This is Hacker News. I can't think of a better way of someone "hacking" something (i.e. using cracked glass in a novel way) to create something new, unexpected, and incredible.
I think this is probably the best idiomatic example of the type of story that I think belongs on HN that I've seen in quite some time.
As an artist, this isn't incredible. Arranging lights/darks to copy a photo is high-school tier. Money for food + shelter + materials and I could do this in a month, as with anyone who can copy a black and white photo.
I'm serious. The world is rife with things the "don't seem like a big deal" only in retrospect, when people downplay innovations as "no big deal/anyone can do that" when something comes on the scene that a lot of people connect with.
Heck, I feel like your response is the art equivalent of this top comment on the original Dropbox Show HN submission by Drew Houston:
> For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
> Well then, why didn't you come up with it first?
This is never a good question. It doesn't take much imagination to substitute X in "Why didn't you come up with X first?" with something of no value. Obviously, if someone finds something to be of no value, then they would not have come up with it, would they. Or at least they would not have pursued it.
Rather, one must give reasons for believing something has value. (And I seriously doubt this is "new", though novelty is itself irrelevant. Valueless things can be "novel", too.)
IMO, this glass technique is maybe interesting, but it is also sort of gimmicky, at least as presented.
He's replying to a post that says it's "new, unexpected, and incredible" and he specifically only addresses whether it's incredible. I think, especially in the spirit of "assume the strongest interpretation", you can probably assume that an artist is well aware of the value of novelty and is quite specifically not disputing it.
Obligatory reminder that the Dropbox thread ends with "I only hope that I was able to give you a sneak preview of some of the potential criticisms you may receive. Best of luck to you!" The comment didn't dunk on Dropbox as an idea, but pointed out that they would need to highlight their moat wrt copycat competitors in order to convince sceptical investors.
The artist in question is presumably not raising VC money, so concerns about long-term viability of the niche if other artists start imitating the style probably don't apply. (Maybe it's even the reverse situation, where increased production of cracked-glass art raises the profile of the trailblazer and increases the demand for "originals.")
Calling observational realism high school tier while working in 3D (as per your profile) is hilarious given your medium automates the very thing you are belittling and is literally taught these days at elementary school!
Any serious artist would respect technical competency. I guess that says a lot about your credentials “as an artist”.
There is an interesting AI point here: the US Copyright Office recently tried to argue that images generated by a model could not be copyrighted, no matter how detailed the prompt nor how curated, because the artist did not envision the exact output and thus it is merely the output of an uncreative mechanical process. Clearly OP does not envision the exact way in which glass will shatter or frost or crack, and has to repeatedly update and revise based on what happens; are his glass portraits mere mechanical outputs and uncopyrightable?
Idk if that is a quote or a rule? but it is dismissive in a weird way.
It is fair to say dont post “this is turning into xyz” as it doesnt contribute to the discussion. And that is fair. i could have explained why rather than dismiss the post.
I make no good hacker claims but i didnt find this interesting. I am in the minority it seems.
I did and every example used is pushin 20 years old. Platforms and communities absolutely change in that time span.
Is saying it is like reddit here useful and break earlier guidelines, yes. But again, the dismissal wording is weird. It is a, you are wrong because your opinion is wrong which ironically is pretty reddit back in 08 and today.
To be constructive, that rule about reddit could be removed with the earlier rules still catching the trope. Idk why it was added originally but I suppose it was a different time 17 years ago.
Yeesh struck a nerve for some folks. I agree too much AI slop and am also tired of it.
I didnt like this because the title looks clickbaity and the actual website content is not compelling. The landing page as far asi can tell doesnt show any glass painting. Maybe i didnt dig deep enough.
