Museum labels are supposed to be designed to deliver the take-away point that the curator wants to make. Asking museum goers to learn how to read paintings is a poor workaround.
The classic guide to writing interpretive exhibit labels is Beverly Serrell's book [1].
TFA has very little content and a terrible LLM stench. I work in this field, so I was attracted to the clickbait title. My advice is not to read TFA, just read a summary of Serrell's book if you can't get the book itself.
Museum labels are supposed to be designed to deliver the take-away point that the curator wants to make. Asking museum goers to learn how to read paintings is a poor workaround.
We don't only encounter art in a museum. I think there's some value for most people to understand that you can develop some kind of framework for evaluating art.
Hopefully, people don't take the questions in the article as prescriptive (or the only way), but just as an example until they better understand their own tastes.
> I think there's some value for most people to understand that you can develop some kind of framework for evaluating art.
Or just understanding that art is very rarely exactly what it seems.
The problem with this LLM-driven thing is that the person who did it seems to have as shallow an understanding of art as the LLM, or has chosen a level of terseness that belittles even the LLM's grasp of famous paintings.
I am a bit cynical about all of this but I do find that occasionally an LLM has told me something about my own creative work (photography) that is unexpected. I don't know that I understand how one can point an LLM at paintings this famous and get such minimal insight from it, given how much must be in the training set.
Totally. I don't really agree with the framework as presented, just that you can think about art in many ways, and sometimes artists or curators don't provide a statement because it is intentionally meant to be open for some interpretation. Interpreting art can be a big task if you have no experience, so like any big task, it makes it easier to break into many small tasks until it becomes more intuitive.
I really don't want AI-generated copy to walk me through how to understand various famous paintings by answering 8 boilerplate questions about each of them. If the answers were written entirely by a human who was an art expert, though, I think I would feel completely differently. There's an idea here that seems appealing (look at a collection of famous paintings, and learn the most interesting things about each one, what to notice, etc.), but the AI copy is a complete turn-off for me.
I've been playing around with a similar problem 'Can AI help me increase my literacy around Art & Design' but have taken a bit of a different approach, essentially:
1. Have a rough rubric around areas of knowledge and where I'm strong/weak
2. Every day an agent builds a ~30min task + short answer question and slacks it to me. Tasks are designed to have minimal AI writing and pull primary sources / courseware. Easy to do in downtime or during my commute.
3. Answers are picked up from Slack, are scored against the rubric, and progress is tracked day over day which influences the task for the next day.
Stack is dead simple, scheduled Claude Cowork task + state in Obsidian + Slack for messaging. Happy to share more details if people are interested but easy to replicate from the above.
One of the things it's opened my eyes up to is the sheer volume of high quality works/analysis/videos/courseware available online. You really don't need AI to process this, but it's helpful to have a wrapper that identifies/points you to the resources that will be the most helpful for you.
Oh, this might be my opportunity to tell HN about one of my nerdy recent hobbies, one that would terrify professionals! In fact one that professionals say is impossible for non professionals (which might be what attracted me to it).
I restore paintings as a hobby! It is not easy to get into. Watch Julian Baumgartner on YouTube. He carefully never tells you what glue, resin or solvent he is using. The appreciation this has given me for the paintings is phenomenal. I have been mostly restricted to removing varnish to date. AMA. I have lived the opportunities for research it has given me. I work on scrap paintings from charity shops or fb marketplace, if that scares you less.
How do you do this as a hobby? I mean do you buy paintings you think need restoration from flea markets and restore them for fun? Do you have a collector friend who asks you to help with their collection? Something else?
I've done some art handling (transporting from collectors to galleries). One collector asked me if her painting could be touched up a bit. We didn't provide that kind of service (^_^')
Yeah I buy scrap paintings! It takes a long time, and there are a few in process at a time, so I don't need to source many. I'll buy almost anything that is an original oil painting. Most cost £5-10 and are semi-pro level, with horrible yellow varnish on them, making them look rubbish. Cleaned up they can be pretty things. I have a pair of what looked like Scottish landscapes, but researching the framers stamp they turned out to be Canadian, and in a charity shop in the UK! What a thrill. £25 is my highest price to date, which the seller wanted for the old gilded frame. I got the decent quality late Victorian/ early Edwardian en plein air landscape in the frame for nothing! It was so dirty you could barely see it. Looks very different with the filth and old varnish removed.
They end up on my wall. I figured that I would rather have originals that were not quite to my taste than prints of Pre-Raphaelite masters that are a shadow of the real thing. I still have plenty of wall space. When I run out of room I'll move some on. I can scarcely lose out financially! I plan to get in with some dealers for their junk later on.
