnotic power of undo and the eye dropper tool be snap-fingered, waking artists out of their weak digital slumber.

kev

Rick Holland February 25 at 12:57pm Reply

I agree with what you want for the artist, an immediacy, an almost phenomenological experience, or as you say 'presence'. I am not sure if I agree that new tools necessarily stop an artist from seeking and experiencing this. Many artist still learn to draw human beings by drawing human beings. Many artist still use real subjects to make their sketches. I am sure that some of these artists aren't merely measuring light and dark like a drone. I am sure that they are affected by the infinite nuances that make the visual world magical. Artists still see gestures, lines of motion, and rhythm (instead of mere measurements of space, and light) when they are creating or recording the action of a person with the pencil. These very same artists go and 'transcribe' this into digital media. I know that slumber isn't the immmediate result of the digital media, for slumber is anathema to the artist, and not just the genius artist either. I know that there are still lively artists slipping through the digital cracks, if you will, by what I see on deviant art. Jesus christ, some of these people make me want to end my wasted life -- such talent!

But ultimately I must agree that 'presence' and the preservation of its affects in/on the artist would be much easier if there were less steps. If I could carry my digital paint to a model session, or outside to the mountains, and make a digital painting right there, it would be, how you say?? AWESOME!!!!!

Kev Ferrara February 25 at 1:19pm Reply

October 21, 2009 at 12:07 AM  
Blogger McW said...

The problem is even more basic. Text always tries to control art, which is to say it tries to control the animist subtexts of illusion, metaphor, emotion, and "the spiritual" .. the awesome, the scary, the heartbreaking... Text offers dogma, regularity, digitization, impersonalization, heroes and villains, clear blame, perfectibilty, programability... this seduces the ego and generates political feality. Art's true power lies in Images of timeless life tensions... that haunt us immemorially. Computer images and programs subliminally depersonalize art and expression. This is why so much digital art looks alike. Without the hand, there is no handwriting. Without paint, there is no painter. Without risk, there is no intensity. Without life there is no soul. The core pixel of computer art is square. The core pixel of real art is flow. This matters metaphorically, subliminally. The switcheroo was insidious because digitization offered so much, while taking away everything that mattered. The technology mastered us overnight.

Rick Holland February 25 at 5:20pm Reply

I agree with you on a very fundamental level but I believe you are being a bit hyperbolic and a smidge tendential. Technology isnt to blame for our lack of living, we are. Fear of risk in art, and the tendency toward comfort and control in life, have been problems since the first day a man decided to give up a bit of freedom and responsibility in exchange for a bit of stability. Me made that contract on that day with the state (the devil).

But again, even the state isn't to blame. The fear is within us. We are the ones who give these devils of technology, church, and state power over our living parts. We are the ones who agree that it is better to not drive so fast, not fuck so furiously, not risk ruining a painting by painting it!



Kev Ferrara February 25 at 7:44pm Reply

It would take a whole volume to defend any interesting contention from a charge of tendentiousness and hyperbole. So, rather than debate the degree to which Burke and Ruskin's most salient points were misunderstood and then discarded by the pseudo-intellectual aesthetes that followed in their wake, allow me to simply poop on on your weak conversational slight of hand. Possibly you ate some bad cheese.

The simple point is, our egos are easily seduced by surface symbol puzzles that are completable. We think reading the right paper or finishing the crossword puzzle is an accomplishment. Artists now spend days finishing their paintings on computer without producing, for their effort, an original/extensional work of art. They instead produce the first reproduction of it. Most seem oblivious to the distinction.

I guess what I'm saying is that photoshop, like most text, is a hallucinogenic drug of sorts which fosters the illusion of extensional accomplishment where none is manifest. The libertarian in me says so what, let em yank the yeoman, but the social reformer in me is worried that an entire generation of visual philosophers is drugging itself flaccid.

I was not remarking on photoshop and text as prophylactic methods to control existential fears.

October 21, 2009 at 12:09 AM  
Blogger McW said...

Rick Holland February 25 at 10:32pm Reply

>>We think reading the right paper or finishing the crossword puzzle is an accomplishment.

No one who I associate with thinks this. (And that may be why they are all so unsatisfied with the work-a-day world.)

>>Artists now spend days finishing their paintings on computer without producing, for their effort, an original/extensional work of art. They instead produce the first reproduction of it.

Okay I see your point now. I don't have much of a response. I agree that there is a problem with this, but I at this small point in time do not feel as passionately about it as you do. Maybe it is because the 'art' I am focusing on currently also includes text (*makes hissing noises). And is geared around the commercial world. Yeah, that's right, I bathe in shit and smell no stench.

>>I was not remarking on photoshop and text as prophylactic methods to control existential fears.

