Follow Up: How Useful is ChatGPT really, as an Art Critic?

Following on from yesterday's article, and based on comments, suggestions and feedback, I ran some experiments to see what it would do under various conditions.

In summary, ChatGPT always offers a generous review of the images uploaded, and will not point out obvious issues, like images being upside down. It also will not categorically state that a painting by an art master is way better than a painting by me, focusing more on the subjective choice of the person viewing the art.

My view is that, in this setting when used as a learning tool, ChatGPT can point out problems in painting and make suggestions about how to correct them. For example, it can point out perspective issues, issues with colour balancing and so on. That, to me, is helpful to make improvements and to learn and improve.

To know if the art I create is good compared to other art is not something ChatGPT is willing or able to comment on, and realistically, the real world is where that action needs to take place. Art appreciation is subjective even in the real world.

My experiments are below:

First I loaded a picture upside down.

This was ChatGPT's response: "This image is a vibrant and expressive painting that utilizes a rich palette of colours and a heavy impasto technique, which gives the painting a three-dimensional texture. The composition is divided into several areas, each teeming with different elements and activities, suggesting a lively and dynamic scene.

Starting from the top, there is a row of large flowers that dominate the upper section. Their detailed petals and the variation in colour from whites to deep oranges create a sense of depth. The heavy application of paint in this area contributes to the tactile quality of the work. Below, a mix of smaller flowers and vegetation spans across the canvas, providing a visual transition to the other elements.

In the middle, a winding path or river leads the viewer's eye through the painting, passing by a large, whimsical tree with a red crown that seems to be a focal point. This pathway guides the viewer to explore various parts of the painting and invites speculation about the journey it represents.

In the lower section, we see a quaint house with distinct windows, which stands out due to its architectural detail and the contrast with the organic shapes surrounding it. The presence of animals, particularly what appears to be fish in a blue river or pond, adds to the narrative quality of the painting, suggesting life and movement.

The swirling patterns in the water bodies also stand out, adding a dream-like quality to the scene. The use of white in these swirls draws attention and may symbolize energy or flow within the painting.

Overall, this painting is a feast for the eyes with its textural qualities and joyful use of colour. It seems to celebrate nature, life, and vibrancy. The artist has created a work that is open to interpretation, where each viewer might find a different story or meaning within the canvas."

It did not specifically call out the fact that the image was upside-down. I prompted it to tell me if the image was upside down.

"The orientation of artwork can sometimes be subjective, especially in the case of abstract or semi-abstract works where there might not be a clear 'up' or 'down'. However, in the image you provided, several indicators suggest the current orientation is indeed upside down:

1. The flowers at the top of the image, with their heavy petals hanging downwards, suggest that they are meant to be viewed with the petals facing up, as this is how flowers typically grow.

2. The structure that appears to be a house has windows and door-like shapes that we would conventionally expect to see upright.

3. The shapes in the water that resemble fish would typically be oriented with their dorsal side upwards and their ventral side downwards.

Based on these elements, it seems likely that the correct orientation of the painting is with the house and flowers positioned at the bottom and the top of the canvas, respectively."

I then ran another test. This time I loaded Sunflowers by Van Gogh and Sunflowers by myself and asked it to, "critique these two images. Compare and contrast. Which image has the better art techniques?".

ChatGPT's response was, "The two images presented feature the common subject of sunflowers in a vase, but they approach this subject with distinctly different artistic techniques and styles.

The first image employs a softer, more blended technique with a muted colour palette. The sunflowers are depicted with less detail, and the brushwork is smoother, lacking the intense textural quality of the second image. The vase is rendered in shades of blue, providing a cool contrast to the warm yellows of the flowers. There's an attempt to create depth and form through shading, particularly noticeable on the vase and the table. The background is divided into two sections, one lighter and one darker, which might suggest a simplistic representation of a wall and its shadow.

The second image is a digital representation that emulates the style of Vincent van Gogh's "Sunflowers". It features bold, expressive brush strokes and a vivid colour palette, characteristic of Van Gogh’s post-impressionistic style. The brushwork is much more pronounced, with thick lines and swirling textures that add a dynamic quality to the image. The flowers are more detailed, with individual petals and seed centres clearly defined. The vase has a bright yellow hue with visible brush strokes that give it a sense of volume and intensity.

