I dropped out of my first art school before the first semester was finished. It didn't matter so much what art was produced, it was fluency in Art Speak which got the most attention. Don't like it from humans, or computers.
Someone should ask ChatGTP to critique one of its own critiques. Maybe it will self-destruct.
Well, I'd certainly not rely on ONE critic, and 'respected' is a problematic criterion.individually curated by some respected art critic
Well, I'd certainly not rely on ONE critic, and 'respected' is a problematic criterion.
What I would find interesting is if we could find some kind of common ground in terms of composition perhaps based on what has floated on top of the past 2-3 centuries of 2-dimensional art (painting, drawing, prints etc.) There might be proxies we could use for 'appreciation'; think of which works end up in the top museums, market valuation etc. Sure, those won't correlate 100% with good composition, but it might be possible to extract some kind of pattern.
So the main approach IMO would be to (1) not limit the study to photography and (2) try to somehow rely on kind of a 'wisdom of the crowds'.
I dropped out of my first art school before the first semester was finished. It didn't matter so much what art was produced, it was fluency in Art Speak which got the most attention. Don't like it from humans, or computers.
I dropped out of my first art school before the first semester was finished. It didn't matter so much what art was produced, it was fluency in Art Speak which got the most attention. Don't like it from humans, or computers.
Yes, I did. The second one was a first year foundation program with painting, drawing, ceramics, sculpture, and design. Gain the basics, then build from there. They let me in with 4x5 B&W contact prints, with the comment that my compositions were strong but my printing needed work. They were right about the printing as they were from my first couple months in a darkroom. I took the same portfolio to the head of the colleges photography program and he told me my printing was strong but my compositions were weak. Boy, did I pick the right program!Since you mentioned it was your first art school I assume that means there was a second? I hope you found one that agreed with your preferred learning style.
I’m not finding much art speak at all in the ai critiques btw. It’s pretty plain spoken stuff, and easily understood.
It’s interesting that AI is already recursive, especially in social media, where 30-40% of material is already AI-generated. There’s even a term - ‘model collapse’ - for what will happen when AI is mainly drawing on such sources: ‘collapse’ because AI-generated material will converge on central (common) notions, increasingly ignoring oddball (and possibly original or insightful) material.
It’s interesting that AI is already recursive, especially in social media, where 30-40% of material is already AI-generated. There’s even a term - ‘model collapse’ - for what will happen when AI is mainly drawing on such sources: ‘collapse’ because AI-generated material will converge on central (common) notions, increasingly ignoring oddball (and possibly original or insightful) material.
My friend who used AI to generate a discussion about the combination of his poetry and his photography was impressed by a couple of relationships between the two that the AI noticed and he hadn't.
So don't discount the capabilities of AI just yet - it can be far more thorough and perceptive than you might think.
It’s interesting that AI is already recursive, especially in social media, where 30-40% of material is already AI-generated. There’s even a term - ‘model collapse’ - for what will happen when AI is mainly drawing on such sources: ‘collapse’ because AI-generated material will converge on central (common) notions, increasingly ignoring oddball (and possibly original or insightful) material.
That's what I implied earlier that AI is polling the internet and mimicking the most common solutions. Sort of like group think. It it doesn't think out of the box. It's not innovative or creative because it doesn't really have a mind. It's regurgitating the intelligence of humans.
AI model collapse has much more serious consequences than just mimicking common solutions and regurgitating human intelligence. See these articles:
What Is Model Collapse? | IBM
Model collapse refers to the declining performance of generative AI models that are trained on AI-generated content.www.ibm.com
Model Collapse and the Right to Uncontaminated Human-Generated Data
The above image was AI-generated by Gemini. John Burden is a Senior Research Associate on AI evaluation and AI safety, and Co-Director of the Kinds of Intelligence Programme, Leverhulme Centre...jolt.law.harvard.edu
AI model collapse has much more serious consequences than just mimicking common solutions and regurgitating human intelligence. See these articles:
What Is Model Collapse? | IBM
Model collapse refers to the declining performance of generative AI models that are trained on AI-generated content.www.ibm.com
Model Collapse and the Right to Uncontaminated Human-Generated Data
The above image was AI-generated by Gemini. John Burden is a Senior Research Associate on AI evaluation and AI safety, and Co-Director of the Kinds of Intelligence Programme, Leverhulme Centre...jolt.law.harvard.edu
That's what I implied earlier that AI is polling the internet and mimicking the most common solutions. Sort of like group think. It it doesn't think out of the box. It's not innovative or creative because it doesn't really have a mind. It's regurgitating the intelligence of humans.
Egad. Is it following the same decision making path used to make those icons of the Fine Art World AI images?!!?
someone who has design, built and fielded successful
AI projects.
If that was true it would neither have cracked 100 year old math problems with elegant proofs nor discovered new innovative drugs.Why bother to ask an uneducated evaluator which is only as good as the source it was trained on?
Setting aside using tired business catchphrases from the 1980s to try to come to grips with technology that like me you don’t understand, perhaps a more humble approach would be to recognize how incredibly tiny your personal “box” is, and how easy it is for you as a creative person to escape it with just a little help. That help can come from lots of sources such as reading a magazine (remember those from the 1980s?), talking to a friend, or in 2026 using AI.
Artificial intelligence when used as an aid to creativity is incredibly powerful. And no, it’s not just regurgitating things that it finds on the Internet – If you subscribe to one of the platforms that allows you to have your AI remember every conversation you’ve ever had with it, it is inevitably going to broaden your reach in any variety of creative endeavor because it “knows” you and your personal, all-too-human patterns. AI can’t help but make connections and see patterns in your past conversations with it, highlighting areas that you might not have considered otherwise, and mixing it with other globally available knowledge to find even more patterns.
“…polling the internet and mimicking the most common solutions.” You seem to be fixated on this sad little dead end, Alan. Consider if AI could be useful to you for generating the right questions rather than spoon-feeding you solutions. The solutions are up to you, the human. AI can be so very helpful to you for generating the right questions, and giving sound advice along your path to answering them.
If that was true it would neither have cracked 100 year old math problems with elegant proofs nor discovered new innovative drugs.
I am not an advocate of AI, even though I work in the field, I am very skeptical about it, but I can’t deny the progress it has made and that in some domains it has overcome humans by far.
Everyone well-versed in autonomous systems knows that the failure rate of such systems is generally far below that of human-controlled systems. That's why human intervention in those systems is generally minimized. Look at plane crashes, nuclear power plant meltdowns etc. etc. - what goes wrong is the human factor, virtually without fail. It's not the autopilot that crashes the plane. It's the pilot deciding to disengage the autopilot because he thinks it's wrong.But it can't drive a Tesla without getting into an accident?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?