Dynamic Painting — inspired by the human eye and then endlessly morphed by a computer CPU — is in no way True Art.  It is computer modeling, but there is no driving human spirit in the end result.

Sometimes the images are glamorous, sometimes they seem psychedelic. At times, they may even seem to momentarily fall asleep, but only to regenerate their power, and strike once again with a new mesmerizing recombination — luring the viewer into a parallel, Nirvana-like universe of art… It’s like you keep watching for a comet to streak across the sky but, in this case, a possibility of discovering a new wonderful event on your screen is immeasurably higher.

Here’s how Dynamic Painting works in action.

You start with a base image, and the computer transcends the rest in an ongoing morphing:

Dynamic Painting is fun, if not interesting, but it is not art because the sensitivity of the human hand in context is missing. 

A computer can render endless images but only the human aesthetic knows when to stop.


  1. I feel like dissceting it rather than enjoying…bottom line – I don’t think I like it.

  2. Totally, David!
    Dynamic Painting has no context and it relies entirely upon the viewer to invest it with meaning. It can sometimes render approximate facsimiles of artistic vision but the chilling thing is that there’s nothing behind it.

  3. Katha —
    When I first head of the idea, I sort of thought it was neat. Then I saw the method in the proving and I immediately fell way. It is antiseptic art with no human understanding. It’s computer rendering gone mad!

  4. That’s the right call, Dananjay, because what you say is inherently irrefutable: How can we invest meaning and significance in something that is forever changing before our eyes? This is an exercise in computer code. We must leave human understanding out of its ongoing equations.

  5. Yes, David, unless we see it in its totality it’ll just be a matter of faith and surface appreciation. It’s a glorified lava lamp.

Comments are closed.