[HN Gopher] Andy Warhol's lost Amiga art found
___________________________________________________________________
Andy Warhol's lost Amiga art found
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 324 points
Date : 2024-08-05 15:33 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (dfarq.homeip.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (dfarq.homeip.net)
| cellularmitosis wrote:
| > and a signed floppy disk containing eight images that Andy
| Warhol created that day. He said he's had them on display in his
| home for about 39 years.
|
| Shout out to the longevity of floppy disks as a storage medium. I
| was quite disappointed when I discovered many of my writable CD's
| started failing at the 15 to 20 year mark.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| 15-20 is about the lifetime of a floppy as well (and less than
| that for some of the cheaper mass-produced floppies like what
| AOL shipped for free).
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I've had really great experiences with recovering 3,5"
| floppies from 40 years ago. Not so much with 5 1/4". Despite
| the ultra low density of 360kB on that huge surface.
| dasil003 wrote:
| I wonder if it's due to contact with the soft shell
| _the_inflator wrote:
| Mine work now for almost 40 years. And don't forget: floppy
| disks have mechanical attrition.
|
| The floppy disk lifetime was, as always, an estimate. My 5
| 1/4 disks for C64 seem to be the way more robust product
| compared with the 3 1/2 for Amiga and later PC. Maybe
| information density plays a role here.
|
| CDs have the reflection layer problem, not the information
| loss per se. That's the main difference between disks and
| CDs.
| jandrese wrote:
| I stumbled across a DVD-RW last weekend and popped it in a
| drive to see if the files were still readable. I had read that
| for a -RW drive you shouldn't expect more than a few years,
| maybe a decade before it decays so I was not hopeful. However,
| the disc was fully readable and the checksums all came back
| clean even though it was burned in 2003.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > Shout out to the longevity of floppy disks as a storage
| medium.
|
| Last I checked (Covid) about 2/3rd of my 5"1/4 Commodore 64
| floppy disks were still working (they had to be about 35 y/o
| when I tried in 2020). But the ones working won't last much
| longer.
| ahazred8ta wrote:
| Commercially available write-once M-DISCs are rated for almost
| 1000 years.
| gambiting wrote:
| Allegedly the quad layer BDXLs should have the same longevity
| as they are made using the exact same technology. Shame Sony
| just announced they are going to shut down the only remaining
| factory in the world making those, I've ordered some from
| Japan but I imagine they will shoot up in price once the
| official stocks deplete.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| Size of the Mdisc is 100GB be 128gb for Sony so honestly M
| discs aren't that worse.
| thih9 wrote:
| They are significantly more expensive too.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| Let me travel back in time and...
| uncivilized wrote:
| The article states that they were on display in his home but
| does not mention if they're still working.
|
| The images in the posted article are from other sources.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| Off the shelf optical substrate just degrades and lazerdiscs
| suffer from this greatly . There is the m disc series that has
| a more advanced substrate but I believe magnetic tape is the
| only backup method that can last very long (other than printing
| it out in paper).
| scrame wrote:
| seriously? in college my floppies wouldn't make it across the
| quad.
| JoBrad wrote:
| My experience with floppy disks is that they don't last very
| long.
| leptons wrote:
| Is 35 years "very long"? Because we just retrieved data from
| about 50 old Commodore 64 5 1/4" floppy disks after 35 years.
| They all read perfectly on an old Commodore 1541 floppy
| drive.
| tetris11 wrote:
| I live in the hope that I'll always be tech-literate, even into
| my retirement, but I'm beginning to suspect that no matter how
| generalist I try to be with my skillset, the mind will specialize
| as it gets older in few particular ways and no matter how skilled
| I am in field A B or C, it just will not translate to field X Y
| or Z.
