.haisseM by Lea Laboy

Admiro tú trabajo, me encanta.

Very powerful Lea

I get it.

What does the text and symbol mean?

Ah, OK read it now, sorry. Really interesting, lots of people are odd and critical of people using phones to interact with art, despite being on this site and therefore doing so themselves...I like the idea that using the smartphone can actually be used to decipher the message.

Nadas profundo...con ese smartphone te la has jugado, se ve que hay química y que esta nueva realidad te da alas. Siempre con mis mejores deseos.

It certainly prevokes a reaction in me….but he always does - unfortunately. He’s not worth the time.

Thank you, Olga, for your support and your generous words. I appreciate it deeply, especially knowing that, like me, you follow your own creative path. Your works are a masterpiece in pastels—a remarkably demanding medium that requires not only talent and knowledge but also immense self-control over the material to achieve the spectacular artistic success we see in your work.

Thank you very much, Heather, for your comment. All the “power of this work” is not my merit as an artist, but the merit of every viewer who has dedicated their time to it. We are only as “powerful” as we are brave enough to keep triggering the “process of independent thinking” in our minds. The artist is merely like a key to locked doors within our heads. Some will take this key and wear it as a “trinket” around their neck because it’s “trendy”; others will throw it away because “thinking is hard work.” But the third group will decide to open the door... and whatever their motivation might be, on the other side awaits something more powerful than “paint”: The Truth.

Martin, thank you very much for your comment. I have understood the line of thought with which you lead the viewer in your own works, and there is no doubt that you need neither a mirror nor a smartphone to understand my own way of thinking.

Hazel, this work has its own "hidden depths" (I tried to be obvious in the description for a reason). This approach is intentional, if I had used a different title (such as a surname or job title), it would have turned into a political piece bordering on caricature. My work has nothing to do with politics or caricature, it is about Fauvism and Expressionism, plus that hidden layer—conceptualism—if you choose to use a smartphone or a mirror.

Exactly, Hazel. People often fear what they do not understand, forgetting that a tool is neutral—it is the intent that matters. The world is becoming increasingly "difficult to operate" for us, some names are intentionally becoming the opposite of their original meaning. That is why I use a tool that replaces the human aspect of reality assessment with a smartphone, as it reaches more effectively those who do not exist without smartphones and social media. It is a different type of people, and art must still try to go beyond its limitations, even if—as you rightly point out—those who negate both are the primary target group... I am glad you see the irony in those who criticize the medium while simultaneously using it. Thank you for your openness and for taking the time to truly "read" the work.

Do you really think I’m “swimming deep”?...In that case, one can only pray that my “lifebuoy” is always in my hand, the “compass” in my heart keeps pointing the right way, and my “lighthouse” shines brightly so there is always a place to return to when you feel the baton on your ribs and legs... You know what I mean. I don’t change, only the world changes, and I “change my perspective” simply to “remain myself.” We thank you for your wishes !

Thank you for your comment, Marjorie. I understand what you mean. Your words carry a flash of truth that, in itself, can act as a “neutralizer” of reality. My painting is neither a typical portrait nor a political caricature. It is merely a recording of the “wind of history' that blows despite us all. I want this conceptual piece to be completed by the viewer's individual opinion. One work, many opinions is my way of remaining a neutral artist. As a person, I leave my own views at the door. I do not wish to delve into speculations, so that “AI Google” does not classify this as an “opinion”—deeming it “socially incorrect” or labeling it a “conspiracy theory.”(Interestingly, the term “conspiracy theory” was popularized in 1967 as an offensive label to block critical thinking after the Kennedy assassination, when people were thinking “too much.”) Broadly speaking: we see the “tool,” but the helmsman is beyond our sight, and all the “paint” belongs to him. And speaking of paint, you are right, that is why I used acrylics and simple imitation gold flakes—to emphasize the truth of the message.

Dear fellow artists and viewers, this work marks the conclusion of a specific chapter in my creative journey. I want to thank everyone who took the time to share my love for painting. I hope you will look upon my upcoming project with the same kindness you have shown throughout this entire period of my creative struggles, leading up to this final piece. See you soon.

"This work rejects realism for raw documentation of the spirit. Using Fauvist colors and Expressionist distortions, it maps internal tension and the rush of sound rather than physical tissue. Instead of lips, pure emotion is captured. This non-material analysis includes conceptual text written as a mirror image, decodable via mirror or smartphone. Words placed between forms prevent a single narrative, allowing viewers to read the piece through their own vision. " Good God! Is this what 'art' has become? To me this is AI at it's worst - both the picture and the meaningless narrative that accompanies it.

