Ironically, if you could create a prompt so detailed, so precise and emotive in its descriptions, detailing every brush stroke, every minor deviation in colour and how all of those elements worked together to create the whole, so that it DID create the painting, THAT would likely be a work of art.
He would also hate this stuff 'cause he loved the process, which is a thing a don't think they get
If you go to ai and type in the name of something famous, ai will “create” something to look or sound like the famous thing whose name you typed in. I’m fascinated.
Many people don't even understand the visions in their head are not exact anything. The "minds eye" is a shifting, imprecise, impressionistic collage of impulses pulled from memory and experiences. The mind is not a computer calling up JPG files captured from a camera.
Nobody painted like Van Gogh before Van Gogh painted. Nobody. Nobody painted like Renoir, or Leonardo, or Keith Haring, or Frida Kahlo until they did. Rembrandt built a whole school of people who painted like Rembrandt and STILL Nobody painted like him *before* he did.
This is exactly the target of the grift - guys (almost always guys) who think that what they have is ideas and that it would be a waste of their precious time to actually develop a skill
Even if this could work (it couldn't), why would "meticulous prompting" be better or more desireable than actually painting the thing himself?
I have to point out the irony here of trivialising the stolen art of VAN GOGH of ALL people. I hate 'ai'. I hate its stupid boosters, and the criminals behind it: Altman, Cook, Zuckerberg, Thiel, Huang, Andreessen, all of them. They do not deserve to enjoy any byproduct of human creativity, ever.
The even bigger lie here is that genAI diffusion models can realize an artistic intent, as opposed to blooping out stylish chum indicative whatever pocket of possibility map you happen to be poking at. It's clip art. Remixable, at best.