| roughly wrote:
| The LLMs have been this moment for me - the toolkit, usage
| patterns, and strengths and weaknesses are so different from
| what I'm used to that I have a really hard time trusting my
| instincts or judgements on when to use them and where. They're
| the first piece of technology that's so far outside my
| experience set that I need to onboard a fully different
| paradigm to understand them as a tool.
| MaKey wrote:
| I wouldn't worry too much. I'm not using any LLMs for my work
| and don't feel that I'm falling behind in any way.
| munchler wrote:
| This is exactly what people who are falling behind would
| say. They're often the last ones who are aware of the
| situation. (Just food for thought - not saying you are
| actually falling behind.)
| MaKey wrote:
| I guess you're correct. Still, I think that LLMs are
| overhyped and have yet to see any real life productivity
| gains because of them.
| d13 wrote:
| They have easily improved my coding productivity by 40%
| MaKey wrote:
| What programming language are you using and in which ways
| are LLMs helping you? How do you deal with subtle
| mistakes?
| Sharlin wrote:
| To be fair, currently it looks like most people's "instinct"
| about LLMs is "let's just blindly trust what this thing says
| because it sounds authoritative". I'm waiting for someone to
| coin the term "AI natives", a generation which, it'll
| eventually turn out, will be just as "native" as Gen Z are
| "digital natives".
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I enjoy Warhol's silkscreen prints. You can pick one up on Ebay
| for about $100 or so and it is pretty rare for a piece by such a
| prominent artists to be affordable but that's what Warhol's
| market was.
|
| With that process you can also get spot colors that are not in
| the CYMK space, for instance last week I struggled with printing
| an image of Rudbeckia flowers until I understood that the RGB
| version of that yellow (at the edge of saturation so probably not
| as saturated as the real thing) doesn't exist in CYMK which means
| if you don't modify the color to be in gamut the printer will do
| it for you -- probably not the way you want.
|
| With spot color (say Pantone) I could get some ink mixed up that
| would color match the flower even better -- it was before Pantone
| but Warhol's spot colors were often like that. And of course his
| work with the Amiga is much in the style he's famous for.
| duxup wrote:
| >You can pick one up on Ebay
|
| Are they, legit?
|
| I used to collect coins before the days of the internet and
| decided to pull out my collection and thought about getting
| back into it. It's just scam / fakes everywhere on Ebay.
| bennyg wrote:
| Typically these prices are for unlimited print runs as
| opposed to a run of a 100 or less (which command more money
| obviously, due to supply). I have a Haring print in my home
| that was about the same price (I think around $250 in total
| for print and frame) that's signed by the artist.
| autogn0me wrote:
| Unlikely to be authentic for 250$ for sure no provenance
| ericjmorey wrote:
| What does authenticity mean in this context?
| ahoka wrote:
| "signed by the artist"
|
| What do you think it means in this context?
| tofu8 wrote:
| It's most likely a fake. Signed prints by Haring and Warhol
| for for a lot more -- you can get an idea for how much by
| looking at Sotheby's/Christie's past results.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Certain artists have methods to authenticate their work. In
| general, I wouldn't trust ebay. Fakes abound, coins, art, any
| high value collectables. Consider this interesting story from
| earlier this year: https://nypost.com/2024/02/21/us-
| news/brian-walshe-sentenced...
|
| If you want original art, especially from an artist as
| popular as Warhol, it's best to go through galleries or art
| auctions. You don't have to be in NY or LA, Paris or London,
| etc. You probably have some places in driving distance. Most
| ship, too. These places have actual reputations on the line
| and can't hide behind ebay or just open up shop with a
| different name.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I've made some CMYK (e.g. inkjet) prints that were inspired
| by Warhol and anime fan art. I took a class in silkscreen
| printing and I'm probably going to be taking one in block
| printing soon. If I was going to get better at
| silkscreening an obvious idea is to do something more or
| less Warhol-inspired.
|
| My understanding is that there is an interesting universe
| of fakes, for instance Warhol would make some screens and
| send them off to get printed, he would authorize, say, 100
| prints and sign and number those, but the printers would
| hold on to the screens and make more that weren't signed.