Turner would be turning in his grave.

Apologies for my punctuation:- the apostrophe in "Ai at it's worst" was incorrect. We humans sometimes make mistakes.

Mr. Keen, you are confusing Turner with Matisse. This is Fauvism, not Impressionism. I have first-hand knowledge of this artist's process and technique. To claim that her work has been generated by artificial intelligence is, quite simply, a slander.

Mr. Keen, let Turner rest in peace. He would be horrified by the same lack of respect that he himself suffered from critics like you. If that eighty-year-old man with orange skin makes you so nervous, you’d better calm your nerves with my abstractions. Tomorrow I will upload new works. I’m sure I’ll find something to your liking.

Gracias, Lea, por animarme a volver a pintar. Voy a continuar. Es una pena que te marches, porque hay muy pocas personas como tú. Tú, con todo tu conocimiento y talento, sabes apoyar a los demás en cualquier etapa. Eso es lo que te diferencia de quienes, por pura envidia, solo saben destruir lo que no entienden. Os deseo a ambos un viaje seguro.

Due to limited digital connectivity, please accept my apologies for the delay in addressing the unfounded allegations regarding the use of AI in my work. I have provided a comprehensive clarification in the comments below to definitively resolve any lingering doubts.

As a matter of principle, I refuse to engage in non-substantive debates that devolve into mere public spectacle. It is a waste of time for those waiting to see how a "Fine Arts Academy graduate" will react. My response is silence, for with or without a degree, I have never tolerated a lack of basic civility. A platform intended for professional growth and mutual inspiration should not be treated like the "Wild West." Behavior that might be the norm in a frontier cattle drive is unacceptable in a space dedicated to high culture. It is disheartening that some believe simply "passing by" an Academy without ever sitting for an entrance-exam entitles them to a voice as authoritative as those who spent years mastering the craft. Ultimately, I find myself in agreement with Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: "There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity."

Distinguishing Impressionism and Fauvism: A Formal Comparison Approach to Color Impressionism (Naturalism): Color is dictated by the sun and the specific time of day. While shadows may appear in violets or blues, the grass fundamentally remains green. Fauvism (Arbitrariness): Color is decoupled from nature. An artist may paint grass red or a face blue, not to imitate reality, but to convey raw emotion. The Role of the Contour Impressionism: An absence of defined outlines. Forms are soft, ethereal, and blurred, merging into one another without distinct borders. Fauvism: Use of strong, bold contours. Forms are often encased in thick, dark lines, creating a sense of primal intensity or rawness. Perspective and Depth Impressionism (Three-dimensionality): A commitment to depicting depth, atmospheric space, and the quality of the air itself. Fauvism (Two-dimensionality): A tendency toward flatness. The composition often rejects traditional depth, resembling a decorative poster or graphic arrangement. Technical Execution (Brushwork) Impressionism: Characterized by small, broken strokes. The artist applies paint in short "touches," allowing colors to blend optically in the eye of the viewer. Fauvism: Characterized by broad, sweeping patches. The paint is often applied violently or impulsively, frequently squeezed straight from the tube. The Artistic Objective Impressionism: To capture the ephemeral impression—the fleeting quality of light and atmosphere, such as morning mist or the refraction of a rainbow. Fauvism: To manifest internal expression. The goal is to project a state of mind, whether joy or anguish, by deliberately bypassing realism in favor of the soul. The Historical Critique Main criticism of the Impressionist: "The work remains unfinished." Main criticism of the Fauvist: "A total lack of talent."

Why is the criticism leveled against Impressionism and Fauvism so misguided? There is a persistent stereotype suggesting that Impressionists and Fauvists adopted their radical forms of expression simply because they lacked a foundation in classical education. From a philistine perspective, these artists are often viewed as having "technical deficiencies," with the primary argument being the tired cliché: "A child could paint that." However, where is the catch? The answer is quite profound: while a child paints instinctively because they lack alternative techniques, an Impressionist or a Fauvist paints this way because they have already mastered the craft. Having explored and exhausted traditional styles, they deliberately choose a specific visual language to communicate more effectively with the viewer. This artistic journey is perfectly summarized by Picasso’s famous reflection: "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child."

