Anyway, critiquing art is a practice like any other. Typically you describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate a work. And then you can make a judgement/opinion (ie, I think this is good/bad). You can use a criteria, or scope, to hone your critique. You might focus on historical president of a certain style, technical execution and skill, novelty in the space the work is presented, etc. It’s up to you. You can critique art based on any criteria you want really, though don’t tell some of my old professors that.

For example, I’ll critique this piece by Jessica Brilli. My criteria will focus on Brilli’s use of placement and how that is used to evoke an emotional response. This will be a short critique and one aspect of the work.

Description: A medium sized oil/acrylic painting depicting a late mid century van parked on a beach with the ocean in the background, with a beach chair next to it. The palette is mainly warm, muted pastel pinks and browns, with the ocean a shade of cyan. The sky takes up most of the composition, while the van, ocean, chair, and ground take up the bottom third. The painting is linear, with minimal visible brushstrokes.

Analysis: The ocean provides a clear boundary between sky and land. Its cool color also provides a contrast to the rest of the palette. The van breaks this boundary. Its windows provide a view of the sky while framing it in smaller vignettes, where the artist changes the colors slightly to emulate tinted glass. Whereas the vans dark color contrasts most with the ocean and the chair. The visual weight of the van on the lower left quadrant is balanced by the expanse of sky above.

Interpretation: The van’s placement, dark colors, and its windows framing the sky beyond seem intentional. The artist might be trying to say something about the stopping a journey when there is still more ahead. The open doors and chair indicate whoever was driving has stopped. Maybe they went to play in the ocean. Regardless, despite the vastness of the ocean and the sky above, the van can go no further.

Evaluation: This piece speaks to a longing for cessation, from work, relationships, our busy lives. I think it executes this emotion well. The linear style, with clean lines and smooth planes, encourages the viewer to take in the composition as a whole. I think that style matches the intent. The viewer is allowed to place themselves into the painting and to feel what it must be like in that moment.

My opinion: I like this piece. I would like to have a print of it in my home.

Art in general or just specifically AI art?

Edit: because the answer is pretty much the same

The creative choices from the human is what makes it art. … If the AI user doesn’t respect the craft, then they don’t make informed artistic choices. Hence the result is shit.

I’m not disagreeing with you on these points, but I think this is a simplistic and idealistic way of critiquing AI art. However, I do believe your criticisms have merit.

Again, I’ll write more on this later. Thank you for bringing up these points.

Idk, maybe I just don’t feel like arguing with you. I feel like you’re talking past my points anyway and making a lot of assumptions about what I’m bringing up. It’s just not worth my time. The language you’re using toward me seems very heated. Id rather not engage with you.

Lol ok big dog

Nah I’m not engaging with this. Come back when you you’re ready to act like a grown up.

Hey if you don’t want to be critiqued for things you share then don’t share them. But I wouldn’t be much of an art educator if I didn’t push people to make better art. Critique is for that. I get that you view this as a simple meme, but it is emulating a specific artistic style, so I’m judging it by that criteria. You don’t have to be an art critic or trained professional to learn critique.

I can give you a run down of why these images aren’t well executed. From the anatomy and perspective irregularities to the composition of the figures. All of that is what I’d do to a human made work anyway. Do you want me to comb through each image in that way? Maybe by doing so it can help you identify changes you can make to elevate the next AI assisted meme you create.

This deserves a more thorough response than the one I’m going to type now. I’ll come back to this later.

Basically though I want to use this discussion of AI, particularly its use in art making, as an avenue to talk about critiquing art. I’m not analyzing the technology used in the art making process nor the labor involved. I’m considering images made by AI that emulate or imitate other artistic work as “AI art.” And I’m chiefly concerning myself with critiquing the product, the AI art, from an artistic lens. It’s my belief that much of how AI is used results in art that isn’t very good.

I think it’s a funny idea for a meme. Just wish it was better executed.

I don’t think this meme is art at all.

