Yes, except the part where rich people pretend modern art is profound (they don't about AI generated stuff) and they pay a lot of money for modern art (they don't for AI generated stuff), so actually no.
They pretend it's profound enough to force into the shows they bought, and they paid millions to build the neural networks. It's the same thing just cyberpunk
So does anyone think this was a metaphor for most art being "bullshit", but they couldn't openly depict a cow splattering fesces on a canvas in 1951... or am I reading too much into it?
i personally think that art to the wealthy is more being enjoyed not because of how good it looks or is but because it costs a lot. stuff like nfts suck but people want them because they cost thousands of dollars and they can show that they own expensive art no matter if it looks good or like garbag
Comments
Maybe an inspiration to the comic strip :)
http://aworldelsewhere-finn.blogspot.com/2013/03/joachim-raphael-boronali-aka-aliboron.html
Maybe he sees how ahead of his time Sluggo is in mixing performance art and painting!
It's about how modern art is really just random meaningless bullcrap that rich people pretend is profound.
That is still true.
*They* paid money to make it to sell it later, not because *they* think it'll make them look cool and sophisticated.
Not every problem with art is AI related.
My take away is that the wealthy are more than happy to pay good money to consume souless slop art
means attacks on children and women weather religion or not is justified.