4 ms·
Interesting how if anyone else created pictures like these we wouldn't really care.
by t43562 2y ago
Interesting how if anyone else created pictures like these we wouldn't really care.
- PaulHoule 2y agoActually the first thing I'd think was they were ripping off Andy Warhol.
- t43562 2y agoIn science many people have simultaneously discovered similar aspects of a problem - or someone discovered something and were ignored until someone else rediscovered it independently later. e.g. who invented the computer? or who discovered that cleanliness was essential in hospitals? Surely art is similar?
- PaulHoule 2y agoThere's also the way a successful artist can legitimize a whole area, see https://www.moma.org/collection/terms/dada/marcel-duchamp-and-the-readymade https://www.moma.org/collection/terms/dada/marcel-duchamp-an... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein for people like Warhol who expanded the range of "art" vs "not art".
- snarfy 2y agoLike how Warhol took a stock dpaint image recreation of Birth of Venus and copy/pasted a third eye on it? Who ripped off who here?
- robxorb 2y agoThe first thing I'd think was someone without any skill was randomly clicking around some early bitmap paint software.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- whateveracct 2y agoYeah it is interesting how art is not a contextless buffer of pixels. I think that's actually the main thing that's interesting about art throughout history.
- 77pt77 2y agoIn society what is done is almost irrelevant. The really relevant information is who did it. More so when the law is concerned. Actions are only crimes if the "wrong" people perpetrate them. For the right people, "crimes" are nothing but expressions of their right to power. For the wrong people, "crimes" are conclusive proof of sociopathy. Art is no different.
- ericmcer 2y agoHe was already famous. It isn't interesting it is almost step 1 in marketing. Tie your product to some celebrity or influencer to get exposure and credibility.