The London Standard has revived its brand by publishing an A.I.-generated art review in the style of Brian Sewell. This decision reflects the publication’s struggle to adapt in a competitive media landscape. Critics argue that such an approach is superficial and fails to capture the depth of Sewell’s original critiques, raising concerns about authenticity in A.I. writing.
The recent shift by the London Standard to publish an A.I.-written art review in the style of the late critic Brian Sewell has sparked significant debate. This decision coincided with their rebranding as a weekly publication, aiming to revive interest amid a crisis in readership. While A.I. can swiftly generate content, the move appears more a desperate attempt at relevancy than a genuine exploration of journalistic innovation. Critics see the use of Sewell’s voice as superficial and lacking depth, raising questions about authenticity and engagement with art critique. The review itself, while could pass as mildly engaging, lacks the nuanced criticism typical of Sewell’s work, serving instead as a reminder of the issues facing contemporary journalism.
The London Standard aims to redefine itself amid declining readership and the transformation from a daily to a weekly format. By employing A.I. to recreate a long-dead critic’s voice, the publication seeks to provoke conversation about modern journalistic practices and the role of technology in art criticism. However, such efforts can seem shallow and contrived, particularly when they rely on an iconic yet controversial figure like Sewell, whose legacy is arguably misaligned with a forward-thinking identity sought by the publication.
The London Standard’s use of an A.I. recreation of Brian Sewell highlights the tension between innovation and authenticity in journalism. While attempts to spark discussion are commendable, the execution has drawn criticism for lacking substance, ultimately reflecting wider issues in the media’s engagement with art and technology. Authentic commentary requires more than just adopting the voice of an esteemed critic; it demands thoughtful analysis and genuine intent.
Original Source: news.artnet.com