What is this H@*D-ON everyone has against AI art?!? (Page 11 of 11)
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: I argue that its all art. Its a spectrum. From good to crap. Always has been. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not everyone is capable of making or even recognizing good art. That's why there's so much crappy stuff out there. That's why we have Justin Bieber. I agree 100% that "digital artists" (pre-AI) are doomed to extinction. As are illustrators who made stuff like Sci-Fi book covers or medical book illustrations. They will be replaced like entry level coders and paralegals. AI creates stuff that looks just like theirs. Makes one question whether it was art to begin with. AI can't make a great painting. It makes images and illustrations. Here's an idea: Post the greatest art you ever created. If everything is art, then nothing is art. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Dumbing down art "for the masses" is what the Communists and the Nazis did. Social Realism was their favorite. Looks a lot like AI stuff. The intent is to tear down Individual Creation in favor of something for all the masses.  No, the intent is to create digital tools that happen to be able to similar things to what humans can do. Which sucks for humans who make a living doing them. Its not a conspiracy, its just that, digital imagery, sound, and video is something formulaic that an algorithm can easily produce, since in those are realms where "close enough" actually works. Unlike a bridge where 'close enough' falls down. With pop music, and art, and movies, how much "ART" is really left in there to begin with, vs. a money sucking human produced corporate slop machine? That's what they are after. They aren't going to build robots to hand paint shitty pictures to sell at the flea market. At least I don't think they are.
|
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Godwins law? This is a religious discussion afterall. No, the intent is to create digital tools that happen to be able to similar things to what humans can do. Which sucks for humans who make a living doing them. Its not a conspiracy, its just that, digital imagery, sound, and video is something formulaic that an algorithm can easily produce, since in those are realms where "close enough" actually works. Unlike a bridge where 'close enough' falls down. With pop music, and art, and movies, how much "ART" is really left in there to begin with, vs. a money sucking human produced corporate slop machine? That's what they are after. They aren't going to build robots to hand paint shitty pictures to sell at the flea market. At least I don't think they are. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Dumbing down art "for the masses" is what the Communists and the Nazis did. Social Realism was their favorite. Looks a lot like AI stuff. The intent is to tear down Individual Creation in favor of something for all the masses. No, the intent is to create digital tools that happen to be able to similar things to what humans can do. Which sucks for humans who make a living doing them. Its not a conspiracy, its just that, digital imagery, sound, and video is something formulaic that an algorithm can easily produce, since in those are realms where "close enough" actually works. Unlike a bridge where 'close enough' falls down. With pop music, and art, and movies, how much "ART" is really left in there to begin with, vs. a money sucking human produced corporate slop machine? That's what they are after. They aren't going to build robots to hand paint shitty pictures to sell at the flea market. At least I don't think they are. Post some art that you have created. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: If everything is art, then nothing is art. 2) Just because things are art, doesn't mean they are good art. Sort of like saying "if everyone who drives a car is driving, then there is no such thing as good driving". No, clearly that's not true. Or how pretty much anyone can participate in sports, but that doesn't make them good athletes. |
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: 1) I never said 'everything' is art. Seems to me you are now doing what you accused me of doing earlier. 2) Just because things are art, doesn't mean they are good art. Sort of like saying "if everyone who drives a car is driving, then there is no such thing as good driving". No, clearly that's not true. Or how pretty much anyone can participate in sports, but that doesn't make them good athletes. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: If everything is art, then nothing is art. 2) Just because things are art, doesn't mean they are good art. Sort of like saying "if everyone who drives a car is driving, then there is no such thing as good driving". No, clearly that's not true. Or how pretty much anyone can participate in sports, but that doesn't make them good athletes. You literally said that. You said: “I argue that its all art.” |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You literally said that. You said: "I argue that its all art." "Everything" isn't art (people taking random pictures of their daily lives to send to their friends in family, is not art, for example...at least normally). |
