STAY HOME STAY SAFE — Login

Art collecting hits rock bottom.

By bird_lovegod | 26 October 18 01:12pm | Art and Creativity

Share on Twitter

I have no words for this. Actually I do.

This should infuriate everyone. Art critics, artists, collectors, and every other person. Here’s why.

The ‘painting’ below was created by an ‘Ai’ a computer program. It was then sold for $432,500. 

It’s really bad art. Aesthetically, and in every other way. It has no meaning, no message, no communication, no soul. It’s the output of a computer program. That’s all. It’s trivial. A minor novelty. On par with the equally uninteresting ‘computer art’ and ‘internet art’ that preceded it. It’s nothing of meaning or significance. 

But the purchasing of it is. 

And let’s be very clear about what the purchaser was saying with this acquisition. Here’s the actual meaning of this ‘artwork’.

“I the purchaser understand I could’ve saved lives with the $432,500. Many lives. I chose not to.”

“I the purchaser would rather have this ‘artwork’ on my wall to occasionally glance at rather than heal dying children.”

“I the purchaser choose this computer generate picture over the lives of real human beings, men, women, children, whom I know are in dire need and suffering. Their suffering means less to me than this picture. I would rather have this ‘artwork’ than give them life, hope, and a future.”

“I the purchaser hereby demonstrate my values, my humanity and lack thereof, and hereby give $432,500 for a novelty artwork, uninteresting and unaesthetic. This is who I am.”

What does this art mean? Art reflects the times. This reflects the crass inhumanity of the purchaser.

‘I could’ve saved a hundred lives but I bought this piece of computer generated tat instead.’ 

Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45980863

This is not what art is, nor what it is for. Shame. Can you tell it annoys me? 

Share on Twitter

Previous Post Next Post

Leave a Reply