home.social

#goya — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #goya, aggregated by home.social.

  1. In fact, it has become harder and hard to tell if _some_ things are generated by #AI. Yet these things all share some pretty common qualities: they are highly derivative.

    So if it looks like a stock photo, psychedelic nonsense, a low effort infographic, or generic fantasy... well, you're probably going to get a pretty decent looking piece.

    What all of the above have in common is that they are human #slop.

    Yes. Human slop. Content mills, most commercial art, shit sold to stoners and metalhead on T-Shirts. It's all art that was produced and optimized for #Capitalism (the first and most powerful #AI).

    What makes something slop is that is is vacuous and derivative. It lacks any kind of genuine creativity.

    So, by itself an AI can at best make slop. And, I really don't feel at all bad about human slop artists being automated away. Much as I don't really feel bad about portrait artists being replaced by cameras.

    We do have to ask how #Goya earns enough of a living to paint Jupiter a living without portraits, but this is not a new problem.

    3/

  2. In fact, it has become harder and hard to tell if _some_ things are generated by #AI. Yet these things all share some pretty common qualities: they are highly derivative.

    So if it looks like a stock photo, psychedelic nonsense, a low effort infographic, or generic fantasy... well, you're probably going to get a pretty decent looking piece.

    What all of the above have in common is that they are human #slop.

    Yes. Human slop. Content mills, most commercial art, shit sold to stoners and metalhead on T-Shirts. It's all art that was produced and optimized for #Capitalism (the first and most powerful #AI).

    What makes something slop is that is is vacuous and derivative. It lacks any kind of genuine creativity.

    So, by itself an AI can at best make slop. And, I really don't feel at all bad about human slop artists being automated away. Much as I don't really feel bad about portrait artists being replaced by cameras.

    We do have to ask how #Goya earns enough of a living to paint Jupiter a living without portraits, but this is not a new problem.

    3/

  3. In fact, it has become harder and hard to tell if _some_ things are generated by #AI. Yet these things all share some pretty common qualities: they are highly derivative.

    So if it looks like a stock photo, psychedelic nonsense, a low effort infographic, or generic fantasy... well, you're probably going to get a pretty decent looking piece.

    What all of the above have in common is that they are human #slop.

    Yes. Human slop. Content mills, most commercial art, shit sold to stoners and metalhead on T-Shirts. It's all art that was produced and optimized for #Capitalism (the first and most powerful #AI).

    What makes something slop is that is is vacuous and derivative. It lacks any kind of genuine creativity.

    So, by itself an AI can at best make slop. And, I really don't feel at all bad about human slop artists being automated away. Much as I don't really feel bad about portrait artists being replaced by cameras.

    We do have to ask how #Goya earns enough of a living to paint Jupiter a living without portraits, but this is not a new problem.

    3/

  4. In fact, it has become harder and hard to tell if _some_ things are generated by #AI. Yet these things all share some pretty common qualities: they are highly derivative.

    So if it looks like a stock photo, psychedelic nonsense, a low effort infographic, or generic fantasy... well, you're probably going to get a pretty decent looking piece.

    What all of the above have in common is that they are human #slop.

    Yes. Human slop. Content mills, most commercial art, shit sold to stoners and metalhead on T-Shirts. It's all art that was produced and optimized for #Capitalism (the first and most powerful #AI).

    What makes something slop is that is is vacuous and derivative. It lacks any kind of genuine creativity.

    So, by itself an AI can at best make slop. And, I really don't feel at all bad about human slop artists being automated away. Much as I don't really feel bad about portrait artists being replaced by cameras.

    We do have to ask how #Goya earns enough of a living to paint Jupiter a living without portraits, but this is not a new problem.

    3/

  5. In fact, it has become harder and hard to tell if _some_ things are generated by #AI. Yet these things all share some pretty common qualities: they are highly derivative.

    So if it looks like a stock photo, psychedelic nonsense, a low effort infographic, or generic fantasy... well, you're probably going to get a pretty decent looking piece.