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Why? Sounds like an irrelevant red herring to me. I already stated I'm not an artist. You don't need centralistic gate keeping to discuss what is happening in the world. Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Post some art that you have created. You don't need centralistic gate keeping to discuss what is happening in the world. Interesting “I’m not an artist” insight into the whole “it’s all art” philosophy. The disdain is apparent. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: "its all", as in, the examples of things on the spectrum of things we were discussing. "Everything" isn't art (people taking random pictures of their daily lives to send to their friends in family, is not art, for example...at least normally). Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You literally said that. You said: "I argue that its all art." "Everything" isn't art (people taking random pictures of their daily lives to send to their friends in family, is not art, for example...at least normally). Gatekeeper! |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Interesting "I'm not an artist" insight into the whole "it's all art" philosophy. The disdain is apparent. We are just as smart as you, and just as capable of having valid opinions, and you hate it. Reminds me of "I am the science" Dr. Fauchi absolutely hating the fact that common people with unrelated degrees and even with high school diploma's knew he was lying at various points of Covid. Don't take yourself too seriously. Your opinion, just like mine, is just that. An opinion. I will grant, that due to your technical skills, would be a better judge at what painting takes more skill to produce than another similar painting than I would. No question about it. For this reason I promise I'll never sign up to judge an art contest. |
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Gatekeeper! When I take a picture of some bullshit I bought to show my dad, I literally don't think about how it looks from an artistic perspective. I want to make sure he can see the thing. There is no psychology involved. There is no aesthetics involved. Its a tool I am using to show him a thing that I can't hand him right now. Generally people who produce things for public consumption do think about those things. Even medical illustrators, I assume, consider various factors as to what colors, contrasts, and techniques to best show the image. You may say those are not "artistic considerations" since their purpose is different, which is fine, and that's your opinion. Comic books and scifi covers? How are these people not putting artistic thought into their images? Isn't that part of their job? Think about other disciplines: Acting is an art. Clearly. Stand up comedy is an art. Public speaking is an art. Heck, you can even make an announcement at a conference in a creative way (toss in a joke to liven up a dry meeting, even if the punchline of a joke is eye-rolling lame, etc), and it can be art, all be it, very simplistic. If you are simply talking to someone and an open mike catches your conversation, well, that's not art, even if what you are saying is pretty eloquent and intelligent. Most dialog day to day is not art due to its purpose being almost entirely functional. These are practical, mundane things that everyone does all the time. I think really what we are arguing about is the dividing line between "fine art", and functional art. AI can be used to do both. Key word being USED. Asking if AI can create art on its own is a whole different ball of wax to think about that I don't have a strong position on just yet. I've not given it too much though to be honest. But for the sake of discussion, for the time being, I'll agree with you that part of the definitions of art that have been used throughout history is that it is created by humans. The argument that AI generated art is art is still consistent with these definitions since humans can use, and have historically used, all sorts of tools to create art. And also, "fine art" doesn't necessarily mean good art. Or that it took a skilled person to produce. Just like technical art, which has a very limited scope and purpose, doesn't mean the person doing it isn't an artist. |
Joined:
Dec 2025
Posts:
570
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By M1907Sling: I don't get it. I love an awesomesauce image/video, and I don't care if it came from some starving artist laboring in his cloister for years, or some greasy, bespectacled cheetos-munchin' nerd plugging prompts into his 87,000 gigabyte desktop. WHO FUKKIN' CARES?!?!?!?  I believe even our own resident Danish professor said much the same thing. Wuffo?  For someone with marginal artistic talent like myself, being able to plug prompts into a compuker & get beautiful artwork out is akin to magic. But if you ask some people around here, you'd think they were trying to sell you watered-down gin and rusty Rooski ammo at full price. H'ep me out here; why do some think AI art is the worst thing since Commienism and jock itch? https://hasanjasim.online/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/ai-generated-art-l.jpg https://static1.s123-cdn-static-a.com/uploads/8008554/2000_64948d3a9af25.jpg https://imgv3.fotor.com/images/gallery/beautiful-machine-girl-with-blue-eyes-created-by-Fotor-ai-art-creator.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/09/01/business/00roose-1/merlin_212276709_3104aef5-3dc4-4288-bb44-9e5624db0b37-superJumbo.jpg Doesn't compare with the Sistine Chapel and the likes. JMHO |
|
I got $1.09 from my stock photography photos on Adobe stock, for contributing to training Adobe's AI model. that pretty much says it all right there. AI killed microstock photography. It was fun in the early days to make AI stuff, especially when it turned out weird now I'm just bitter about it. . . .  
