This is what happens when the public perception of good art is when it's realistic, have good shading, lighting, and looks "epic" like the popular movies and games :so-true:
Let's analyze this art for a moment. Who are these people supposed to be and what do they represent? What is the significance of the massive circular window that took up a great portion of the art? What emotion is it meant to convey? Of course, the answer to all of those are NOTHING, because THE CURTAIN IS BLUE.
It's good because the people, the architecture, the lighting, the shading, looks like something from a live action epic million dollar movie. Meaning, message, emotion? D-worderate nonsense.
I really, really want to agree, but if I didn't know this was AI-generated then I could assign all sorts of meaning to the imagery. This gets into questions surrounding authorial intent and it's going to be interesting to see how that discourse evolves.
But I'm a designer, not an artist. This shit is going to take my job either way.
I only did a quick skim of the article, so it's possible I missed it or am unfamiliar with this specific AI, but we don't even get to see the prompt or how he went about having the AI create this piece. It's completely possible that he does have reasoning for how it turned out and ideas on what the components of the piece mean to him. Just because the AI realized his piece rather than a paintbrush doesn't make him less of an artist.
If it's just a mishmash of different pieces put out without any meaning then obviously it's a lot less of an art piece and more of "hey it'd be cool to mix all this together"
Counterpoint: the idea that points should be made with vague symbols, cryptic allusions, and obtuse subtlety is literally a CIA op that's given generations of artists brainworms and defanged their work into a more cooptable form. If you have a point it should be written in bold print on a big mallet, the face of which is also a stamp with the point engraved on it, and you should whack your viewer in the face with that mallet until the point is literally embedded in their flesh, and only then will even the smallest percent of them actually get the point. Anything less than that and you're not trying to make a point, you're trying to look clever to an in-group of trained analysts who still need the point explained to them on the side which they will then pretend they figured out on their own to look clever themselves.
Learning that a lot of "modern" artists who make art "a 5 year old can make" often are actually skilled at "traditional" art who choose the direction they took helped dewormed my brain. Personally, I went to a museum of a local expressionist artist where his works are arranged chronologically, where I saw how he went from realistic portraiture to his iconic self-portraits.
Picasso is kind of a shithead but he's a good extreme example as he can paint like the old masters at such an early age (15), yet choose to make the stuff he's famous for because he was bored with realism.
edit: Seriously, just pick any artist you consider "modernist" and google "[artist name] early work".
This is what happens when the public perception of good art is when it's realistic, have good shading, lighting, and looks "epic" like the popular movies and games :so-true:
Let's analyze this art for a moment. Who are these people supposed to be and what do they represent? What is the significance of the massive circular window that took up a great portion of the art? What emotion is it meant to convey? Of course, the answer to all of those are NOTHING, because THE CURTAIN IS BLUE.
It's good because the people, the architecture, the lighting, the shading, looks like something from a live action epic million dollar movie. Meaning, message, emotion? D-worderate nonsense.
Entartete Kunst shall have the last final laugh.
I really, really want to agree, but if I didn't know this was AI-generated then I could assign all sorts of meaning to the imagery. This gets into questions surrounding authorial intent and it's going to be interesting to see how that discourse evolves.
But I'm a designer, not an artist. This shit is going to take my job either way.
I only did a quick skim of the article, so it's possible I missed it or am unfamiliar with this specific AI, but we don't even get to see the prompt or how he went about having the AI create this piece. It's completely possible that he does have reasoning for how it turned out and ideas on what the components of the piece mean to him. Just because the AI realized his piece rather than a paintbrush doesn't make him less of an artist.
If it's just a mishmash of different pieces put out without any meaning then obviously it's a lot less of an art piece and more of "hey it'd be cool to mix all this together"
Counterpoint: the idea that points should be made with vague symbols, cryptic allusions, and obtuse subtlety is literally a CIA op that's given generations of artists brainworms and defanged their work into a more cooptable form. If you have a point it should be written in bold print on a big mallet, the face of which is also a stamp with the point engraved on it, and you should whack your viewer in the face with that mallet until the point is literally embedded in their flesh, and only then will even the smallest percent of them actually get the point. Anything less than that and you're not trying to make a point, you're trying to look clever to an in-group of trained analysts who still need the point explained to them on the side which they will then pretend they figured out on their own to look clever themselves.
I know this is true abiut art but I have no idea how to exercise such brainworms lol
Learning that a lot of "modern" artists who make art "a 5 year old can make" often are actually skilled at "traditional" art who choose the direction they took helped dewormed my brain. Personally, I went to a museum of a local expressionist artist where his works are arranged chronologically, where I saw how he went from realistic portraiture to his iconic self-portraits.
Picasso is kind of a shithead but he's a good extreme example as he can paint like the old masters at such an early age (15), yet choose to make the stuff he's famous for because he was bored with realism.
edit: Seriously, just pick any artist you consider "modernist" and google "[artist name] early work".
Picasso is cool, I like his one about the US doing warcrimes. Possibly cause I can just look at it and tell what it's about lol.
:stalin-approval: Exposing the evil of the Amerikkka is always good
You mean Franco doing warcrimes?
No not guernica, he has one about the US massacring civilians in Korea too
Which one?
https://peacehistory-usfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/massacre-in-korea-picasso1200.jpg
The victims staring at the viewer with palms open. Damn this is powerful.
Damn. He goes hard.
deleted by creator
Asking that question seems easy enough, but answering it...feels like I just end up at "maybe?" for everything lol
deleted by creator
POV is an interesting avenue to consider, I hadn't really thought of that. I'll watch the video after werk ty 😊
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
ok but it does look good and that's enough for me