I don't think I was either. At all. Maybe I have to re-read my own writing.

With all of this talk I could have painted something by now. (albeit a small something)

-Rick

Kev Ferrara February 26 at 12:21am Reply

In the first quote I was describing how text success fosters a false sense of self worth. This is an unconscious result, generally.

As far as making a living doing commercial design, I don't think I judged that, except to compare industrial strength commercialism in general to a tank, whose treads more heartfelt expression needs to be protected from. I do commercial work myself all the time as you know, and remain nutty about typefaces and I see no reason why good honest work cannot be done in the field. Unless you advertise cigarettes, sugar products, the healing power of evangelists, or a fly-by-night health insurance company for old people that denies all claims as a matter of policy.

October 21, 2009 at 12:09 AM  
Blogger McW said...

Chris McWilliams February 26 at 12:46pm

I have mixed feelings on the topic.

Art approximates reality. Digital art approximates an approximation. Therefor two steps removed from anything "real". That ain't news. But at a time when humanity aspires to transcend the limitations of the material world, is it incongruous that art should also shed its rabbitskin cloak and aetherize the mundane ways and means of 400 years of throwing mud at the wall? It may change our definitions, it may be less human. It may be a mirage, an elaborate invokation of dancing lights designed to dissemble and deceive. To exploit a bug in human firmware, the tendency to see parallels between unrelated things...a trick on our eyes and aesthetic sensibilities. But this metaphoric interplay is what makes art work, decoding both the medium and the message it imparts, and ultimately no less illusory than our subjective realities; We may be "smart" enough to see through it, to know its all a bunch of square pixels flying through the air, but that kind of smartness is counterproductive (like most of philosophy). A bunch of hairless monkeys wrote some stuff about "the desert of the real" considered to be quite smart, and in fact just kept getting smarter and smarter and smarter, until eventually they all went over the Niagra Falls of Smartness, and now everyone is just a raving lunatic. If we continue to deconstruct everything that is sensuous and beautiful, transcend all the maya there is left to transcend, we'll eventually be left with nothing but vibrating energy threads tangling into matter. And really, what good is that.

There are ghosts in the machine; and we tend to view them critically. But that view is through a different looking glass than our eyes, and our eyes are what get us through the day.

The point being...digital art looks damn good, and what of it? Yes, it is easy to condemn ...the art as commodity meme is strong, not easily traded for "intellectual property" -- virtually meaningless in the digital age. We can debate the underlying philosophy and ideals, but no one can deny the empirical value of this technology.

My best hope is that painting with light can be seen as a new (and evolving) medium, rather than a chimerical facsimile of what has gone before. Neither photorealism nor mimicry of extant "wet" media are exhaustive of digital artwork's ultimate potential -- not merely to transcend mundane methodologies, but something yet to be seen. Something we can scarcely begin to imagine.


*This post sponsored by the Society of Virtual Newspeak. Book on Tape version of this post, read by Hugo Weaving, available from Creative Cop-out Productions, Adobe Deprogramming Ranch, Coochie Nebraska, 10101

October 21, 2009 at 12:10 AM  
Blogger McW said...

Kev Ferrara February 26 at 1:35pm Reply

Thank ye thank ye...

A few quick points: It is not the commercialism of digipainted work that concerns me. Not at all. Everyone must make a living, after all. In fact, the use of photoshop to make art is actually financially foolish in the long term because it can only be sold twice (as assignment and print reproduction) and never as an original artwork. If the artist becomes popular enough to have his prints collected, he is popular enough to have his originals collected. If the work is only digital, (the asset is an illusion) why not go with a jpeg found online.

More important than the "penny wise, pound foolish" problem, it is the weakening of the statements that I am concerned with. Art's purpose is not to approximate reality, but to make you feel the meaning of it. This is why scale and tactility and presence matter.

But, digital shallowness isn't the only culprit in that. We've gone through a hundred years of populist-fueled intellectual and "moral" regression and the real meat of art's purpose hasn't been written down since Tolstoy. No one can even understand moral language any more. I had to read all sorts of teachings just to understand what the long-dead artists I admire were saying about their work.

This post sponsored by the vampire art sluts of the second reich.

October 21, 2009 at 12:10 AM  
Blogger McW said...

Roy Pradhan February 27 at 1:32pm Reply
http://deoxy.org/meme/SpiritualRobots

If it's good and beautiful, I don't mind.
MEME : SpiritualRobots
Source: deoxy.org

SearchWordIndexFullIndexSizeIndexOrphansVisitorsChangesallminormajorAnalysisHistoryRawPrintRead-onlyRandomRandomlistHelpStatsVersion


Roy Pradhan February 27 at 4:44pm Reply
An interesting (sci-fi) video relevantish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5zn0Moy3vY
Bo the Quantum Based Artificially Sentient Network
Source: www.youtube.com

Bo the Quantum Based Artificially Sentient Network. This is a theme I am working on for a SciFi novelle. Tell me what you think.