|
|
Originally Posted By guns762: Really like that 1st image. Very Aztecish.  Originally Posted By guns762: Originally Posted By Klee: Not me. I created these with ComfyUI on my RTX 3090 Ti. Yes I created it, the AI model didn't do shit until I told it what to do. It is just a tool and depending on who is using it makes a huge difference, some no talent random person using AI yea it will be slop but someone with a little talent can create really good stuff with AI. https://i.imgur.com/2IZj4He.png https://i.imgur.com/TI3HuA3.png https://i.imgur.com/qayKvUb.png https://i.imgur.com/lJG1khU.png https://i.imgur.com/q7KnrLI.png https://i.imgur.com/dGUvYpZ.png https://i.imgur.com/vB77BjN.png https://i.imgur.com/euvODHA.png https://i.imgur.com/n0Vrkjl.png I also created GD's perfect woman. https://i.imgur.com/HJfagDx.png Really like that 1st image. Very Aztecish. Thanks! 
|
|
Originally Posted By JQ66: Nice try but she has brown eyes. Should be green or blue. Originally Posted By JQ66: Nice try but she has brown eyes. Should be green or blue. Nope, I know a 25 year old woman that is a redhead that has brown eyes. Known her since she was born, the only person with red hair with brown eyes that I have ever known. Per AI:  "Among the global population of redheads, which comprises only 1-2% of people, approximately 10-15% have brown eyes. " |
|
The “Democratization” of Art and the common man… I am absolutely in favor of democratizing Art. That means placing value on Art as it once was within classical education. That means giving more people the tools, time, and education to develop their own artistic voice and skill. AI does none of that. AI works by directly stealing from the millions of actual art images it can access, literally stealing the blood and sweat of real artists, and bypassing the development of skill entirely by giving people a button that mimics the skill of others. True democratization breaks down the gatekeeping of galleries and elite academies so that more human voices can be heard. AI democratization functions as a dilution of art, where the unique, lived human experience is replaced by a statistical average of existing art. If the AI stops mimicking real artists, the "democratized" output loses its luster because the prompt writer hasn't actually cultivated an artistic voice. Prompt writers have just learned how to manipulate a search-and-synthesis engine. From the Renaissance and Today, an essay of a real artist’s concept and idea is a fascinating insight into their art-making and philosophy about their practice. Reading an AI prompt in the raw, without seeing the product? Vapid and vacuous. Zero value. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: The “Democratization” of Art and the common man… I am absolutely in favor of democratizing Art. That means placing value on Art as it once was within classical education. That means giving more people the tools, time, and education to develop their own artistic voice and skill. AI does none of that. AI works by directly stealing from the millions of actual art images it can access, literally stealing the blood and sweat of real artists, and bypassing the development of skill entirely by giving people a button that mimics the skill of others. True democratization breaks down the gatekeeping of galleries and elite academies so that more human voices can be heard. AI democratization functions as a dilution of art, where the unique, lived human experience is replaced by a statistical average of existing art. If the AI stops mimicking real artists, the "democratized" output loses its luster because the prompt writer hasn't actually cultivated an artistic voice. Prompt writers have just learned how to manipulate a search-and-synthesis engine. From the Renaissance and Today, an essay of a real artist’s concept and idea is a fascinating insight into their art-making and philosophy about their practice. Reading an AI prompt in the raw, without seeing the product? Vapid and vacuous. Zero value. Folk art might be a good historical analogy for what you’re/we’re saying. People who wanted art in their lives, wanted to express themselves and beautify their surroundings, but didn’t have Renoir or Caravaggio money to hang over the couch. But they could afford paints and brushes. So they painted what they could, how they could, and built a movement. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You’re confusing art with illustration. I truly appreciate the skill that it takes (used to take) to hand draw the illustrations in a biology textbook. That’s not art. Illustrations can definitely be art. You have such a narrow view of art that it blinds you. |
|
so what happened to the promised ART that is referenced in the title? I did see a few pictures of cocks - or as some would call it roosters roasting chickens. A red head nurse with horse without the required flock (clowder) of cats. You can't have true art without an artist. A person telling an artist what to do is a patron. |
The last thing a tyrant wants is their ideas to be judged on the battle field of truth and justice.
