“better detailed” doesn’t necessarily mean “better art” …
Art being fidel to reality is it’s own subset of art movement, called realism. Many people appreciate it as “wow this is so close to real life/so much effort”, but then if you ask people what they think the greatest artworks are they might bring any artist. Van Gogh, Da Vinci, Dalí, Picasso, Pollock, etc.
So no, just because something is closer to real life does not make it “objectively the best art” in the broader sense of art. Maybe you can measure that when pit against other realism pieces, which sre not as faithful to real life.
I’m know that. I’m not arguing that detailed is better. It’s the post that is arguing that, with it’s implied “I can’t believe that thing got the first place”.
My point is that better is better no matter how it’s made. It could be pretty or ugly, made with paint or digital, AI or no AI
“better detailed” doesn’t necessarily mean “better art” …
Art being fidel to reality is it’s own subset of art movement, called realism. Many people appreciate it as “wow this is so close to real life/so much effort”, but then if you ask people what they think the greatest artworks are they might bring any artist. Van Gogh, Da Vinci, Dalí, Picasso, Pollock, etc.
So no, just because something is closer to real life does not make it “objectively the best art” in the broader sense of art. Maybe you can measure that when pit against other realism pieces, which sre not as faithful to real life.
I’m know that. I’m not arguing that detailed is better. It’s the post that is arguing that, with it’s implied “I can’t believe that thing got the first place”.
My point is that better is better no matter how it’s made. It could be pretty or ugly, made with paint or digital, AI or no AI
It’s just funny that the simple one would win. It’s like a whitebelt getting a technical win against a judo master—it’s just funny that it happened.
Both of these frog images are the work of people, though, which is something AI can’t give you, so…