I think there’s more low quality than just the basic print with all the wrinkles and creases in it. For once the head is “painted” realistically, the shirt is a slightly different style and then the hands and legs are yet another style. There’s some obvious AI artifacts and it didn’t fool people, seems they were able to tell.
And then with real art there’s some layers to it. It’d have a deeper meaning, tell us something about the people depicted, or society at times or how they’d like to portray it. Or there’s an entire interesting story about the artist, what kind of struggles they had… At least it’d invoke some astonishment in somebody. And I don’t think there’s any of that with this picture. That’s just the “empty plate” in-your-face meaning. Some children don’t have food. But doesn’t seem to me, the picture in itself tells more to the audience, or makes them think about what the statement might be, wonder what it’s trying to express, or make them question anything. And that’d be what turns art into art.
At least that’s my take on the definition of quality in art. I mean people put a bathtub out there along with some butter and it’s art. Or paint a canvas black and be done with it. On the other hand I can take a visually appealing photo of me with my smartphone and it wouldn’t be art. So in this case I don’t think quality is concerned with the visual aspect of it in the first place.
What makes it low quality? I’ve seen some shittier hand painted art.
I get the objection to it being AI generated, but I can’t place exactly what stood out as low quality…
Edit: the framing and creases in the print, not the image itself…
I think there’s more low quality than just the basic print with all the wrinkles and creases in it. For once the head is “painted” realistically, the shirt is a slightly different style and then the hands and legs are yet another style. There’s some obvious AI artifacts and it didn’t fool people, seems they were able to tell.
And then with real art there’s some layers to it. It’d have a deeper meaning, tell us something about the people depicted, or society at times or how they’d like to portray it. Or there’s an entire interesting story about the artist, what kind of struggles they had… At least it’d invoke some astonishment in somebody. And I don’t think there’s any of that with this picture. That’s just the “empty plate” in-your-face meaning. Some children don’t have food. But doesn’t seem to me, the picture in itself tells more to the audience, or makes them think about what the statement might be, wonder what it’s trying to express, or make them question anything. And that’d be what turns art into art.
At least that’s my take on the definition of quality in art. I mean people put a bathtub out there along with some butter and it’s art. Or paint a canvas black and be done with it. On the other hand I can take a visually appealing photo of me with my smartphone and it wouldn’t be art. So in this case I don’t think quality is concerned with the visual aspect of it in the first place.