    What all of the above have in common is that they are human #slop.

    Yes. Human slop. Content mills, most commercial art, shit sold to stoners and metalhead on T-Shirts. It's all art that was produced and optimized for #Capitalism (the first and most powerful #AI).

    What makes something slop is that is is vacuous and derivative. It lacks any kind of genuine creativity.

    So, by itself an AI can at best make slop. And, I really don't feel at all bad about human slop artists being automated away. Much as I don't really feel bad about portrait artists being replaced by cameras.

    We do have to ask how #Goya earns enough of a living to paint Jupiter a living without portraits, but this is not a new problem.

    3/

  6. Fourteen Paintings for No One: The Most Somber Art Ever Made

    Sad art is everywhere, and it comes cheap. Somber art is rare, because somber means sorrow that keeps its shape after the tears dry, sorrow with gravity, no laugh track, no lifeline. Ask which art is the most somber of all and the question sets a brutal standard: the winner must be born of grief, must depict grief, must refuse every exit from grief, and must offer no joy and no gesture of human harmony anywhere in its making or its reception. That last clause is the killer. Art is a social act before it is anything else. A song wants an ear. The play wants a house. Every poem wants a voice to carry it. Harmony rides along in the address itself, before a single consoling note gets played, and so nearly every candidate for the darkest art in the world fails on delivery, whatever horrors it contains. […]

    bolesblogs.com/2026/08/04/four

  7. “The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious”*…

    Henri Matisse, View of Notre Dame, 1914, oil on canvas, 58 x 37 ⅛ in, via Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.

    Eminent art critic and historian Hal Foster has started what will be a four-part series in The Paris Review on looking at– and seeing– art…

    Many of us look at art in the company of others; I have done so with a close friend, off and on, for five decades. We meet at a museum, wander around, settle on a painting (or, rather, it settles on us), look, talk, look more, talk more. We attend to the work and to each other; we enter its world together. Only recently and rarely have we written up our reactions, which we do individually. A testament to our friendship, this writing is also a tribute to the art, to the discursivity that informs it and the sociability that it allows. 

    Paintings call out to us in myriad ways. My friend and I are most drawn to pictures that are reflexive about looking, that anticipate it, that sharpen it, that alter our habits of seeing. This may be a Modernist criterion, but it hardly disqualifies older art; we have ranged as far back as Early Netherlandish painting. In this selection, though, I focus on pictures that date from the past hundred and fifty years. (For better or worse, that’s also my academic field.)  

    My aim in this exercise isn’t to tease out context, which is almost too present in wall texts today. Immediacy may be a mirage, but I try to come to my chosen works as directly as possible. It’s not that I ignore the texts on the walls; I just don’t get stuck there. I don’t pretend to see with a “period eye,” as Michael Baxandall called the attempt to perceive as historical viewers may have. Contextual information may often be necessary, but I keep it at a useful minimum. And though I sometimes get speculative, that’s part of the fun. In fact, one purpose of these studies is to be loosened from my scholarly superego (which isn’t very strong, in any case). I want to demystify the viewing of art a little, not to deskill it exactly, but to suggest that anyone can do it. Ignorant Art History is a big tent.

    Looking at a painting is a welcome respite from scanning a screen. In that sense, this exercise is reactive: I labor in the small cottage industry of attention that has sprouted up in the cracks of the massive complex of distraction all around us. A phenomenological turn often occurs at times of intensive mediation, but the point is not simply to have our perceptions mirrored back to us. T. J. Clark has put the aim nicely: “When I am in front of a picture the thing I most want is to enter the picture’s world: it is the possibility of doing so that makes pictures worth looking at for me.” To look at a painting is also to exit our world for a while, and then to return to it cast in a different—distant—light. The time travel is often wonderful, and almost free… 

    – “The Ignorant Art Historian: An Introduction

    The first of his short essays, on the Matisse pictured above, just dropped…

    … As we approach this painting, we have little idea of what it depicts, or whether it depicts anything at all. A washy blue covers the entire surface unevenly, and its space is traversed by several black vectors. A vertical line stretches the length of the canvas on the far right, where it intersects with two horizontal lines that cut across the center of the picture. In the lower half of the painting, three diagonal lines run roughly parallel to one another, also toward the right.

