😂😂funny and informative 9:10

Could there be a reason why there is a heavy focus on European art? Having filthy rich families (after exploiting other nations of course) may lay the foundation for what they would define as philanthropy. Michelangelo could not have created his god like master pieces without having a wealthy catholic church paying for his expenses. Imagine what you could achive if money is no issue and if there would be no internet to distract you. But when you hustle for your daily meals there may not be much energy left for creating extreme art. That may just be the reason why European art is so "heavy".

yeah, i really hope this context makes it in to the next one.

John oliver did an episode on museums, it was very interesting.

No. Historical context is only one of many perspectives. Artists view pieces with a different interest. They obviously don't want to copy the artists way of life but rather his technique. I.e. the sfumato technique by Leonardo da Vinci. Musicians view pieces with a heavy interest in inspiration. Obviously one form of art can be translated into another form of art. And some go wild and completly imagine a new meaning into pieces of art and by that manage to translate the art into modernity thereby making it relevant for today. You can also ignore the historical context and relate to the artist him self. He was only human, you are human, and therefore it may be a fun exercize to fantasize about what it would have been like if you were in his shoes, aksing the question "would I have painted this picture in the same way?"

It's like that animation of a spinning dancer in silhouette. She could be turning clockwise or counterclockwise, and you can make yourself see her the other way after seeing her one way if you concentrate. The figure in the artwork is also a solid black shape; without the details of his face or clothing, you don't know which way he's facing. He may even be a shadow, an abstraction, a person-shaped void representing an absence of people.

It's certainly a hotly debated subject in the field of photography right now, I can tell you that.

It is only an interesting topic if we think of AI as something similar to human intelligence. The technical experts differenciate between AI and general AI. They mean the latter to be comparable with human intelligence. But why? Because the AI we have with Dal-E and Chat-GPT is not "intelligence" at all. Instead it must be understood as "machine learning". But even the term "machine learning" is false. The machines do not learn as we understand what "learning" is. Therefore the best term to use on Chat-GPT and Dal-E or Stablediffusion must be "model training" based on super complex mathematical statistical algorithms. And that packs the key to understand why the modern technology can not substitute what we understand as intelligence. And thus what ever comes out of these technologies can not be understood as "art" but rather as a "product". It is only after the human refinement the product turns into art. After all, who is the artist in the long chain that produced a piece of art in the end? You who typed in "Dog with a funny hat"? The software that statistically guessed the closest match of what you expected to see? The program that generated the complex statistical model that is the basis for the guesses? The artists who have posted their work all over social media platforms, that have been scraped and collected in order to feed the algorithm? It is the same question as : Who created the cake? The consumer who demands cake? The factory who follows fixed processes? The granny who once thought it may be a good idea to combine ingredients? Bottom line, AI does not create art.