Learning to remove varnish is a fun thing. It would be very easy to ruin the painting, but fingers crossed it has not happened yet! Each painting is a whole new challenge, with different varnishes and paints.
My next victim has some tiny holes that need patching, which will be a whole new avenue! A never ending hobby
For me, asking “what else can I see?” has been useful. Some of my favorite works of art show me new things every time I look. Garry Winogrand’s 1964 is my favorite book of all time, I’ve gone through it dozens of times and always find a new photo to appreciate.
I also find it helpful to avoid labeling art as “bad” and instead say “I do not yet understand this work, but someday I might”. I didn’t get that Winogrand book at first, had I written it off I would have missed out. I still don’t get Cy Twombly, but I hope to figure his paintings out someday.
The more art you look at, the better you get at looking at art!
Oh this is disappointing isn't it — it could have been a labour of love and isn't.
The "insights" about Mona Lisa are shallow and quite telling.
What did the crowd miss? What did the AI miss?
No props? One of the most significant things people don't notice — and of course neither did this AI — is she's wearing a veil. And a very particular kind of veil with a very particular connotation.
All that AI guff about what people miss when they stand in front of it, all that suggestion that you zoom in and look, and not even the slightest nudge to look at her hair and forehead.
im so tired of seeing AI writing on articles like this. We've been studying classical art for hundreds of years theres so many resources I beg readers to just pick up one of the countless books or articles written by a human and i beg the "author" of the site to please just write the copy yourself if you are knowledgeable on the topic.
I like it- I don't care if it's all AI-generated, it's an interesting way to explore famous paintings. So I read through one, and at the end I got a popup asking me to drop my email and that "the next 4 ones are free too".
Museum labels are supposed to be designed to deliver the take-away point that the curator wants to make. Asking museum goers to learn how to read paintings is a poor workaround.
The classic guide to writing interpretive exhibit labels is Beverly Serrell's book [1].
TFA has very little content and a terrible LLM stench. I work in this field, so I was attracted to the clickbait title. My advice is not to read TFA, just read a summary of Serrell's book if you can't get the book itself.
[1] Exhibit Labels, Beverly Serrell, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2024 edition.
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/exhibit-labels-9781538160459/
I've rarely felt labels helpful, and a label can't fit all the information needed for general study of paintings.
Museum labels are supposed to be designed to deliver the take-away point that the curator wants to make. Asking museum goers to learn how to read paintings is a poor workaround.
We don't only encounter art in a museum. I think there's some value for most people to understand that you can develop some kind of framework for evaluating art.
Hopefully, people don't take the questions in the article as prescriptive (or the only way), but just as an example until they better understand their own tastes.
> I think there's some value for most people to understand that you can develop some kind of framework for evaluating art.
Or just understanding that art is very rarely exactly what it seems.
The problem with this LLM-driven thing is that the person who did it seems to have as shallow an understanding of art as the LLM, or has chosen a level of terseness that belittles even the LLM's grasp of famous paintings.
I am a bit cynical about all of this but I do find that occasionally an LLM has told me something about my own creative work (photography) that is unexpected. I don't know that I understand how one can point an LLM at paintings this famous and get such minimal insight from it, given how much must be in the training set.
Totally. I don't really agree with the framework as presented, just that you can think about art in many ways, and sometimes artists or curators don't provide a statement because it is intentionally meant to be open for some interpretation. Interpreting art can be a big task if you have no experience, so like any big task, it makes it easier to break into many small tasks until it becomes more intuitive.
> we don't only encounter art in a museum
True, but the TFA's first line reads:
The whole point of going to a museum is that it has been put together by people more knowledgeable than me and might teach me something.To your point, yes, one can learn to appreciate art, but the TFA is far from useful for this purpose, too.
This would be an interesting project if it was written intentionally by a human.
As it is, the generated prose telling you how to appreciate art is ghoulish.
The punchy sentence delivery is so annoying and repetitive. The "X is not Y, its Z" form they all take is headache inducing.
Seems like a skill issue by the author, though; LLMs can approximate whatever writing style with enough effort.
Flag AI slop.
"The eight questions" but they aren't questions
I really don't want AI-generated copy to walk me through how to understand various famous paintings by answering 8 boilerplate questions about each of them. If the answers were written entirely by a human who was an art expert, though, I think I would feel completely differently. There's an idea here that seems appealing (look at a collection of famous paintings, and learn the most interesting things about each one, what to notice, etc.), but the AI copy is a complete turn-off for me.
Oh boy: the AI-isms on this article are so annoying.
The nonsensical headings and CTAs are so frustrating to read.
"Watch it work once". What what work once?
I find it pretty funny, because to me it sounds like the same weird English you hear/read in tourist traps in non-English countries
I've been playing around with a similar problem 'Can AI help me increase my literacy around Art & Design' but have taken a bit of a different approach, essentially:
1. Have a rough rubric around areas of knowledge and where I'm strong/weak
2. Every day an agent builds a ~30min task + short answer question and slacks it to me. Tasks are designed to have minimal AI writing and pull primary sources / courseware. Easy to do in downtime or during my commute.
3. Answers are picked up from Slack, are scored against the rubric, and progress is tracked day over day which influences the task for the next day.
Stack is dead simple, scheduled Claude Cowork task + state in Obsidian + Slack for messaging. Happy to share more details if people are interested but easy to replicate from the above.
One of the things it's opened my eyes up to is the sheer volume of high quality works/analysis/videos/courseware available online. You really don't need AI to process this, but it's helpful to have a wrapper that identifies/points you to the resources that will be the most helpful for you.
Oh, this might be my opportunity to tell HN about one of my nerdy recent hobbies, one that would terrify professionals! In fact one that professionals say is impossible for non professionals (which might be what attracted me to it).
I restore paintings as a hobby! It is not easy to get into. Watch Julian Baumgartner on YouTube. He carefully never tells you what glue, resin or solvent he is using. The appreciation this has given me for the paintings is phenomenal. I have been mostly restricted to removing varnish to date. AMA. I have lived the opportunities for research it has given me. I work on scrap paintings from charity shops or fb marketplace, if that scares you less.
How do you do this as a hobby? I mean do you buy paintings you think need restoration from flea markets and restore them for fun? Do you have a collector friend who asks you to help with their collection? Something else?
I've done some art handling (transporting from collectors to galleries). One collector asked me if her painting could be touched up a bit. We didn't provide that kind of service (^_^')
Yeah I buy scrap paintings! It takes a long time, and there are a few in process at a time, so I don't need to source many. I'll buy almost anything that is an original oil painting. Most cost £5-10 and are semi-pro level, with horrible yellow varnish on them, making them look rubbish. Cleaned up they can be pretty things. I have a pair of what looked like Scottish landscapes, but researching the framers stamp they turned out to be Canadian, and in a charity shop in the UK! What a thrill. £25 is my highest price to date, which the seller wanted for the old gilded frame. I got the decent quality late Victorian/ early Edwardian en plein air landscape in the frame for nothing! It was so dirty you could barely see it. Looks very different with the filth and old varnish removed.
They end up on my wall. I figured that I would rather have originals that were not quite to my taste than prints of Pre-Raphaelite masters that are a shadow of the real thing. I still have plenty of wall space. When I run out of room I'll move some on. I can scarcely lose out financially! I plan to get in with some dealers for their junk later on.
Learning to remove varnish is a fun thing. It would be very easy to ruin the painting, but fingers crossed it has not happened yet! Each painting is a whole new challenge, with different varnishes and paints.
My next victim has some tiny holes that need patching, which will be a whole new avenue! A never ending hobby
For me, asking “what else can I see?” has been useful. Some of my favorite works of art show me new things every time I look. Garry Winogrand’s 1964 is my favorite book of all time, I’ve gone through it dozens of times and always find a new photo to appreciate.
I also find it helpful to avoid labeling art as “bad” and instead say “I do not yet understand this work, but someday I might”. I didn’t get that Winogrand book at first, had I written it off I would have missed out. I still don’t get Cy Twombly, but I hope to figure his paintings out someday.
The more art you look at, the better you get at looking at art!
I recommend John Berger's Ways of Seeing for a much more elaborate (and accessible) way to think about art
Oh this is disappointing isn't it — it could have been a labour of love and isn't.
The "insights" about Mona Lisa are shallow and quite telling.
What did the crowd miss? What did the AI miss?
No props? One of the most significant things people don't notice — and of course neither did this AI — is she's wearing a veil. And a very particular kind of veil with a very particular connotation.
All that AI guff about what people miss when they stand in front of it, all that suggestion that you zoom in and look, and not even the slightest nudge to look at her hair and forehead.
SUCH a great concept, the LLM writing ruins it.
Labels don't help? The Smithsonian begs to differ.
im so tired of seeing AI writing on articles like this. We've been studying classical art for hundreds of years theres so many resources I beg readers to just pick up one of the countless books or articles written by a human and i beg the "author" of the site to please just write the copy yourself if you are knowledgeable on the topic.
Ugh, I was pretty excited to go through this until I hit the paywall just a few clicks in.
I like it- I don't care if it's all AI-generated, it's an interesting way to explore famous paintings. So I read through one, and at the end I got a popup asking me to drop my email and that "the next 4 ones are free too".
The gall!
Joan Miro - that's a vagina. Another vagina. Vulva. Vagina vagina vulva