| t43562 wrote:
| Interesting how if anyone else created pictures like these we
| wouldn't really care.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Actually the first thing I'd think was they were ripping off
| Andy Warhol.
| t43562 wrote:
| In science many people have simultaneously discovered similar
| aspects of a problem - or someone discovered something and
| were ignored until someone else rediscovered it independently
| later. e.g. who invented the computer? or who discovered that
| cleanliness was essential in hospitals? Surely art is
| similar?
| PaulHoule wrote:
| There's also the way a successful artist can legitimize a
| whole area, see
|
| https://www.moma.org/collection/terms/dada/marcel-duchamp-
| an...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein
|
| for people like Warhol who expanded the range of "art" vs
| "not art".
| snarfy wrote:
| Like how Warhol took a stock dpaint image recreation of Birth
| of Venus and copy/pasted a third eye on it? Who ripped off
| who here?
| robxorb wrote:
| The first thing I'd think was someone without any skill was
| randomly clicking around some early bitmap paint software.
| whateveracct wrote:
| Yeah it is interesting how art is not a contextless buffer of
| pixels. I think that's actually the main thing that's
| interesting about art throughout history.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| In society what is done is almost irrelevant.
|
| The really relevant information is who did it.
|
| More so when the law is concerned.
|
| Actions are only crimes if the "wrong" people perpetrate them.
|
| For the right people, "crimes" are nothing but expressions of
| their right to power. For the wrong people, "crimes" are
| conclusive proof of sociopathy.
|
| Art is no different.
| ericmcer wrote:
| He was already famous.
|
| It isn't interesting it is almost step 1 in marketing. Tie your
| product to some celebrity or influencer to get exposure and
| credibility.
| binary132 wrote:
| Reminds me of some kind of proto-vaporwave art
| breadwinner wrote:
| Warhol is one of those artists that leaves the layperson
| scratching their head... how did this guy's work get recognized
| as high falutin art?
|
| For example, see Warhol's soup can:
| https://www.moma.org/collection/works/79809
| 77pt77 wrote:
| If Jackson Pollock is any example, probably a CIA psyop.
|
| At this point nothing surprises me anymore.
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-...
| actionfromafar wrote:
| I have no clue if Pollock was a CIA psyop or not, but were it
| so, it wouldn't detract from the paintings. They are
| inventive and pushed boundaries.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| The PROMOTION of artists like Pollock might have been a CIA
| psyop, but I don't think the artists themselves were
| working for the CIA.
| axus wrote:
| That was very astute of the CIA. Trolling "the enemy" to
| provoke an overreaction and make them look bad.
|
| It could happen in modern times too, promote harmless social
| ideas that leaders of China and Russia overreact to while the
| West passively tolerates.
| romwell wrote:
| Then Kandinsky (and other Suprematists) were what, Russian
| Tsar's psyop?
|
| Because surely you can't beat a literal _black square_ [1] in
| the "come on, you call _this_ art?! " category.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Square
| conception wrote:
| That actually is one of the points of pop art. Why should a
| soup can be a piece of art? Why does our culture hold
| advertisements and products to such a high degree?
|
| One of the keys to opening the world of modern art to me was
| that modern art isn't about what you see so such as what it
| makes you feel or think about or discuss. It's a starting
| point, not an ending.
| dansitu wrote:
| Andy Warhol arguably invented the cultural landscape we inhabit
| today, but fifty years before the iPhone: reality as
| entertainment, consumers as content creators, influencer
| marketing, and DIY viral fame. He's a fascinating pioneer and
| his impact on today's tech industry is hard to understate. It's
| well worth learning about his work, which goes far beyond the
| pop art prints.
| codetrotter wrote:
| > consumers as content creators, influencer marketing, and
| DIY viral fame.
