- most people's perception of art is heavily affected by the framing (and to a lot of people ai = bad, and so they start seeing technical issues with it that could /never/ be made by Monet despite it being a Monet)
- but I think the critique here is more: even if someone recreated a Monet stroke-for-stroke, what's the value of this copy? I think the artist's personal life and context around the painting adds so much more to it compared to just being a pretty painting (perhaps this is the single most important part of what makes a painting interesting and valuable)
I visited the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam many years ago and seeing the actual painting, with its depth and heavy use of thick paint, was very interesting. The physical painting is impressive. JPGs of it on my phone, not so much. AI-generated art will never be of that level.
i think the thread shows:
- most people's perception of art is heavily affected by the framing (and to a lot of people ai = bad, and so they start seeing technical issues with it that could /never/ be made by Monet despite it being a Monet)
- but I think the critique here is more: even if someone recreated a Monet stroke-for-stroke, what's the value of this copy? I think the artist's personal life and context around the painting adds so much more to it compared to just being a pretty painting (perhaps this is the single most important part of what makes a painting interesting and valuable)
I visited the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam many years ago and seeing the actual painting, with its depth and heavy use of thick paint, was very interesting. The physical painting is impressive. JPGs of it on my phone, not so much. AI-generated art will never be of that level.
Why? Generate the art and then attach a paintbrush to a robotic arm.
I imagine any real experts in art would just recognize the painting and so didn't make the "cut"