Thank you for the read Sharif! Wild right? I was very surprised when I saw that (although probably shouldn’t have been because Tupac drew on so much different art for his career)
Mar 27, 2023·edited Mar 27, 2023Liked by Trungphan2
This article shares a number of beautiful points. ✨️
What I loved considering MOST is the parallel between the history of early 1800s and now, between the immergence of photography and the immergence of AI tech.
If the impressionist painters of that time embraced their voice in their art, they need not fear the changes of their day: the possibility of tech taking over their jobs.
As an impressionist painter, I feel a connection there.
"Up to this point, the norm for having “a portrait done" was to commission a painter. Portrait painting of everyday people was not glamorous."
The artists were actually more inspired with the changes and realized their work is more than documentation, but is indeed a voice for themselves as well.
Love your take on this history and the current events, @trungphan2 ! Thanks!!!
Hey Jesse! Thank you for the read and note. I totally agree this take: “ The artists were actually more inspired with the changes and realized their work is more than documentation, but is indeed a voice for themselves as well.”
Mar 25, 2023·edited Mar 25, 2023Liked by Trungphan2
The premise of this piece, on how the ubiquity of the camera and its impact on portraits led to the birth of Impressionism, and by extension, "Fauvism, Cubism and on to the complete abstraction of the middle of the twentieth century" – and how an analogous, jarring transition for artists is now occurring with generative AI – is fascinating. Thanks so much!
(That pair of posts by 'pipkin42', in answer to that Reddit question about the former, are astonishingly good, too.)
Another take on the question of 'is AI-generated visual content actually 'art'?", once again referencing photography – albeit coming from a different perspective than those history-focused Reddit comments by 'pipkin42' ...
The camera has certainly pushed artists to reinvent painting, but has also given rise to a new art that uses it: photography.
Vincent, Don McLean, and Tupac! Wow, what a connection. Thanks for this.
Thank you for the read Sharif! Wild right? I was very surprised when I saw that (although probably shouldn’t have been because Tupac drew on so much different art for his career)
Cool connections, eh? And both Don McLean's song and that Dr. Who episode are each very emotionally impactful. As was Tupac's life and passing.
There's a link to a stunning 1972 performance of "Vincent," by McLean in Germany, near the end of this blog post:
https://fragmentsintime.substack.com/p/on-the-winter-solstice
Thanks for sharing Aron!
This article shares a number of beautiful points. ✨️
What I loved considering MOST is the parallel between the history of early 1800s and now, between the immergence of photography and the immergence of AI tech.
If the impressionist painters of that time embraced their voice in their art, they need not fear the changes of their day: the possibility of tech taking over their jobs.
As an impressionist painter, I feel a connection there.
"Up to this point, the norm for having “a portrait done" was to commission a painter. Portrait painting of everyday people was not glamorous."
The artists were actually more inspired with the changes and realized their work is more than documentation, but is indeed a voice for themselves as well.
Love your take on this history and the current events, @trungphan2 ! Thanks!!!
Hey Jesse! Thank you for the read and note. I totally agree this take: “ The artists were actually more inspired with the changes and realized their work is more than documentation, but is indeed a voice for themselves as well.”
The premise of this piece, on how the ubiquity of the camera and its impact on portraits led to the birth of Impressionism, and by extension, "Fauvism, Cubism and on to the complete abstraction of the middle of the twentieth century" – and how an analogous, jarring transition for artists is now occurring with generative AI – is fascinating. Thanks so much!
(That pair of posts by 'pipkin42', in answer to that Reddit question about the former, are astonishingly good, too.)
Yes! Amazing answers in that thread. And so little engagement on the topic in general (r/AskHistorians usually has huge engagement)
Another take on the question of 'is AI-generated visual content actually 'art'?", once again referencing photography – albeit coming from a different perspective than those history-focused Reddit comments by 'pipkin42' ...
https://sonjathegrey.substack.com/p/ai-art-is-art