|
| Indeed. His famous quote comes to mind:
|
| "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15
| minutes."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_minutes_of_fame
| ericmcer wrote:
| Have you seen the artists who are celebrated today?
|
| I stayed for the credits of a movie the other day and they
| listed all the musicians at the end. ~80% song attributions
| were formatted like: `Song written by "unknown person".
| Performed by "Famous musical act"`. Maybe Warhol was like a
| proto version of being famous despite special talent, but it is
| almost all we get nowadays. I wonder if huge companies like
| Disney know that by distributing power (some people write,
| others perform, others do marketing, etc.) they can ensure they
| have final power and any artist can be replaced easily.
| tuna74 wrote:
| In music it has been the standard for hundreds of years that
| the composer of the music is not the one performing it.
|
| And actors don't write or direct or shoot movies either.
| ericmcer wrote:
| Totally different. When someone performs a piece by
| Beethoven everyone knows they are performing his work. Very
| few Beyonce/Taylor Swift/Nsync/whatever fans could name the
| people who actually write the songs. Classical composers
| were total rock stars of their period, they were well known
| and the face of their music.
|
| Modern pop musicians have almost all of their work written
| by people who are intentionally kept in the shadows.
|
| Being a composer is not a public facing profession anymore.
| tuna74 wrote:
| People mostly don't care about the composers/producers of
| modern pop music. But if you want to find out it is
| really easy on all music platforms (Spotify, Youtube
| music etc).
|
| Being a performer and a composer is a very different
| skill set and a very different business model.
|
| Also, it is very difficult to compare the amount of fame
| of someone in 1800 vs someone in 2020. I am not so sure
| being a composer was ever a "public facing profession".
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Warhol's true skill was arguably self-promotion, there aren't a
| lot of people who think he was particularly skilled as a
| classical artist -- but he developed a look, talked to all the
| right people, and made a brand of himself in a time where it
| was a lot more rare to do so.
|
| This stuff is also fairly pedestrian to our eyes now _because_
| of Warhol 's influence, he was doing this in the 60s, decades
| before anyone could say "looks like a photoshop filter"
| roughly wrote:
| Warhol's art was self-promotion, explicitly -
| commercialization and personal branding was the act.
| echelon wrote:
| The answer is right there in the page:
|
| > [...] subvert the idea of painting as a medium of invention
| and originality.
|
| This was a _new thought_.
| roughly wrote:
| I think this is an example of what I'd call the "Blade Runner"
| effect: if you show Blade Runner to someone who's never seen it
| before, they're going to think it looks vaguely derivative,
| because they live in a post-Blade Runner world, in which
| everything looks like Blade Runner.
|
| Warhol's really the ur-version of this. We're all in Warhol's
| world, now.
| FelipeCortez wrote:
| what you're describing as the "Blade Runner effect" is on
| TVTropes as "Once Original, Now Common". formerly "Seinfeld
| Is Unfunny"
| ahoka wrote:
| Same reason classic perfume masterpieces smell like cheap
| shampoo.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Except his art doesn't look unoriginal. It looks, well,
| lacking in artistic merit.
| romwell wrote:
| What _is_ artistic merit?
|
| You look at something, and it makes you feel a certain way,
| think a certain way, say to yourself - wow, I've never seen
| anything like this before - isn't this a big part of
| _artistic merit_?
|
| That's the part that vanishes once the art influences the
| world enough that it becomes _commonplace_.
|
| You can say the same about the work of Russian
| Constructivists[1] and Suprematists. What's artistic about
| fonts that look like Helvetica? What's artistic a literal
| _Black Square_?[2]
|
| Or, you can ask, what's _artistic_ about this building[3] -
| it looks just about like any other modern building, the
| standard box-with-glass look with a cylindrical wall thrown
| in to break up the shape.
|
| I'll leave the answers to the reader to ponder on.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(art)
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Square
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuev_Workers%27_Club#/med
| ia/Fi...
