but when it’s all this mystical nonsense about the human soul or whatever
This really sounds like the attitude of someone who really doesn't like art? What is art if not an expression of humanity, the emotion of the artist and their experiences bringing them to make a particular piece of art that also inspires genuine emotion in you when you just stand there and look at it?
It doesn't sound like the kind of thing that someone who really enjoys and appreciates art would ever think. When I look at any art at the gallery I am connected with the artist that made it, who stood or sat in front of it making it, sometimes hundreds of years ago, who had a variety of life experiences vastly different to my own and made the piece with the specific intents. What is there in AI pictures that can be considered art? "Ooo this algorithm is quite good" ? That's it. There's no expression of the "human soul" because none of the weight of being human is behind it.
Now, is it an insult? I don't know about that. But it is pretty naff by comparison. Calling it soulless seems quite accurate to me at least.
When I look at any art at the gallery I am connected with the artist that made it, who stood or sat in front of it making it, sometimes hundreds of years ago, who had a variety of life experiences vastly different to my own and made the piece with the specific intents.
ok i can definitely say i've never done this
like analyzing techniques being used for whatever purpose i can do (although mostly i just go "wow cool art")
Try it sometime. You're not just looking at a pretty picture, you're looking at something someone poured emotion into and intended to draw out various emotions in you, either with colour choice, aggression or softness, framing, and so on.
It is woo but that doesn't make it not real? We are emotional animals and all of the above are emotional experiences. If they really wanted to break it down into some sort of laboratory understanding of the process it is a bunch of synapses firing off in the brain mixed with all the bodily chemicals and hormones and organs elsewhere in the body firing off their various influences and also being influenced by those synapses. It's real to the extent that it's an emotional reaction and experience we are capable of having to art, to history, to colour, to writing, even to specific arrangements of textures.
I've seen a few of Rothko's paintings up close and what struck me when I was standing and taking them in were the textures, these are not just images they are 3d objects and everything about them from the speed of a brush stroke to the layers imparts different feelings, you can see a fast aggressive stroke, you can see thick layered up mountains of paint, licks and crevices and blobs as much as 1 to 2cms deep at times. Your brain starts building patterns, trying to understand the image in front of it, you experience so much more than just "pretty picture".
One of the things many people need is to have this taught to them, I think part of being able to understand and engage with art is being able to take this in. For some they simply do not have the thought, they can't engage with the art at an experiential level because they've never been shown how, because ultimately doing so is an inward thing engaged by a thought process. The viewer needs to fire off the first synapses to get the entire system firing correctly.
Idk if this is a real quote, but I've heard it said that Da Vinci noted that there are three kinds of people. Those who see, those who see when shown, and those who do not see. I know from experience that I mainly reside among the latter two of those categories in terms of the extent to which I'm capable of engaging with this kind of thing. And I suspect that's probably true of the person you're responding to.
So, the thing is, that almost every art piece worth paying attention to is deeply connected to a moment in history, to politics, to religion, to culture.
Artemisia Gentileschi's Judith beheading Holofernes was created by a woman who was sexually assaulted and then humiliated by the courts when she tried to get justice. It depicts a scene from the bible where a woman uses cunning to assassinate a foreign general leading an army against her people. Artemisia was exceptional as a woman who was able to make a career of fine art in a time where that was extremely uncommon.
Artemisia's Judith Beheading Holofernes is part of a rich tradition of depicting this scene that stretches from the distant past to the modern day. By studying these paintings you can see the progression of European art through many phases. Judith Beheading Holofernes also has an important cultural role in representing how women were viewed and treated at different points in European history.
There is so much complex history and culture tied up in this theme. There are dozens of versions in dozens of artistic styles. Looking through them you can learn important things about the clothing of the time, the evolution of artistic techniques, even the evolution of European swords.
AI can't do any of this. It just slavishly remixes what was fed in to it. It's completely devoid of semantic meaning.
This really sounds like the attitude of someone who really doesn't like art? What is art if not an expression of humanity, the emotion of the artist and their experiences bringing them to make a particular piece of art that also inspires genuine emotion in you when you just stand there and look at it?
It doesn't sound like the kind of thing that someone who really enjoys and appreciates art would ever think. When I look at any art at the gallery I am connected with the artist that made it, who stood or sat in front of it making it, sometimes hundreds of years ago, who had a variety of life experiences vastly different to my own and made the piece with the specific intents. What is there in AI pictures that can be considered art? "Ooo this algorithm is quite good" ? That's it. There's no expression of the "human soul" because none of the weight of being human is behind it.
Now, is it an insult? I don't know about that. But it is pretty naff by comparison. Calling it soulless seems quite accurate to me at least.
deleted by creator
:cringe:
(most of those have less value than even the worst ai stuff as far as im concerned)
deleted by creator
reddit moment
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
ok i can definitely say i've never done this
like analyzing techniques being used for whatever purpose i can do (although mostly i just go "wow cool art")
but not this whole connection thing
Try it sometime. You're not just looking at a pretty picture, you're looking at something someone poured emotion into and intended to draw out various emotions in you, either with colour choice, aggression or softness, framing, and so on.
deleted by creator
It is woo but that doesn't make it not real? We are emotional animals and all of the above are emotional experiences. If they really wanted to break it down into some sort of laboratory understanding of the process it is a bunch of synapses firing off in the brain mixed with all the bodily chemicals and hormones and organs elsewhere in the body firing off their various influences and also being influenced by those synapses. It's real to the extent that it's an emotional reaction and experience we are capable of having to art, to history, to colour, to writing, even to specific arrangements of textures.
I've seen a few of Rothko's paintings up close and what struck me when I was standing and taking them in were the textures, these are not just images they are 3d objects and everything about them from the speed of a brush stroke to the layers imparts different feelings, you can see a fast aggressive stroke, you can see thick layered up mountains of paint, licks and crevices and blobs as much as 1 to 2cms deep at times. Your brain starts building patterns, trying to understand the image in front of it, you experience so much more than just "pretty picture".
One of the things many people need is to have this taught to them, I think part of being able to understand and engage with art is being able to take this in. For some they simply do not have the thought, they can't engage with the art at an experiential level because they've never been shown how, because ultimately doing so is an inward thing engaged by a thought process. The viewer needs to fire off the first synapses to get the entire system firing correctly.
Idk if this is a real quote, but I've heard it said that Da Vinci noted that there are three kinds of people. Those who see, those who see when shown, and those who do not see. I know from experience that I mainly reside among the latter two of those categories in terms of the extent to which I'm capable of engaging with this kind of thing. And I suspect that's probably true of the person you're responding to.
So, the thing is, that almost every art piece worth paying attention to is deeply connected to a moment in history, to politics, to religion, to culture.
Artemisia Gentileschi's Judith beheading Holofernes was created by a woman who was sexually assaulted and then humiliated by the courts when she tried to get justice. It depicts a scene from the bible where a woman uses cunning to assassinate a foreign general leading an army against her people. Artemisia was exceptional as a woman who was able to make a career of fine art in a time where that was extremely uncommon.
Artemisia's Judith Beheading Holofernes is part of a rich tradition of depicting this scene that stretches from the distant past to the modern day. By studying these paintings you can see the progression of European art through many phases. Judith Beheading Holofernes also has an important cultural role in representing how women were viewed and treated at different points in European history.
There is so much complex history and culture tied up in this theme. There are dozens of versions in dozens of artistic styles. Looking through them you can learn important things about the clothing of the time, the evolution of artistic techniques, even the evolution of European swords.
AI can't do any of this. It just slavishly remixes what was fed in to it. It's completely devoid of semantic meaning.