That’s an interesting perspective. It does, again, seem like you’re using this thought as an excuse to not engage in critique of these images, from an artistic perspective at least. I would think a photographer would understand the value of critique. But I’m not going to litigate what is art in your eyes.

I’m not delineating was is and is not art. I’m talking about what constitutes good art from not good not. Our opinions can vary in that regard, but that doesn’t mean people cannot evaluate art based on some criteria, personal or otherwise.

I’d like to refocus the discussion of AI art away from ethical implementation, or even Marxist analysis of its use, to how the prevalence of AI art highlights a societal lack of art appreciation. I don’t mean appreciating the artists and their skills. I mean appreciation and understanding of what constitutes good art. I believe there’d be a lot less handwringing about all of it if everyone took an art class or two. I’m not trying to be chauvinistic about this. Well, maybe a little. I’m being an artistic experience chauvinist I guess.

My main contention is that AI art looks bad. I can walk you through why it looks bad if you want. But if you’re more concerned about making quick, bad-looking art for agiprop then I’m not gonna change your mind. And that’s fine.

And listen, I’m calling it bad art because these images are bad art. Art, especially produced in a specific style like the meme you posted, actually does have to follow some rules. If it doesn’t, or doesn’t circumvent those rules in a way that communicates intentionality, then it’s just not that good. Calling these images bad art isn’t a critique of you as a person. It’s a critique of the quality of art you’ve presented.

I’m going to kindly ask you to treat the quality of AI art with seriousness and not use the excuses like “it’s just a meme.” I come at this issue with the perspective of not only being an artist but an art educator as well. I don’t mean to presume, but from reading your comments on the matter I don’t get the impression that you’ve spoken to that many artists about their perspective on AI art. I’d be happy to discuss it with you though! Honestly I think a more art education would only serve to elevate your posts.

Thanks! I’ll look into that

I gotta ask of our US parents, what are your plans for milk/cheese since the FDA has abandoned quality tests?

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-suspends-milk-quality-tests-amid-workforce-cuts-2025-04-21/

Maybe, just maybe, laypeople shouldn’t use the same clinical and/or medicalized language used by professionals who know what the hell they’re talking about to describe their own children.

Same energy as the parents I was talking to a few months ago saying they have a “male son.” Oh okay, I thought this was a parent-teacher conference, but apparently I’m speaking to a couple zoologists.

First, I think this sounds wonderful for your community. I’m a ceramist, so I think I can offer some advise. Ceramic is such a beautiful medium, and not enough people get to experience the process. I think you have a concept that will invariably connect people with their local environment through their participation.

As for your idea of casting tree bark with clay, this might be more difficult than you’d expect for a lot of reasons. But by all means try it out simply to experience working with clay. I’d suggest doing a plaster casting of the tree to create a mold, and then a clay slip casting of the plaster mold. This way you will end up with a positive replica of the bark rather than a negative impression. This method will also allow you to make multiple casts from the same mold.

Some things to consider:

• If the goal is to work with living trees, check with a local arborist to make sure you won’t be harming the trees. I’m not sure what plaster itself would do to a tree, but you’d probably need to screw/nail the mold frame to the tree to do the plaster casting. And taking the mold off might damage the bark too. I would test your process with recently felled trees.
• Slip casting can be really tricky. While I encourage you to experiment, you might want to reach out to local ceramists to help you. But once you get the process dialed in it’s actually pretty simple.
• Some trees might not work for this project. Clay slip will fill cavities in the plaster mold. When the clay dries it could be impossible to remove the casting without it breaking. You may end up having to fill cavities with more plaster. This will result in replicas that are not a 100% accurate.
• Check with a local community college or university for advice and kiln space. This type of project is something is often something they’re looking for.
• There are lots of clays you could use and lots of ways of finish each piece. So investigate what you want the final product to be like. Ask what colors are you looking for? What texture do you want the ceramic to have? Do you want to glaze them? Reduction fire them? Things like that.

Lots to consider, but this sounds like a lot of fun.