Sign up to see the future, today<\/p>\n
Can\u2019t-miss innovations from the bleeding edge of science and tech<\/p>\n
A poster wrought some moderate havoc this week when they shared a cropped image of a real Monet painting while claiming it was an AI fake,\u00a0unleashing a flood of ill-informed reactions and muddled discourse. So, you know, it was just another day online.<\/p>\n
\u201cI just generated an image in the style of a Monet painting using AI,\u201d read<\/a> the original post, published to X-formerly-Twitter yesterday by an anonymous conceptual artist who goes by the pseudonym \u201cSHL0MS.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cPlease describe, in as much detail as possible,\u201d he continued, \u201cwhat makes this inferior to a real Monet painting.\u201d<\/p>\n Commenters were quick to jump in<\/a> to explain why, in their view, the alleged AI image was worse than the real work of the French impressionist master. According to one, the image was an \u201cincoherent muddle of inconsistently saturated greens.\u201d Another lamented that there was no \u201ccoherent composition,\u201d while someone else shared that the painting seemed \u201cbusy, artificial, nature in turmoil, polluted.\u201d Another commenter said that the allegedly AI-generated image seemed as if it was \u201ctrying too hard\u201d to resemble Monet\u2019s later paintings, which he created when he was close to blindness<\/a>. Others shared that the image was \u201cobvious\u201d AI slop.<\/p>\n \u201cIn terms of composition. It is (to me) emotionless. There is some spark missing,\u201d one poster remarked. \u201cIt is not Monet, it feel like an undergrad art student\u2019s study from a museum visit.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cUnlike Monet, your AI model is not painting with advanced myopia and dramatic gusto during a period of artistic rebellion in Paris,\u201d said another. \u201cInferior.\u201d<\/p>\n Others were less highbrow in their dismissals.<\/p>\n \u201cIt looks like sh*t,\u201d one person commented, \u201cand is sh*t.\u201d<\/p>\n Unfortunately for these many opinion-havers, however, they were the ones who were duped. The Monet was actually real: it\u2019s one of his iconic \u201cWater Lilies\u201d paintings, created around 1915<\/a> and currently hung in the Neue Pinakothek museum in Munich, Germany.<\/p>\n i just generated an image in the style of a Monet painting using AI<\/p>\n please describe, in as much detail as possible, what makes this inferior to a real Monet painting pic.twitter.com\/VDJovKOqlz<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 \ud809\udc2a (@SHL0MS) May 12, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n As is to be expected, other commenters were quick to dunk on the posters who\u2019d insulted the fake-AI-fake-Monet. Many interpreted the harsh yet ill-informed reaction to the image as an example of \u201cknee-jerk\u201d AI distaste and foolish \u201cAI hysteria.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAI art wins again!\u201d proclaimed one poster.<\/p>\n But some of the most interesting responses<\/a> came from actual experts, who shared deeply informed analyses about why, based on the image alone, the painting appeared to them to be the real deal.<\/p>\n \u201cDisagree with the people saying it lacks depth \u2014\u00a0there\u2019s a clear plane with the lily pads and an inverted space with the willow reflecting. Paint texture looks pretty believable as a physical object, though thinner than most Monets I\u2019ve seen (probably plausible for a very late life painting, which this would be if real),\u201d surmised oil painter Kendric Tonn. \u201cIt\u2019s not a top-tier Monet, but it\u2019s a very credible Monet.\u201d<\/p>\n Others saw right through the con.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat the f*ck dude this is a detail from an actual late Monet? You can tell because the brush strokes are super similar to the Agapanthus in MOMA,\u201d art historian A.V. Marraccini assessed. \u201cLate ones always have that kind of wild impasto, and since his perception of color changed, more lilacs and purples.\u201d<\/p>\n On the one hand, it is pretty embarrassing that a ton of people were quick to attack the real Monet without doing so much as a reverse-image search first. But whereas pro-AI art posters took the wave of erroneously reactive responses as affirmation of their own views on the validity of the controversial medium, the real lesson here seems to be about the nature of the online world itself.<\/p>\n More than ever before, a lot of the web is fake \u2014\u00a0a reality that makes it shockingly easy to manipulate actual truth. And in an online world chock full of millions of post-happy armchair experts, insight from genuine experts is perhaps more valuable than ever. Now more than ever: think before you post! Better yet, do a little research before sounding off, or seek insights from informed specialists.<\/p>\n \u201cI think this experiment,\u201d commented<\/a> designer Paul Macgregor, \u201cprobably says more about Twitter than it does about AI and art.\u201d<\/p>\n More on AI art: The Supreme Court Just Dealt a Crushing Blow to \u201cAI Artists\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n \t