[dofm]

> I think there's some value for most people to understand that you can develop some kind of framework for evaluating art.

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.

[dfxm12]

Totally. I don't really agree with the framework as presented, just that you can think about art in many ways, and sometimes artists or curators don't provide a statement because it is intentionally meant to be open for some interpretation. Interpreting art can be a big task if you have no experience, so like any big task, it makes it easier to break into many small tasks until it becomes more intuitive.