The copy missed an important detail, clearly intended by the original artist: Trump’s face. In the original artwork Trump is pictured as oblivious to the situation, making the plane noises, acting childish. In the statistical engine generated image, no such emotion is depicted.
A few important details, actually. In the original the Qatari is looking straight at the “camera”, in a kind of “see this?” way.
The Qatari looks dead and lifeless, staring into the distance in the AI one.
The real one he looks quite sinister, like he’s pulling the strings and he knows it. Part of that is, as you mentioned, his look into the camera, and another part is the lighting the artist chose, which is entirely absent in the AI image.
For me I view it as 2 different styles entirely even though its a copy and when you see it that way I think the ai one just gets the message across (Like The Original) which is the most important for me personally. But yea your points are not invalid but the results Are still decent
I’m sorry to tell you this, but your view is incorrect.
It is not a “style”. The statistical engine has no creative intent. You cannot have a style without intention. An absence of style is not a style.
It clearly does not get the message across that was intended by the original artist, since it lacks key elements mentioned in my previous reply. It gets ‘a message’ across, but it’s dumbed down and lacks subtlety, as the slop often does…
I’m sure you clearly understood the message of the original artwork, and you didn’t need the gen one to somehow explain it? If not, I have bad news for you…
Some side Info: I assume This is new Art and Not some caricature from years ago.
Just a layman so im genuinely asking how is the Original one subtle? You can clearly tell this is an arab man (probably saudi or qatar) who basically „controls“ trump? I think Both are quite telling. Yes admittedly compared to the original art it may be slop but I still think its a somewhat decent caricature getting the Right Message across.
Well, on the original, you can see the the date on the side, and it’s based on pretty topical current event. I don’t know why would it be from years before?
The subtle nuances mentioned in my first reply, that were not included in the gen’d one.
And, as mentioned, of course you understand the message, it’s a copy. One wouldn’t exist without the other. One would (and did) exist without the other. I don’t know if you want me to explain what plagiarism is?
Now to be fair I just didnt See the Date, my bad but at least I was Right.
You did not explain the subtleties I was asking for. Yes there is the duck face and the guy staring at the viewer but imho the Lack of these do Not distract from the message nor otherwise negatively affect it (much) as you say.
Because you Said it does not get the Right Message across which is Why I was asking for the subtleties and asking you to explain to me:
Whats so lacking when it imo does get the Message across? Am I missing something or is it you?
Its a (cheap) copy yes but not plagiarism by Definition (according to Wikipedia). Besides that opening this can of Worm distracts from Whats important. It gets the message across even if its a copy so im Not sure why you delve into that? I thought This is what the Post is about?
The Qatari looks dead and lifeless, staring into the distance in the AI one.
The real one he looks quite sinister, like he’s pulling the strings and he knows it. Part of that is, as you mentioned, his look into the camera, and another part is the lighting the artist chose, which is entirely absent in the AI image.
For me I view it as 2 different styles entirely even though its a copy and when you see it that way I think the ai one just gets the message across (Like The Original) which is the most important for me personally. But yea your points are not invalid but the results Are still decent
I’m sorry to tell you this, but your view is incorrect.
It is not a “style”. The statistical engine has no creative intent. You cannot have a style without intention. An absence of style is not a style.
It clearly does not get the message across that was intended by the original artist, since it lacks key elements mentioned in my previous reply. It gets ‘a message’ across, but it’s dumbed down and lacks subtlety, as the slop often does…
I’m sure you clearly understood the message of the original artwork, and you didn’t need the gen one to somehow explain it? If not, I have bad news for you…
Some side Info: I assume This is new Art and Not some caricature from years ago.
Just a layman so im genuinely asking how is the Original one subtle? You can clearly tell this is an arab man (probably saudi or qatar) who basically „controls“ trump? I think Both are quite telling. Yes admittedly compared to the original art it may be slop but I still think its a somewhat decent caricature getting the Right Message across.
Well, on the original, you can see the the date on the side, and it’s based on pretty topical current event. I don’t know why would it be from years before?
The subtle nuances mentioned in my first reply, that were not included in the gen’d one.
And, as mentioned, of course you understand the message, it’s a copy. One wouldn’t exist without the other. One would (and did) exist without the other. I don’t know if you want me to explain what plagiarism is?
Now to be fair I just didnt See the Date, my bad but at least I was Right.
You did not explain the subtleties I was asking for. Yes there is the duck face and the guy staring at the viewer but imho the Lack of these do Not distract from the message nor otherwise negatively affect it (much) as you say.
Because you Said it does not get the Right Message across which is Why I was asking for the subtleties and asking you to explain to me: Whats so lacking when it imo does get the Message across? Am I missing something or is it you?
Its a (cheap) copy yes but not plagiarism by Definition (according to Wikipedia). Besides that opening this can of Worm distracts from Whats important. It gets the message across even if its a copy so im Not sure why you delve into that? I thought This is what the Post is about?