What are the most prevalent differences between hand-painted works and those generated by AI? 1.Anatomical Inconsistencies: Errors in human structure that a trained eye immediately recognizes. 2.Logical Inconsistencies: Spatial errors and background distortions that are physically impossible in layered oil painting. 3.The Paradox of Excessive Perfection: The lack of organic "human" texture and brush-to-canvas resistance. How to verify when a visual assessment remains inconclusive? 1. Metadata Analysis: Examining the digital "fingerprint" of the file to trace its origins. 2.Online AI Detectors: Utilizing specialized digital tools to assess the probability of algorithmic generation.

On Critique To begin with, we must be clear: a viewer has every right to dislike a painting, as such a reaction is perfectly natural. In fact, critique is an essential pillar of the artistic profession, serving as a vital catalyst that allows us to evolve creatively. Paradoxically, the feedback that stings the most often proves to be the most valuable gift an artist can receive from their audience. Personally, I sincerely prefer those who offer honest criticism over those who provide only empty praise. This is because only the former challenge me to push the boundaries of my creative work, encouraging a mindset of constant questioning while preventing me from ever placing myself on a pedestal. Ultimately, there is always a technique yet to be mastered or a perspective we haven’t considered, and such insights can truly come from anyone. Furthermore, a total absence of critique is perhaps the most detrimental thing that can happen to an artist, particularly within those "self-admiration groups" on Facebook that are ruled by nothing but heart icons and praying hands symbols. Let’s be honest: Facebook is not a "sanctuary of faith," regardless of whether we are surrounded by "followers" or "haters" in our digital circles.

How can one distinguish between constructive critique, hate speech, and cyberbullying? 1. Constructive Critique: The Path to Growth Constructive critique focuses strictly on the formal elements of a work—such as its composition, technique, and execution—rather than targeting the artist or the subject matter. A true critic possesses the necessary expertise not only to identify perceived flaws but also to propose scholarly solutions or alternative techniques for improvement. Consequently, the language remains objective, dignified, and neutral, aimed at fostering a shared understanding of the craft without a hint of malice. 2. "Hate" (Hate Speech): The Rejection of Logic Unlike critique, hate speech functions as a personal assault, targeting an artist’s academic background, intellect, origin, or personal beliefs. A "detractor" offers no artistic solutions or aesthetic insight; instead, their vocabulary is limited to hollow dismissals such as "this is hideous" or "this is worthless." Their approach is fundamentally rooted in derision and contempt, utilizing aggression as a substitute for a genuine understanding of art history or theory. 3. Cyberbullying: Systematic Hostility Cyberbullying is characterized by its persistence and repetition, distinguishing it from a single, isolated comment. It manifests as a calculated series of attacks launched within a short duration, with the primary objective being the erosion of the artist’s reputation and professional credibility. Ultimately, this is a form of digital violence that seeks to silence the creator rather than engage in a meaningful dialogue with the art.

To conclude the discussion of this piece, it is worth reflecting on a celebrated anecdote attributed to Henri Matisse. Upon viewing one of his works, a woman once confronted the artist with sharp criticism, exclaiming, "But Monsieur Matisse, the arm of this woman is far too long!" With characteristic poise, Matisse offered a reply that perfectly encapsulates the philosophy of modern art: "Madame, you are mistaken; that is not a woman, that is a painting."

The AI Allegation: As a practicing painter, I am fundamentally opposed to the introduction of AI into painting in the role of a "painter." This phenomenon does not represent an evolution of the craft; rather, it constitutes a profound devaluation. It stems from individuals posing as painters to generate images and present them on forums where a gullible public suddenly "discovers" a new Da Vinci. This is nothing more than deception—a practice I now frequently encounter on many art portals. Ultimately, AI serves to satisfy the "ego" of someone who desires to be "the best" without the requisite labor of the craft. Furthermore, those who utilize this form are often willfully unaware that for AI to generate such an image, the software had to be trained on countless works by artists who neither knew about it nor gave their consent. While some politely call this a "free-for-all," I call it theft. It is the systemic appropriation of human creativity without acknowledgment or permission. Ultimately, a work of art is, above all, an encounter with another human being through the discovery of their sensitivity. We are perpetually dealing with emotions here, as every practicing artist invests their feelings, intellect, and time into a work before stepping forward to share that creation with others, where feelings again play the leading role. In both instances, it is the "human element" that remains paramount, precisely because artificial intelligence has no feelings. Sometimes a work of art resonates with us and sometimes it does not, but in neither case does that define it as "good" or "bad." One thing, however, is certain: if a human being stands behind it, the work is truthful in its message.

And now, if you will excuse me, I shall return to my easel. I wish you all a pleasant evening.