In terms of art techniques, the second image is more technically proficient with its use of colour and brushwork to create texture and depth. The application of paint is done with confidence and contributes to the overall energy of the composition. The use of contrasting colours, such as yellows against blues and greens, also demonstrates a strong understanding of colour theory.

The first image, while more subdued, offers a quieter and perhaps more accessible aesthetic. It may be appealing to those who prefer a less dramatic, softer approach to the subject matter.

Comparing the two, it is not necessarily a question of which is better, but rather which style and technique you prefer. The second image is more in line with the post-impressionistic style of Van Gogh and demonstrates a higher level of technical skill in terms of brushwork and colour usage. The first image, on the other hand, may appeal to those who appreciate subtlety and a more realistic representation. Both images, however, have their own merits and contribute to the rich diversity of artistic expression."

Finally, I asked it to critique an image which ChatGPT/DALL-E-2 had created.

ChatGPT responded with, "This image is a stylized reinterpretation of Johannes Vermeer's famous painting 'Girl with a Pearl Earring', but it has been rendered in a style that has elements of both graphic design and Na?ve Art. The image features bold outlines and a flattened perspective, typical of Na?ve Art, which often has a childlike simplicity and is characterized by a disregard for accurate perspective.

The artist has paid homage to the original work through the subject's pose and attire, particularly the iconic blue headscarf and the large pearl earring. However, this interpretation has introduced modern or stylized elements, such as the graphic patterns on the clothing and the detailed rendering of the eye, which is more illustrative than Vermeer's subtle rendering.

The colour palette is vibrant and differs from the muted tones of the original; it uses bright, contrasting colours that give the piece a contemporary graphic feel. The background includes a window that appears to look out onto a simple, stylized landscape, and the inclusion of a potted plant adds a touch of domesticity.

The texture is also notably different from the smooth, almost photorealistic quality of Vermeer's work. Instead, this image employs what appears to be a dot pattern or halftone technique, giving it a modern, almost printed appearance. This choice of texture contributes to the overall graphic design quality of the piece.

In terms of critique, while the image lacks the subtle interplay of light and shadow that Vermeer is known for, it gains a new identity through its playful and bold graphic style. It is a successful fusion of an old master's composition with modern artistic elements, resulting in a piece that is both familiar and novel.

The artist's decision to use simplified forms and patterns rather than realistic textures and shading makes this work stand out and is indicative of a creative reinterpretation rather than an attempt at replication. It's a piece that balances between paying respect to the old and making a statement that is very much new and individual."

Finally, I asked ChatGPT, "How useful is providing critiques if one does not actively criticise constructively? Is everything good and worthy?"

ChatGPT responded by saying, "Providing critiques, especially in the arts, is a nuanced process. The goal is often to offer a balanced perspective that recognizes both the strengths and the areas for improvement in a piece of work. Constructive criticism is an essential part of this process, as it guides the creator towards potential enhancements while acknowledging the effort and intent behind the work.

Not all critiques are about finding fault; they can also be about understanding the context, intention, and execution of a work. However, it's important for a critique to be honest and objective. This means that while not everything is good and worthy in the same measure, every piece of work can have elements that are successful or that resonate in a certain context. A useful critique will point these out but also suggest ways in which the work could be further developed or refined.

In educational or developmental settings, criticism needs to be constructive. This means that rather than simply stating that something is not good, the critique should explain why it may not be effective and offer suggestions for improvement. This approach encourages learning and growth, rather than discouraging the creator.

In the context of the images you've shared, my responses have aimed to recognize the intent and context of the work, providing an analysis based on the elements present, while also considering the wide range of styles and tastes that exist within art appreciation. Each piece of art will connect with viewers differently, and part of the art critique process is to explore those connections and the techniques used to achieve them, while also recognizing that art can always evolve."

In conclusion, I guess you get what you ask for. I asked ChatGPT to critique the images and it did. The context for it was that it must educate and not go out to find faults, but will if you ask it to. It seems designed to provide praise and give constructive feedback. Of course, if cannot know what actual people will think of the work, but I still believe it is a tool for good in many ways, helping people to learn and providing fast feedback, unhindered by emotions.