Roy Pradhan February 27 at 7:46pm Reply
http://deoxy.org/meme/RadicalEvolution

Another coolness; many links to articles strung together for and as futurist speculation
MEME : RadicalEvolution
Source: deoxy.org

SearchWordIndexFullIndexSizeIndexOrphansVisitorsChangesallminormajorAnalysisHistoryRawPrintRead-onlyRandomRandomlistHelpStatsVersion
Share

Rick Holland March 10 at 5:31pm Reply
Kev-

I stopped reading these messages because I thought I could better spend the time doing art. I started an oil on canvas painting last sunday; the first since I painted Betsy over 5 years ago. The painting is just about complete now and I have to agree with you, the experience of painting on the computer is HUGELY lacking. It is a sort of half torpor, induced by the lack of risk, and a lack of richness. Even with the wonders of wacom and the power of Painter 11, there is still a lot more information for the artist to process in real time when he uses actual paints, instead of these silicon tinker toys. I have just today purchased 10 masonite boards of various sizes and plan to keep painting!

Kev Ferrara March 11 at 1:15pm Reply
Great! Now read Harvey Dunn's class notes: http://www.robolus.com/h.dunn-eveningclassroom.pdf
www.robolus.com
Source: www.robolus.com


Rick Holland March 25 at 3:13pm Reply
You know I was set against reading these notes just because of the terseness of your last message. But then I thought (with a Jewish accent), "Don't be stupid!"

The notes are great. It is always wonderful when someone speaks from the heart and from experience with no inhibitions. These notes are like golden fire.

I just got an easel and some more brushes. I learn something new every time I paint. I also just now purchased this book:
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2008/AristidesBook/AristidesBook1.asp

It looks like it may be helpful to me. I want to explore some of the time tested methods and I want to know how and why they work. I imagine that you would be a fan of this book also.

-Rick

www.artrenewal.org
Source: www.artrenewal.org

October 21, 2009 at 12:11 AM  
Blogger McW said...

Realism is no more out&#45dated than the five senses themselves. Aristides has determined this after years of studying our present culture and the historical events that have brought culture to where it is today...often a very bleak, dark and impersonal place...stylish as that may be. ...
Share

Chris McWilliams March 25 at 3:25pm
Neanderthals.

Oh, Wacom Intuos3 A4...they will never understand. Its you and me forever, or until the power goes out.


< /sarcasm >

Rick Holland March 25 at 3:44pm Reply
LMFAO!!!


^
|
|

(see, i'm hip!)

Rick Holland March 25 at 3:48pm Reply
Holy Shhnykees! The Intuos3 A4 is the exact same model that I have! To bad I was tempted by the fruit of another!

btw- Will ComicPaltz happen now that you are living in New Paltz?

Kev Ferrara March 25 at 4:23pm Reply
The Dunn notes are a secret classic, only shared among the cognescenti. Very few people know they exist.

The Artistes book looks beautiful. I don't know what kind of content it houses though. From the small sample given, it seems to cover the basics, but the work shown is top stuff. I've never read it myself but I'd be interested in how far it goes. My first criteria for reading anything about art anymore is, do I like the author's work.

Be aware that Dunn, Pyle, Frazetta and the Romantics, Symbolists, and Illustrators are all Emotionalists who use nature to express themselves like a musician uses a piano or guitar. It is believed that a true aesthetic expression, though couched in specifics, will have universal emotional resonance for all people.

Whereas, Art Renewal Center "Classicist" types tend to look for Platonic Beauty and strict fealty to nature as a method of expressing the universal, timeless and perfect. And by this questing, they reach up on behalf of all who seek spiritual transcendance.

There is always overlap between Emotionalists and Classicists, but the core of the philosophies, it seems to me, differ notably.

Best
kev

Chris McWilliams March 25 at 5:13pm
A personalized version will always eclipse a mimetic homage to nature's "talent." The Classicists have had their day.

Those who champion the notion that true aesthetic expression will rise beyond specifics to reach the universal might also be more inclined to suggest that art is in the eye of the artist, not in the tools. Thus bringing us full circle.

We'll be right back with more from Kev and Rick after this.

Cut to Nanodeodorant commercial.

Kev Ferrara March 25 at 6:36pm Reply
For Chris: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/03/darpa-muscle-re.html
Pentagon Plan to Regrow Limbs: Phase One, Complete | Danger Room from Wired.com
Source: blog.wired.com

October 21, 2009 at 12:12 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home