#Dulwich Picture Gallery

[7pleiades7]

Lucy Ebberton (c. 1745-50), (detail), by George Knapton (1698-1778), oil on canvas, 76.5 x 64.1 cm, Dulwich Picture Gallery, Dulwich

[life-imitates-art-far-more]

Peter Lely (1618-1680) "A Boy as a Shepherd" (c. 1658-1660) Oil on canvas Located in the Dulwich Picture Gallery, London, England

[lionofchaeronea]

The Calling of Samuel, Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723-1792)

[tragediambulante]

Rinaldo and Armida, Nicolas Poussin, 1628-30

[fuzzysparrow]

Berthe Morisot

Until 10th September 2023, Dulwich Picture Gallery is hosting the first major UK exhibition of a trailblazing Impressionist since 1950. Lesser known than her male contemporaries, Berthe Morisot helped found the Impressionist group and was featured in many of the group’s exhibitions. As a woman, she defied social norms and demonstrated an original artistic vision, which inspired and influenced…

[redscharlach]

The Dulwich Picture Gallery in London has a current exhibit on the Yoshida family of printmakers, covering work by six artists from three generations of the family. Well worth a visit if you like Japanese art, and although they're all interesting, the striking modernists pieces by Toshi Yoshida were probably my favourite.

Toshi Yoshida

[bookloversofbath]

William Beckford 1760-1844: An Eye for the Magnificent :: Philip Hewat-Jaboor & Bet McLeod

[rosetidestella]

[nobrashfestivity]

Ogawa Kazumasa Iris Kaempferi c. 1894 From Some Japanese Flowers Chromo-collotype Hand-colored photograph Photo copyright Dulwich Picture Gallery

more

[harrietvane]

Portrait of a Woman, possibly Elizabeth Fourment, 1625-30 (Peter Paul Rubens)

[7pleiades7]

Lucy Ebberton (c. 1745-50), (detail), by George Knapton (English, 1698–1778), oil on canvas, 76.5 x 64.1 cm, Dulwich Picture Gallery, Dulwich

[durchdenspiegel]

London field trip 02.07.-08.07. ~ Part 2

[lionofchaeronea]

Landscape with Windmills near Haarlem, Jacob van Ruisdael, between 1654 and 1656

[mentaltimetraveller]

John Singer Sargent, Figure lying on a bed (1917)

The Watercolours at Dulwich Picture Gallery, 2017

[artthatgivesmefeelings]

Sebastiano Ricci (Italian, 1659-1734) The Fall of the Rebel Angels, ca.1717-18 Dulwich Picture Gallery Sebastiano Ricci captures the moment that the ‘great dragon’, Satan, and his angels ‘were cast out onto the earth’ (Revelation 12:9).

[evilscientist3]

nice job supporting ai stealing artwork dickweed 👍

First, let me start with a disclaimer:

I don't like AI art personally. Subjectively speaking, it just doesn't feel like proper art to me.

I just think that the rhetoric behind why, from an objective standpoint, AI art in particular is bad (i.e. immoral) deserves more thought.

Some questions which you might find worth answering:

Is there a means of explaining how AI art steals from artists that doesn't imply collage and/or inspiration are also forms of art theft?

For an artist, is anything intrinsically lost when their art is used as a sample in an AI's data model?

When it comes to AI generated photographs, is art theft still occurring?

Consider the post you're getting mad at me about. whompthatsucker1981's copy of the AI generated photo likely wouldn't have existed without an AI generated photo to copy. Is there no value to be found in the AI enabling the creation of the art?

Suppose I were to train a data set on, say, Rembrandt's paintings to try and generate my own "new artwork" of his - just to hang in my living room. He's famous and dead, so this action doesn't affect him at all - is anything wrong with me doing this?

Similarly, suppose a commercial entity or institution were to do the same, and sell or display it with the pretext that it was generated - would this novelty not at the least be somewhat intriguing?

How about if a team of experts assessed the product, and personally corrected and altered details to keep it consistent with his other works if necessary?

Many years ago, I met an artist called Doug Fishbone while he was doing an exhibition called "Made In China" at the Dulwich Picture Gallery. There was no clear piece on display as part of the exhibition; there was, however, an impostor. One of the paintings in the gallery had been replaced with a replica commissioned from the Meisheng Oil Painting Manufacture Co., who only ever saw the painting they copied as a high resolution photo - thousands of visitors were invited to guess which.

This both questions the value of originality in art (is the copy really less valuable than the original if you can't tell the two apart? How about if it's utilised as part of a philosophical point or artistic message?) and reveals, via the copycat painting's minor discrepancies, that even in careful replication, the preferences of the artist often shine through (perhaps this is a motivation in the encouragement of copyists by many old masters).

I would certainly agree that it isn't particularly desirable to study the "eye" of an AI all too closely - its own quirks will simply be the mean of other artists' idiosyncracies. But suppose that the image is then copied, modified, or used as inspiration - is its place in allowing for another artist to develop a concept not valuable at all?

To be clear, these questions aren't rhetorical; I'd like to hear your views. If you reply, I hope you do so in good faith.