| fluoridation wrote:
| >You look at something, and it makes you feel a certain
| way, think a certain way, say to yourself - wow, I've
| never seen anything like this before - isn't this a big
| part of artistic merit?
|
| No. That's how much you like something. A mountain can
| provoke emotions in you, and it has zero artistic merit.
|
| >What is artistic merit?
|
| Simply put (or at least this is how I use the term), it's
| the measure of how difficult it is to recreate an
| artistic work, or something very similar to it,
| especially without having seen it before. For example, a
| pattern of 3x3 tiles made by choosing one of two possible
| colors for each one has very little artistic merit,
| because the medium imposes so many restrictions that it's
| inevitable that someone else will recreate it by
| accident. Likewise if you take a digitized image and you
| postprocess it with wacky colors again and again (or as
| in TFA you play with a bucket fill) until what it shows
| is barely recognizable, it will almost invariably tend
| towards a certain aesthetic simply by the nature of how
| the filters work. That's not you putting your personal
| touch into your work, that's the program doing what it
| does. If someone else started from the same digitized
| images and used the same software, would they be able to
| make something similar to what you made just by accident?
| Then what you made has little artistic merit.
| riddley wrote:
| Difficult for whom? Jazz musicians can easily play most
| Rock songs. Does that mean that they (the songs) lack
| artistic merit?
|
| There's a million examples like this.
| fluoridation wrote:
| You're talking about execution, while I'm talking about
| creation (composition). It is easier to, say, copy
| _Guernica_ than to paint it having never seen it before.
| Easier in the sense that way, way more people can do the
| former than the latter.
| romwell wrote:
| You're moving the goalposts from difficulty to _recreate_
| (your choice of words), i.e. copy, to difficulty of
| creating something _without having seen it before_ (i.e.,
| telepathy).
|
| By this definition, this comment of mine is peak artistic
| merit. Nobody could've created it _without seeing it
| here_ -- except me, just now!
| fluoridation wrote:
| >You're moving the goalposts
|
| No, I'm not. Re-read what I wrote:
|
| >how difficult it is to recreate an artistic work, or
| something very similar to it, especially without having
| seen it before
|
| You don't need to be telepathic to recreate something
| someone else has made if the creative space for a given
| medium contains a small number of "interesting"
| solutions. One time when I was a teenager playing around
| in QuickBASIC I independently rediscovered H trees. Did I
| read the mind of the person who first discovered them, or
| is it that the space of symmetric binary trees where each
| branch is a constant ratio of its ancestor small enough
| that I was bound to find them?
|
| If you think nobody is trying to pass off something so
| abstract (I would say, with so few bits) as art, consider
| this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invader_(artist)
|
| >By this definition, this comment of mine is peak
| artistic merit. Nobody could've created it without seeing
| it here -- except me, just now!
|
| Well, I would say so. I don't know how to argue that it's
| not. Do you?
| codingdave wrote:
| You seem to be conflating craftmanship and artistic
| merit. They are not the same thing. While it is perfectly
| valid to care only about craftsmanship, and many people
| do feel that way, that isn't a universal opinion. It is
| also an opinion that makes it difficult to have a
| meaningful conversation about many modern artists for
| whom craftsmanship simply wasn't the point of their work.
| fluoridation wrote:
| I don't agree that I'm conflating the two. Actually, some
| of the things I've seen that had the most artistic merit
| were awful things made by truly incompetent people who
| didn't care they were incompetent. They still had
| artistic merit because unless you're actually bad, it
| takes special effort to make something really terrible. I
| guess you could say that artistic merit increases when
| you move away from the sludge of mediocrity, while
| craftsmanship exists only in one direction.
|
| >It is also an opinion that makes it difficult to have a
| meaningful conversation about many modern artists for
| whom craftsmanship simply wasn't the point of their work.
