I keep promising myself that I will not read any more articles like this, but I still read "Is this by Rothko or a robot? We ask the experts to tell the difference between human and AI art."
It's in The Guardian, here. It's nicely set up, with sets of images in different categories of painting — not just Rothko. The experts get it wrong most of the time, perhaps because the human-made paintings aren't that great. It's pretty amusing to watch experts getting things wrong and real human art getting disparaged, so that's why I'm recommending this piece even though, generally, I'm sick of articles manufactured out of bullshitting around with AI.
From one expert's discussion of 2 abstract expressionist paintings:
"I’m not sure about the shapes and the lines in the image on the left, but it does make me think of very early Pollock, though less colourful. The one on the right could relate to many early works from some of the abstract expressionists or, perhaps, Tancredi and certain Italian artists from the 1950s and 60s. I’m sure the AI is looking at these existing works in order to create something based on them but I would still say the one on the right is real.”Verdict: wrong
“When it’s not by a particular artist you know very well, it’s much harder to determine what feels wrong. With a specific artist you look at how they worked at a particular time, their colours, their compositions and what the feel of it should be. If it could be any artist, it’s a bit random.”
The experts are actually getting rooked into criticizing their own expertise.
Terima kasih karena telah membaca informasi tentang I keep promising myself that I will not read any more articles like this, but I still read "Is this by Rothko or a robot? We ask the experts to tell the difference between human and AI art." . Silahkan membaca berita lainnya.