|
Originally Posted By Klee: Illustrations can definitely be art. You have such a narrow view of art that it blinds you. Originally Posted By Klee: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You’re confusing art with illustration. I truly appreciate the skill that it takes (used to take) to hand draw the illustrations in a biology textbook. That’s not art. Illustrations can definitely be art. You have such a narrow view of art that it blinds you. Words mean things as do definitions. So we can stop shadowboxing around it: What is art to you? Tell us what your definition of art is. I notice when those of us who are creative drop a definition it only triggers posts like yours. Tell us exactly what you think art is, and since this thread is about AI creating objects that some call art, why that is art. I’m not here to yuck anybody’s yum, but we do need to be clear about things. The floor is yours. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By Klee: Illustrations can definitely be art. Originally Posted By Klee: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You’re confusing art with illustration. I truly appreciate the skill that it takes (used to take) to hand draw the illustrations in a biology textbook. That’s not art. Illustrations can definitely be art. You have such a narrow view of art that it blinds you. Not in the least. Art and Illustration exist as a Venn diagram. I have never denied that. But AI does not ever create Art, it creates illustration. AI Illustration mimics real art (or human-created illustration) by stealing images from real artists. Everything AI “creates” comes from something a human made first. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: The "Democratization" of Art and the common man I am absolutely in favor of democratizing Art. That means placing value on Art as it once was within classical education. That means giving more people the tools, time, and education to develop their own artistic voice and skill. AI does none of that. AI works by directly stealing from the millions of actual art images it can access, literally stealing the blood and sweat of real artists, and bypassing the development of skill entirely by giving people a button that mimics the skill of others. True democratization breaks down the gatekeeping of galleries and elite academies so that more human voices can be heard. AI democratization functions as a dilution of art, where the unique, lived human experience is replaced by a statistical average of existing art. If the AI stops mimicking real artists, the "democratized" output loses its luster because the prompt writer hasn't actually cultivated an artistic voice. Prompt writers have just learned how to manipulate a search-and-synthesis engine. From the Renaissance and Today, an essay of a real artist's concept and idea is a fascinating insight into their art-making and philosophy about their practice. Reading an AI prompt in the raw, without seeing the product? Vapid and vacuous. Zero value. |
|
Originally Posted By macman37: Folk art might be a good historical analogy for what you’re/we’re saying. People who wanted art in their lives, wanted to express themselves and beautify their surroundings, but didn’t have Renoir or Caravaggio money to hang over the couch. But they could afford paints and brushes. So they painted what they could, how they could, and built a movement. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: The “Democratization” of Art and the common man… I am absolutely in favor of democratizing Art. That means placing value on Art as it once was within classical education. That means giving more people the tools, time, and education to develop their own artistic voice and skill. AI does none of that. AI works by directly stealing from the millions of actual art images it can access, literally stealing the blood and sweat of real artists, and bypassing the development of skill entirely by giving people a button that mimics the skill of others. True democratization breaks down the gatekeeping of galleries and elite academies so that more human voices can be heard. AI democratization functions as a dilution of art, where the unique, lived human experience is replaced by a statistical average of existing art. If the AI stops mimicking real artists, the "democratized" output loses its luster because the prompt writer hasn't actually cultivated an artistic voice. Prompt writers have just learned how to manipulate a search-and-synthesis engine. From the Renaissance and Today, an essay of a real artist’s concept and idea is a fascinating insight into their art-making and philosophy about their practice. Reading an AI prompt in the raw, without seeing the product? Vapid and vacuous. Zero value. Folk art might be a good historical analogy for what you’re/we’re saying. People who wanted art in their lives, wanted to express themselves and beautify their surroundings, but didn’t have Renoir or Caravaggio money to hang over the couch. But they could afford paints and brushes. So they painted what they could, how they could, and built a movement. I dislike the term “Folk Art” or “Outsider Art.” Or when artists insist on saying they are “self-taught.” All artists are self-taught. If they make actual Art, there’s no need for the labels or caveats. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By fatalerror113: Isn't that how human brains develop "artistic ability", by "stealing" all of the things they ever experience, synthesizing them into some sort of artistic sense, and then reproducing things based on that artistic sense? There’s a huge difference. Yes, humans absorb all they see through osmosis and even direct mimicry. If they copy one work directly, it’s copying and they might get sued. But every deviation comes from their humanity. Not so for AI. The human brain absorbs everything it has seen and heard and indirectly produces art from those influences and from a multitude of other experiences and feelings that are uniquely human and unique to the individual. AI copies directly from other people’s hard work there is no humanity injected. Everything -without exception- is stolen. The fact that it is blended and “synthesized” from potentially millions of images that were created by hard working real artists does not change the fact that it was stolen -it just makes it too complicated to prove in court. Every aspect of AI “art” is direct theft. Comparing it to the human process of absorbing sights, sounds and experiences is like how the Flock Camera apologists insist the Flock systems are just a tool that simply mimic and enhance the same process as the Human eye and brain. |
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I dislike the term “Folk Art” or “Outsider Art.” Or when artists insist on saying they are “self-taught.” All artists are self-taught. If they make actual Art, there’s no need for the labels or caveats. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: The “Democratization” of Art and the common man… I am absolutely in favor of democratizing Art. That means placing value on Art as it once was within classical education. That means giving more people the tools, time, and education to develop their own artistic voice and skill. AI does none of that. AI works by directly stealing from the millions of actual art images it can access, literally stealing the blood and sweat of real artists, and bypassing the development of skill entirely by giving people a button that mimics the skill of others. True democratization breaks down the gatekeeping of galleries and elite academies so that more human voices can be heard. AI democratization functions as a dilution of art, where the unique, lived human experience is replaced by a statistical average of existing art. If the AI stops mimicking real artists, the "democratized" output loses its luster because the prompt writer hasn't actually cultivated an artistic voice. Prompt writers have just learned how to manipulate a search-and-synthesis engine. From the Renaissance and Today, an essay of a real artist’s concept and idea is a fascinating insight into their art-making and philosophy about their practice. Reading an AI prompt in the raw, without seeing the product? Vapid and vacuous. Zero value. Folk art might be a good historical analogy for what you’re/we’re saying. People who wanted art in their lives, wanted to express themselves and beautify their surroundings, but didn’t have Renoir or Caravaggio money to hang over the couch. But they could afford paints and brushes. So they painted what they could, how they could, and built a movement. I dislike the term “Folk Art” or “Outsider Art.” Or when artists insist on saying they are “self-taught.” All artists are self-taught. If they make actual Art, there’s no need for the labels or caveats. I’m simply using the commonly accepted/accessible term that people know so when I say “folk art” the images conjured in people’s minds are the ones I’m trying to put there. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By macman37: I’m simply using the commonly accepted/accessible term that people know so when I say “folk art” the images conjured in people’s minds are the ones I’m trying to put there. Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: The “Democratization” of Art and the common man… I am absolutely in favor of democratizing Art. That means placing value on Art as it once was within classical education. That means giving more people the tools, time, and education to develop their own artistic voice and skill. AI does none of that. AI works by directly stealing from the millions of actual art images it can access, literally stealing the blood and sweat of real artists, and bypassing the development of skill entirely by giving people a button that mimics the skill of others. True democratization breaks down the gatekeeping of galleries and elite academies so that more human voices can be heard. AI democratization functions as a dilution of art, where the unique, lived human experience is replaced by a statistical average of existing art. If the AI stops mimicking real artists, the "democratized" output loses its luster because the prompt writer hasn't actually cultivated an artistic voice. Prompt writers have just learned how to manipulate a search-and-synthesis engine. From the Renaissance and Today, an essay of a real artist’s concept and idea is a fascinating insight into their art-making and philosophy about their practice. Reading an AI prompt in the raw, without seeing the product? Vapid and vacuous. Zero value. Folk art might be a good historical analogy for what you’re/we’re saying. People who wanted art in their lives, wanted to express themselves and beautify their surroundings, but didn’t have Renoir or Caravaggio money to hang over the couch. But they could afford paints and brushes. So they painted what they could, how they could, and built a movement. I dislike the term “Folk Art” or “Outsider Art.” Or when artists insist on saying they are “self-taught.” All artists are self-taught. If they make actual Art, there’s no need for the labels or caveats. I’m simply using the commonly accepted/accessible term that people know so when I say “folk art” the images conjured in people’s minds are the ones I’m trying to put there. I know. I’m just showing respect for the art of the common man.
|
"…unrivaled fervor for killing..."
|
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I know. I’m just showing respect for the art of the common man. Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By macman37: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: The “Democratization” of Art and the common man… I am absolutely in favor of democratizing Art. That means placing value on Art as it once was within classical education. That means giving more people the tools, time, and education to develop their own artistic voice and skill. AI does none of that. AI works by directly stealing from the millions of actual art images it can access, literally stealing the blood and sweat of real artists, and bypassing the development of skill entirely by giving people a button that mimics the skill of others. True democratization breaks down the gatekeeping of galleries and elite academies so that more human voices can be heard. AI democratization functions as a dilution of art, where the unique, lived human experience is replaced by a statistical average of existing art. If the AI stops mimicking real artists, the "democratized" output loses its luster because the prompt writer hasn't actually cultivated an artistic voice. Prompt writers have just learned how to manipulate a search-and-synthesis engine. From the Renaissance and Today, an essay of a real artist’s concept and idea is a fascinating insight into their art-making and philosophy about their practice. Reading an AI prompt in the raw, without seeing the product? Vapid and vacuous. Zero value. Folk art might be a good historical analogy for what you’re/we’re saying. People who wanted art in their lives, wanted to express themselves and beautify their surroundings, but didn’t have Renoir or Caravaggio money to hang over the couch. But they could afford paints and brushes. So they painted what they could, how they could, and built a movement. I dislike the term “Folk Art” or “Outsider Art.” Or when artists insist on saying they are “self-taught.” All artists are self-taught. If they make actual Art, there’s no need for the labels or caveats. I’m simply using the commonly accepted/accessible term that people know so when I say “folk art” the images conjured in people’s minds are the ones I’m trying to put there. I know. I’m just showing respect for the art of the common man. Gotcha and agree |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By imbreske: If you think art needs soul, I give you Jackson Pollack, a CIA hyped, talentless fuck. You can complain but it’s art, and it’s about how you receive it vs. looking at a traditional (Rembrandt, Monet, etc.) painting. It’s the difference between Pre- and Postmodern. That’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax. There’s a whole philosophical shift that happened around the time of the Armory show. The long-term effects of which we are still discussing to this day… |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria