Once upon a time, in certain newbie photo critique forums, pranksters would upload a renowned photographers image for critique... Hilarious feedback from new photographers showing off their critiquing prowess.
and Autio: https://keegan.regaind.io/p/qzqjM1CPRxGtkL1GQ4KL0g
But I get it. It's a great tool for beginners to see their rookie faults and address the basics [1]before they can foray into more intermediate photography. And then break the basics [2] in order to know why breaking the rules work and sometimes don't.
Semi-related (to the optics/mechanics) is this tool[3]
[1]https://www.flickr.com/photos/msc72/3184463442
Weird to imply such a strict delineation between photography and art.
The humor is from imagining a robot pan great works because of implementation flaws. "Mona Lisa. Muddy and drab. 2/10"
Nothing really to do with me trying to classify what is/isn't art.
What you might call conceptual photography, on the other hand, is "AI-complete". It's as hard as literature to appreciate, you definitely need a full human-equivalent AI. Roland Barthes' ideas of the studium and the punctum start to open up the intellectual depth of that kind of photo.
This kind of project is possibly credible as a rater of formal quality against some ideal norm, maybe stretching to understanding composition in a crude sense. But everyone knows that it's the unexpected but visually compelling feature that makes an image good. (Or alternatively the significance of its content.) Standard strategies like the "rule of thirds" can only produce formulaic images.
"It's not super amazing. It's…something I guess; you could do better. Try improving your colors. This is at most 3.9/10. #boring"
Yeah, Henri, improve your colors you lazy hack! ;)