    The main motif floats in the top third of the painting. Outlined heavily in black, its interior is made up of the same blue as elsewhere except for one white blotch and a few black planes, scratched to reveal the white underneath. Three thin, white planes also appear in the interior, each crossed with a horizontal black stripe; the central plane divides the space in two. 

    All this is hard to sort out, and two more pieces on the right—a green blob beside a black one—only add to the puzzle. It is a complicated painting, but its complication is borne of simplicity. Completed in 1914, at the beginning of World War I, it is an austere work in an austere time. 

    The title offers a kind of lifeline: View of Notre Dame. But what kind of view and from where? And what are all the black lines? Neither abstract nor representational, the painting requires a shift in our way of looking: its elements are less images of things than signs for them. 

    We know that the Notre-Dame sits on the western end of the Île de la Cité in Paris. So the three diagonals might signify the quai along the Left Bank, the low path alongside the Seine, and the great river. The two horizontal lines then read as a bridge over the Seine, and the slight curve underneath them as its arched support. Finally, the long vertical line serves as the near edge of the quai, or perhaps of the very building from which the view is taken. The angles suggest that we look down on the scene from a Left Bank apartment several floors up. The overall blue signifies air and water where that seems appropriate, and anything else (or nothing at all) where it does not. 

    How does the squarish motif convey the famous cathedral? If the bisected shape suggests the two great towers, the white plane between them might evoke the rose window. Since we view the cathedral from the Left Bank, it appears turned away from us slightly, its south side more exposed. If the black areas register the sides of the building in deep shadow, the white ones might signify the play of light across the facade. And the blobs in green and black? The green could be a plant, and the black its shadow. 

    The pieces don’t add up completely or neatly. But then signification is about signaling-just-enough rather than representing-in-full. Here, seeing is guesswork. It often is elsewhere, too; we just don’t acknowledge it. Sometimes a sign doesn’t signify and sometimes it suggests more than one thing. The diagonals evoke both the quai and the river; the black areas convey a material thing here and an immaterial shadow there. 

    Around this time, Matisse kept a studio above the quai Saint-Michel. Might View of Notre Dame double as a view of the interior from which it was painted? In that case, the Paris cathedral is also a French window, with blue sky and white clouds seen in or through the glass; the green shrub is also a plant on the sill; the lines of the bridge are also the molding in the room; and—who knows?—the diagonals of the bank are also the easel on which this very painting was produced… 

    – “The Ignorant Art Historian: View of Notre Dame

    The remaining three installments will drop weekly into May.

    * “The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science.” – Albert Einstein

    ###

    As we appreciate art, we might recall that on this date in 1808, at the outbreak of the Peninsular War, the people of Madrid rose up in rebellion against French occupation. 

    In 1814, Francisco de Goya memorialized the event in his painting The Second of May 1808.

    source

    #art #artCriticism #artHistory #culture #Goya #HalFoster #history #Madrid #Matisse #Napoleon #PeninsularWar #TheChargeOfTheMamelukes #TheIgnorantArtHistorian #TheSecondOfMay1808
  8. Hubo épocas en que las personas fuera del canon habitaban en las afueras de la civilización. Bien por decidir que pagar ese peaje les compensaba, bien por ser señaladas como proscritas a consecuencia de naturalizar su ser y su sentir.

    Hay otra zona de opacidad interesante entre esas dos, quizá más cruel, la cobarde: gente físicamente presente pero despojada de su humanidad por sus iguales; gente que está en nuestras ciudades y, con o sin consciencia, decidimos ignorar. Despojada del ser aún estando. Incomodan porque de estar ahí nos separa un resbalón.