|
| Do you mean that it makes it difficult, or do you mean
| that those artists don't come out looking good? Because
| I'm fine with the latter.
| criddell wrote:
| You would really enjoy an art history course. A lot of
| them start with prehistoric work (like cave drawings) and
| progress through all the major periods and movements.
|
| I think you might change your definition to at least
| include some context of period and artist.
| romwell wrote:
| _> Simply put (or at least this is how I use the term),
| it's the measure of how difficult it is to recreate an
| artistic work, or something very similar to it,
| especially without having seen it before_
|
| So, there's no art since photography was invented.
|
| Or, the perfect art is the white noise on the TV (exactly
| recreating noise is outright impossible).
|
| _> the medium imposes so many restrictions that it's
| inevitable that someone else will recreate it by
| accident_
|
| And yet, there has not been a _Black Square_ before
| Kandinsky.
|
| Nor a painting featuring Campbell soup cans before Warhol
| (and if you see one, you'll immediately think Warhol).
|
| Weird, isn't it?
| breadwinner wrote:
| > _I 've never seen anything like this before_
|
| That sounds more like innovation than art. There's no art
| in the black square or in the soup can. No matter what
| your artistic tastes, you will never stop to admire a
| black square, and that's how you know it is not art. The
| same for the soup can. If you won't stop to admire it
| then it is not art. The black square and the soup can
| became "art" only because of _hype_ and _marketing_. Art
| dealers hype up and promote non-art as art in order to
| make money.
| romwell wrote:
| _> There's no art in the black square or in the soup can_
|
| That's a new hot take... For 1915.
|
| My friend, do yourself a favor and take an art history
| class.
|
| You'll both get to more art and understand it better in
| the process of doing so.
| breadwinner wrote:
| Agree... I think it is art dealers that turn things that
| most people wouldn't consider to be art into high-priced
| art.
|
| Art dealers can influence the perception of what is
| considered valuable or important in the art world. Through
| marketing, exhibitions, and networking, they can elevate
| the status of certain artworks, thereby increasing their
| market value.
| roughly wrote:
| An awful lot of art, and especially modern art, has its
| meaning and merit in the context of when and why it was
| created - there's a reason people talk about art as a
| conversation, because very often what you're seeing in a
| piece or a movement is a response to other pieces or other
| movements, or are expressed specifically with constraints
| ("what can we show with just one color? what can we show
| without form? how can we use these new materials
| expressively?"). A great many people seem to confuse
| artistic merit with technical difficulty and specifically
| with realism or complexity, at which point we peaked at
| Vermeer and it's all been downhill from there.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Personally, I'm not interested in that conversation, any
| more than I'm interested in suddenly lurking in a random
| subreddit. It's a community I'm not a part of and which
| doesn't interest me. If you took a dump on a canvas and
| hung it on a gallery to make fun of a guy who said no one
| would ever do that, well I'm glad you had fun and all,
| but it's still shit on a wall.
|
| I won't deny that in some cases works can be interested
| because of their context, but generally speaking, to me,
| a piece has to stand on its own regardless of who made it
| or when or how. Mozart's scat letters don't become good
| by virtue of having been written by him (although they do
| become funnier).
| roughly wrote:
| I'm not asking you to care, I'm asking you to recognize
| you don't understand what you're looking at. You can say
| "I don't find the work compelling", but to say it lacks
| artistic merit is just silly.
| fluoridation wrote:
| But it's not silly, though. You're asking me to either
| judge the work on the same grounds as you do, or to
| abstain from opining if I can't, but I have no reason to
| do that. I can confidently say "You painted a can of soup
| on a white background. You didn't try. Your work has
| little artistic merit." I don't see any reason why I
| shouldn't say that.
| roughly wrote:
| > I can confidently say
|
| The confidence is the problem.
|
| You don't understand what you're looking at, you don't
| understand what the artist was doing, you don't
| understand why they were doing it, you don't understand
| the constraints they were or were not operating under and
| why they may or may not have picked those constraints.
