Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by t43562 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

t43562·

Interesting how if anyone else created pictures like these we wouldn't really care.

View on HN

Actually the first thing I'd think was they were ripping off Andy Warhol.

The first thing I'd think was someone without any skill was randomly clicking around some early bitmap paint software.

Like how Warhol took a stock dpaint image recreation of Birth of Venus and copy/pasted a third eye on it? Who ripped off who here?

In science many people have simultaneously discovered similar aspects of a problem - or someone discovered something and were ignored until someone else rediscovered it independently later. e.g. who invented the computer? or who discovered that cleanliness was essential in hospitals? Surely art is similar?

There's also the way a successful artist can legitimize a whole area, see

https://www.moma.org/collection/terms/dada/marcel-duchamp-an...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

for people like Warhol who expanded the range of "art" vs "not art".

He was already famous.

It isn't interesting it is almost step 1 in marketing. Tie your product to some celebrity or influencer to get exposure and credibility.

Yeah it is interesting how art is not a contextless buffer of pixels. I think that's actually the main thing that's interesting about art throughout history.

In society what is done is almost irrelevant.

The really relevant information is who did it.

More so when the law is concerned.

Actions are only crimes if the "wrong" people perpetrate them.

For the right people, "crimes" are nothing but expressions of their right to power. For the wrong people, "crimes" are conclusive proof of sociopathy.

Art is no different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com