    Moisés se quemó en 2010. Titulares. Sorpresa. Apagón. A otra cosa.

    En un notable ejercicio autoproducido (lo que desactiva muchas quejas históricas de voces cerriles para dejar sus prejuicios desnudos), la historia de Moisés es reconstruida con brío por Eduardo Casanova.

    Entre el documental, el reportaje y el true crime, Al margen se queda en una producción de no ficción del sello Casanova. Sin por ello perder la marca de agua estética de la casa. Cuando las historias son reconocibles, cuando puedes conectarlas a su mente pensante, solo puede ser bueno. Incluso para mal es bueno detectar estilos propios.

    Moisés está cómodo en el mundo que Casanova le ha montado. Se han fusionado. Habla de la vida en la calle en tanto ofrece granos de su pasado antes de la ignición. Descubrimos que siempre hubo fuego, lo sigue habiendo, solo que en 2010 se materializó. Ahora enciende cigarrillos y conspiraciones.

    Precariedad, salud mental, drogadicción, conforman un mosaico rico en dramas que se subsumen hasta la llama sin que esta pueda consumirlos para consumirse y renacer del polvo de la fotografía.

    Eduardo desterrado de los Goya... como Ángela Molina, su anterior musa.

    Márgenes. Benditos sean.
    filmaffinity.com/es/film879660
    #popazo #movie #movies #cinema #cine #film #films #drama #goya #goyas #Goya2025 #premiosgoya #goyas2025 #goyaawards #almargen #documental #truecrime #documentary #BasedOnATrueStory #BasadoEnUnaHistoriaReal

  9. Hablaba hace unos días de lo bien mal que son los premios. Si algo reivindico es mi derecho a la contradicción. En estas semanas, como sabe parte de la gente que me sigue, voy a estructurar parte de mis toots (iba a decir contenido, pretenciosa ella...) en base a los Goya.

    Ordenar quizá mejor que estructurar, ya conocen mi pasión ilimitada por el cine español: todo lo que pido está ahí, este hallazgo a modo de conclusión me cambió la vida una poquita años atrás. Y a mejor. Lo que yo merezco y les deseo a ustedes, mejoras continuas.

    Pensé comentar las nominaciones pero lo iré haciendo dentro de los relatos, para que cale mejor. Con un poco de cuento esa píldora entra mejor. Como el mangoneo a Ángela Molina, ¡qué pocas estrellas nos quedan y qué mierda de atención les prestamos! Además, muchas se van a estrenar en plataformas tarde y me complicarán la tarea este año como señora rural que soy sin cines a mano. Ya quisiera yo esos lujos...

    Siempre les digo que la realidad es chiquititica, que lo fundamental en nuestras vidas son las ficciones, las que (nos) montamos como sociedad y como individuos. También que acá caminamos sobre una mina de historias inagotable. La de Aurora Rodríguez es una (ya descubierta por Fernán Gómez o Almudena Grandes).

    Paula Ortiz, en completo estado de gracia como cineasta, firma una rotunda La virgen roja.

    Las labores técnicas están hilvanadas con esmero y las decisiones artísticas cosidas a ellas formando un todo aplastante que hace parecer fácil tremenda labor como sacar adelante un relato en imágenes y que funcione de pies a cabeza, pasando por el coño.

    Una pena las nominaciones. Extraño la de Alba Planas (¡enorme!) y Pepe Viyuela como soberbio secundario.

    ¿Hasta dónde va a llegar Paula Ortiz?

    filmaffinity.com/es/film903239
    #popazo #movie #movies #cinema #cine #film #films #drama #goya #goyas #Goya2025 #premiosgoya #goyas2025 #goyaawards #NajwaNimri #paulaortiz #truecrime #historical #history #BasedOnATrueStory #BasadoEnUnaHistoriaReal