> “I’m no artist but a real Monet actually looks like a real place…”
Some people have no clue about the concept of Impressionism.
Someone Shared a Real Monet Painting as AI and Asked for Critiques
31–40 of 71 posts
Re: Someone Shared a Real Monet Painting as AI and Asked for Critiques
#32Rarely do people get the right takeaway from this effect. Take a normal bottle of red wine and some top tier, swap them around so the ordinary is in the expensive bottle and vice versa. Serve them. People prefer the ordinary wine in the expensive bottle. Bad takeaway: taste is meaningless. Good takeaway: qualia depends on many contextual cues beyond the obvious. Part of the appreciation of Monet is the fact that it w…
Exactly - context is everything in art, in how it's experienced and how it is created. I think it's important to note that a jpg of Monet is not fully experiencing the painting in any sense. Colours will not be accurately captured, the texture, the framing, the scale - it's sort of like getting a heavily watered down version of the expensive wine, saying it's cheap wine, and asking what people think.
> Colours will not be accurately captured
Even looking at the real thing, as most pigments degrade with age. There is no way of experiencing it as it was painted.
Re: Someone Shared a Real Monet Painting as AI and Asked for Critiques
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Art isn't special, as far as I can tell, it's just a shared cultural perception. This. The Mona Lisa didn't get famous until it got stolen. Famous paintings are just 3D NFTs for the wealthy elite, doesn't mean they're more beautiful than paintings made by noname authors.
The Mona Lisa was famous before the 20th C because da Vinci carried it around for 20 years saying “this is the greatest painting I have ever done”. That kept it famous for 500 years. It then gained modern new media celebrity by getting nicked (and because the person who stole it did not do it for cash but because he thought it was the greatest painting ever) So it’s hard for people to judge brilliance themselves, but…
Yeah, but da Vinci's art sucks. It was good for its time, when the entire world population was 400m and literally 90% of those people were farmers and only the very well-to-do had the time and resources to practice a non-practical craft. Now we have a population of 8 billion, everyone has access to incredible art tools for a fraction of a month's minimum wage, there is an absolute wealth of information including books and in-depth video tutorials for everyone to learn from, and countless millions of people have time to try their hand at art. The quality of art produced today absolutely blows away the Mona Lisa, which might as well be garbage. The only reason people pretend to like it and most of the rest of the 'fine art' is an emperor has no clothes schtick, a sort of snobby social game where everyone has to act like it's so special and good because that makes you cultured, even though there are literally millions of art pieces produced today of vastly superior quality but which are not famous.
Re: Someone Shared a Real Monet Painting as AI and Asked for Critiques
#34People want importance. To feel, or more accurately, to show that they "Know". That they "Care". They are experts in this or that. They are this, they are that. Whatever it is they are "selling" or to whichever group they want to belong to - they play that part they conceive is theirs.
I love exercises like this - they expose this. Float it right up to the surface. It's poetic.
Re: Someone Shared a Real Monet Painting as AI and Asked for Critiques
#35Rarely do people get the right takeaway from this effect. Take a normal bottle of red wine and some top tier, swap them around so the ordinary is in the expensive bottle and vice versa. Serve them. People prefer the ordinary wine in the expensive bottle. Bad takeaway: taste is meaningless. Good takeaway: qualia depends on many contextual cues beyond the obvious. Part of the appreciation of Monet is the fact that it w…
I suspect this particular painting wouldn't do particularly well anytime you remove the framing of "this is a genuine Monet". It's not one of Monet's best. Monet would almost certainly agree.
Some of the comments reflect this, critiquing the art for what it is, not for who it is from. But at the same time a lot of them clearly go in with the mindset that they don't like it, then try to rationalize that with art critique.
Re: Someone Shared a Real Monet Painting as AI and Asked for Critiques
#36People were not judging the painting in isolation, they were judging the story attached to it. Once they heard AI every brushstroke became suspicious.
Even without hearing it. Just look at how often people throw "AI slop" around to disparage comments they don’t like here, and the list of bullshit "tells" that supposedly identify AI posts. The simple fact that what they see could have been made by a LLM pushes some people to be cynical, worse versions of themselves.
Re: Someone Shared a Real Monet Painting as AI and Asked for Critiques
#37Rarely do people get the right takeaway from this effect. Take a normal bottle of red wine and some top tier, swap them around so the ordinary is in the expensive bottle and vice versa. Serve them. People prefer the ordinary wine in the expensive bottle. Bad takeaway: taste is meaningless. Good takeaway: qualia depends on many contextual cues beyond the obvious. Part of the appreciation of Monet is the fact that it w…
I think far closer is “people want to be part of the in-group”.
Closer yet is “look at me! I am sexy and cool! Have sex with me!”.
“Taste” is social signalling, end to end, so strike me down.
I say this as someone who gets writeups of their work in design magazines fairly often - and I am not a designer - it’s just like dressing a theatre set with the correct objects to signal the thing you want to signal.
Fuck, I fed people cat food at a dinner party when I was 20 and they all said it was delicious pâté.
All artifice.
Re: Someone Shared a Real Monet Painting as AI and Asked for Critiques
#38It could be the painting is real and those comments were written by AI
Re: Someone Shared a Real Monet Painting as AI and Asked for Critiques
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Mona Lisa was famous before the 20th C because da Vinci carried it around for 20 years saying “this is the greatest painting I have ever done”. That kept it famous for 500 years. It then gained modern new media celebrity by getting nicked (and because the person who stole it did not do it for cash but because he thought it was the greatest painting ever) So it’s hard for people to judge brilliance themselves, but…
Yeah, but da Vinci's art sucks. It was good for its time, when the entire world population was 400m and literally 90% of those people were farmers and only the very well-to-do had the time and resources to practice a non-practical craft. Now we have a population of 8 billion, everyone has access to incredible art tools for a fraction of a month's minimum wage, there is an absolute wealth of information including book…
> The quality of art produced today absolutely blows away the Mona Lisa
I don’t like the Mona Lisa, but this is shortsighted. I agree that more people would tend to generate more instances of good art, it has nothing to do with the tools or the technical aspects. The point of art is beauty and emotion. Better tools do not always help and in fact modern art is often famously opaque and inaccessible.
> The only reason people pretend to like it and most of the rest of the 'fine art' is an emperor has no clothes schtick, a sort of snobby cultural pressure where everyone has to act like it's so special and good because that makes you cultured
It’s all subjective. People liking something you don’t does not make them brainwashed, and it does not make you better.
If you are genuinely interested in this, you could have a read at this https://dynomight.net/bourdieu/ . It’s a bit more subtle than you say.
Re: Someone Shared a Real Monet Painting as AI and Asked for Critiques
#40Rarely do people get the right takeaway from this effect. Take a normal bottle of red wine and some top tier, swap them around so the ordinary is in the expensive bottle and vice versa. Serve them. People prefer the ordinary wine in the expensive bottle. Bad takeaway: taste is meaningless. Good takeaway: qualia depends on many contextual cues beyond the obvious. Part of the appreciation of Monet is the fact that it w…
The point is that "part" of the appreciation appears here to be all of the appreciation.
Yes, the context of who created a piece of art will have an affect on how you interpret it. But if the question of who/what created it can literally flip your interpretation between "it's genius" and "it's garbage", then that's the only thing you care about. All the actual characteristics of the thing itself are irrelevant. And if literally the only thing that matters about art is who created it, what exactly is the point of art?