| It's like looking at a Picasso and saying "well that's
| the shittiest bull I've ever seen." What you're doing is
| like watching a boxing match and saying "it's very lazy
| that these people aren't using their legs" or "I don't
| understand why that person won, they didn't even knock
| the other person out!". There's a thing that's happening
| here that you've not bothered to learn enough about to
| understand whether or not the participant is
| accomplishing their goals, because you haven't bothered
| to learn what their goals are or what accomplishing them
| would look like.
|
| Again, it's totally fine to say "I don't like this," or
| "I don't understand this" (although I'm getting the sense
| I'm unlikely to hear _that_ from you), but to say "this
| lacks artistic merit" - you absolutely do not have the
| knowledge, background, or apparent interest in the topic
| to have any idea whether or not that statement is true.
| fluoridation wrote:
| You're trying to convince me to be less confident in my
| assertions by confidently telling me what I do or don't
| understand, and what I need to understand in order to
| reach conclusions.
|
| >What you're doing is like watching a boxing match and
| saying "it's very lazy that these people aren't using
| their legs" or "I don't understand why that person won,
| they didn't even knock the other person out!". There's a
| thing that's happening here that you've not bothered to
| learn enough about to understand whether or not the
| participant is accomplishing their goals
|
| But, you see, art is not a game. There are no rules. If
| you paint me a portrait of myself with your feet and you
| make me look like my mother, I'm not going to be
| impressed that you managed to paint my mother with your
| feet. I'm to ask you why you didn't use your hands, you
| dolt! If you handicap yourself to the point you make
| something bad, then it's only fair the results are judged
| on their own merits, isn't it? If you wanted to use your
| feet to entertain yourself then any criticism you receive
| for it shouldn't matter, because the activity fulfilled
| its purpose to you, the same way boxers don't care about
| the criticism they receive from people who think they
| should also use their legs.
|
| I don't care about their goals. Their goals are for
| themselves. I don't need to know them to judge the
| quality of the result.
|
| >"I don't understand this" (although I'm getting the
| sense I'm unlikely to hear _that_ from you)
|
| I'm honest enough to say I don't get the point of the
| soup can. That doesn't stop me from saying it's low-
| effort. I see better art on Twitter every day, even
| though most of it probably has less of a message.
| tetha wrote:
| This is such an infuriatingly dismissive and abrasive
| answer, even with not being part of that community. All
| metal is just trivial guitar play and angry shouts right?
| Paintings are just the correct application of colors and
| other materials.
|
| - edit - And yes, I have talked to artists about
| absolutely trivial paintings. During that I learned how..
| nontrivial putting poop on canvas may be - /edit -
|
| Sometimes it's better to accept you're not part of a
| conversation and to either shut up, or ask a very
| confused "But why?"
| fluoridation wrote:
| Good, I'm glad you find it infuriating. It likewise
| annoys me when I see people praise low-effort garbage, so
| I see it as only fair.
|
| >And yes, I have talked to artists about absolutely
| trivial paintings. During that I learned how.. nontrivial
| putting poop on canvas may be
|
| And I've talked to artists who have told me they agreed
| with me, and that they think pseudo-artistic shitposts
| devalue the work they put into their own pieces.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| Last year I was really into non-ebay auctions. Basically
| traditional auctions that were also online.
|
| I got super excited when I saw a Commodore 64 was coming up soon,
| until I noticed the starting price was around $100,000. It was
| actually for a collection of unreleased digital art from Andy
| Warhol, and they were throwing in the computer for free.
| Apparently there is a lot of it that they still haven't sorted
| through.
|
| I don't know anything about art, I was just bummed it wasn't a
| cheap retro computer.
