Monet was a terrible artist it seems

[Kelliezgirl]

https://medium.com/full-frame/the-a...tells-us-about-art-critics-today-5c6642d720f9

Seemed relevant considering how fast people are to dismiss anything AI as "slop" or worse.

 

[liliput1]

I've heard a couple comedians write satirical material about how the impressionists couldn't even paint a realistic person or a building, so what was the point of them?

They are kind of crap, but a very specific and wonderful kind.

 

[WaxPhilosophic]

I've heard a couple comedians write satirical material about how the impressionists couldn't even paint a realistic person or a building, so what was the point of them?

I read that as "impressionists couldn't even paint a realistic person or a building, so what was the [wait for it...] pointillism."

 

[TheLobster]

Since we know now that Gettysburg address was actually AI-generated, I see no reason why we shouldn't call the entirety of Monet's creative output slop

 

[liliput1]

Since we know now that Gettysburg address was actually AI-generated, I see no reason why we shouldn't call the entirety of Monet's creative output slop

Well I recall being told in college that The Lord of the Rings was derivative and boring…

 

[TheRedChamber]

Monet also made lousy violins.

 

[CalBishForNow]

• We did it! We proved that peoples' opinions of things vary greatly depending on how their input is primed!

Oh, wait, no, psychologists have written about that for over 50 years.

• OK then, we proved that impressionism is a unique, controversial art style!

Well, that was proven when Monet was alive. "Impressionism" was originally a slur by fans of more traditional art. But anyways.

It might be interesting to pick an obscure work by a celebrated artist, generate a few AI images in the artist's style, and ask people which one is real and which isn't. Or to see if AI can imitate one artist or style better than another. Or ask actual critics any of the above and see how their opinions differ from each other or the general public. But all this proves is that randos on X/Bluesky/whatever will happily spout bullshit endlessly. I hope no one was surprised by that either.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

• We did it! We proved that peoples' opinions of things vary greatly depending on how their input is primed!

Oh, wait, no, psychologists have written about that for over 50 years.

• OK then, we proved that impressionism is a unique, controversial art style!

Well, that was proven when Monet was alive. "Impressionism" was originally a slur by fans of more traditional art. But anyways.

It might be interesting to pick an obscure work by a celebrated artist, generate a few AI images in the artist's style, and ask people which one is real and which isn't. Or to see if AI can imitate one artist or style better than another. Or ask actual critics any of the above and see how their opinions differ from each other or the general public. But all this proves is that randos on X/Bluesky/whatever will happily spout bullshit endlessly. I hope no one was surprised by that either.

My favorite part was all the people complaining the supposed AI generated picture had no soul. That seems to be one of the default meaningless criticisms applied to it.

 

[lovecraft68]

After that shit head Warhol's 32 soup can cash grab was considered art, I gave up trying to understand the subject.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Much of visual art in the last couple of centuries is much more about who created it than what it is. A good deal of the prestige of such work comes from someone of authority in the art world proclaiming its "value".

And that's all twice as true for abstract art. I still remember a couple of scandals when certain national galleries lauded some abstract paintings that turned out to be the work of infants.

But those circles sure as hell love their glamour and their sense of spiritual and aesthetic superiority.