|
|
|
|
|
by dfxm12
10 days ago
|
|
Museum labels are supposed to be designed to deliver the take-away point that the curator wants to make. Asking museum goers to learn how to read paintings is a poor workaround. We don't only encounter art in a museum. I think there's some value for most people to understand that you can develop some kind of framework for evaluating art. Hopefully, people don't take the questions in the article as prescriptive (or the only way), but just as an example until they better understand their own tastes. |
|
Or just understanding that art is very rarely exactly what it seems.
The problem with this LLM-driven thing is that the person who did it seems to have as shallow an understanding of art as the LLM, or has chosen a level of terseness that belittles even the LLM's grasp of famous paintings.
I am a bit cynical about all of this but I do find that occasionally an LLM has told me something about my own creative work (photography) that is unexpected. I don't know that I understand how one can point an LLM at paintings this famous and get such minimal insight from it, given how much must be in the training set.