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| Yeah I have a couple of commodores in my storage left there for
| 25 years, probably even more, I can't even be bothered to make
| time to go there to throw them away
| OnlyMortal wrote:
| You might check capacitors and it's possible the power supply
| is bad.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| If they're Commodore 64's you definitely don't want the use
| the stock power supplies. Their voltages can drift and can
| destroy otherwise working hardware.
| leptons wrote:
| Please don't throw them away. Someone will be more than happy
| to take them off your hands. They are like gold to some
| people. If you're in the Los Angeles area I'd pay you to "go
| there" to let me take them off your hands.
| omneity wrote:
| Really cool find, but what does "original digital copy" mean in
| this context?
|
| Would a duplicated file count still? Would a screenshot (for
| argument's sake) not count?
| kfarr wrote:
| For arguments sake, could it mean the arrangement of specific
| atoms on the first storage medium for the digital file?
| Therefore a duplicated copy or screenshot would not count?
| philistine wrote:
| It means that we previously had crude photographs of screens
| taken during the event. Those are the pictures you see in the
| article. You can even see the pixel arrangement of the CRT
| display in the pictures.
|
| What has been found are the original Amiga files saved on a
| disk. They haven't been released to the public, or might never
| be depending on who buys them from the guy. He should just
| release them.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Isn't this sort of thing people would follow with the joke
| "someone just discovered filters in photoshop"? I'm reminded of
| AVGN's review of Plumbers don't Wear Ties.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Only if people are ignorant of the historical context. These
| images predate Photoshop by 5+ years.
| fluoridation wrote:
| I'm aware, but it's at the same level of quality. I don't see
| what's so special about the results of some guy fooling
| around with his computer's paint program.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| > a series of images was recovered from disks
|
| Does anyone know how exactly it was recovered? Or if raw dumps of
| the disks are available?
| empressplay wrote:
| See also this issue of Amiga World magazine (January 1986), with
| higher quality prints
|
| https://archive.org/details/amiga-world-1986-01/mode/2up
| philistine wrote:
| Even in this print magazine, they only have photographs of a
| CRT display. I'm looking forward to seeing the original saved
| files on the disk someday.
| dangan wrote:
| This guy missed the joke. Warhol is holding the mouse the same
| way a painter would hold a paintbrush:
| https://artofericwayne.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/vincen...
| virgulino wrote:
| "The World Premiere of the Amiga (1985, Andy Warhol, Debbie
| Harry): Possibly wanting to one-up the Apple Macintosh launch in
| 1984, the Amiga 1000 debuted at a black-tie event held at the
| Vivian Beaumont Theater at Lincoln Center in New York City on
| July 23rd, 1985. (...)"
|
| Warhol paints Debbie on stage:
|
| https://youtu.be/_QST1ZAJ29o?t=719
| philistine wrote:
| Keep in mind that the footage of the computer starting at 13:03
| has now been revealed from this article to be from an earlier
| rehearsal. Now I understand why there's this cheesy fly in
| effect!
| miles wrote:
| Neat to see a post here from Dave Farquhar's blog. His
| _Optimizing Windows for Games, Graphics and Multimedia_ ,
| published by O'Reilly at the turn of the century, was an early
| inspiration: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1565926773
| swayvil wrote:
| Andy got mental about art. That is, thinking was an important
| step for him, in his process. He went far down that road.
|
| Some artists don't do the mental thing so much. More of a
| conversation between just the hand and the beauty sense. Maybe a
| little mental, maybe no mental at all.
|
| The non-mental approach is more fulfilling, imo. A better high
| and a better product. What beauty I can create in 5 minutes
| scribbling takes a year to almost-do the same in code.
|
| (ok, the mental approach is pretty much just a big tease. It
| never really delivers. Lots of "neat" and "interesting" but it
| never really actually delivers the big punch. Sorry if that's
| harsh.)
|
| All respect to Andy tho. And it's nice to know that he shared
| that particular path with us. I wonder if he ever dabbled in
| code.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-05 23:00 UTC)