Why not just say movie posters from Ghana? What is connection between these and the concept of African, I wonder?
Anyway, I'm Ghanaian, and you can AMA. There's a lot of such art, many on walls of the erstwhile movie houses. Most of them are very realistic and collectible, but I guess only the garish ones command attention and so are easier to make into a story.
As a kid I once watched an artist paint one of these on a wall in a few hours, was very cool.
Look up deadly prey gallery, the website hosting the picture. They commission some OG artists & some new artists to make new posters specifically in this style. It's legit. This one is signed by Nana Agyq.
Definitely not AI, but if these are new commissions it's not unreasonable to suspect an element of self-parody, playing up the aspects of the originals that amuse people.
These are wonderful. They're so full of character. But I must imagine a "screening" on a TV would be a terrible experience to watch. I guess if you had never been to a full movie theater, you'd never know what you were missing out on.
In Czechoslovakia ~ 1988, video players were rather expensive and complicated to acquire, so we as kids watched movies from cassettes together as well, at the homes of the few who were rich enough to afford them.
One of those parents was a truck driver who was able to cross the Iron Curtain and always smuggled something interesting back.
My best movie experiences were probably watching hard to acquire bootlegs in the pre-digital age. The barriers were just so much higher, half the excitement was just getting a crappy copy.
This is intriguing! Reminds me of an old movie theatre in Taiwan that still uses hand-painted posters, until the theatre closed down earlier this year.
No comments here about the odd non-standard "say yes to say no" sliders for data collection and selling? I've only seen this a few times in privacy settings windows but enough times that I'm now wary of just assuming that gray means opt-out.
Not sure what you’re seeing, but I’ve seen that particular window several times (and no sliders). Very easy to “Disagree” or “Reject All”.
Anyway, those are usually avoided in comments unless they are particularly egregious, because as per the guidelines:
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
The text claims "Always at least one exploding head" and the number of exploding heads in the 20 posters shown is zero. It lists a number of "favourites from the genre" not one of which is actually shown. The text, as you might surmise from the previous two points, has the definite scent of LLMs about it.
The net effect of this is that, while I can look at the pictures and admire them (if that's the word) I have no idea whether I can trust anything in the actual text, since any given claim might just be an LLM confabulation.
(Which is too bad, since on the face of it it seems quite interesting, and probably many of the things the LLM has generated are in fact true.)
The worst part of this is how it has this kind of buzzfeed-like style of semi-tongue-in-cheek-but-still-politically-correct aesthetics. Is this what regression to the mean is in the future of AI writing? Are we doomed to read buzzfeed everywhere now?
Agreed, and "definite scent" is underselling it. I didn't even attempt any deep analysis; I just skimmed a bit and found this bit and noped right out:
> The posters were typically painted on used flour sacks, sewn together and primed for colour. These weren’t just any flour sacks either — they were durable, easy to roll up, and ready for reuse.
> And the designs? Let’s just say they didn’t rely too heavily on accuracy.
I thought the writing was banal but fine. The stars of the show are the images, not the text. Assuming it's largely LLM written, this seems like a good use of that technology.
The text adds some pieces of information you wouldn't get from the images alone: they were painted on flour sacks, used at mobile cinemas, now exhibited at galleries in the West, etc. And it provides citations and artists' names for those who want to learn more.
The art criticism is unsophisticated, the images don't completely match the descriptions, and some of the facts might well be hallucinated or at least taken out of context. But you got that with traditional media and human writers/editors too.
For what it's worth, I'd guess there is a real author, whose command of the English language is worse than ChatGPT, and who asked the LLM to rewrite his work in the right style for the website.
And six of the seven links in the “sources” are dead. For an article published last year. I searched them in the Internet Archive and didn’t find a single match. And we’re talking CNN, BBC, The Guardian, amongst others.
if they're so bad they're good ... they're actually just good. probably because they capture something increasingly rare: the human and personal touch of an artist who's not straight jacketed by "safe mode" marketing, editorial norms, analytics, blah blah blah
Yes, they're amazingly good given they didn't have copies of the original posters, Internet access to get reference images, or even VCRs at home to play the movies themselves.
The clickbait title is about "Africa" and "bad", but it's specifically about Ghana and awesome.
And Africa is more than twice the size of Europe, it is fair to complain that they don’t just put Ghana in the title. It is not that the title is unacceptable but it is just wrong and weird
Maybe the English-speaking world. I think most people couldn't place Canada on a map. More people than Ghana or any African country, certainly, but that's because it's more famous. GDP is more correlated to this than population or landmass.
I'm not justifying anything. I also think it's more polite to say "Ghana" rather than "Africa". I just don't agree with the arguments.
Canada is the second-largest country in the world, so if you know that it's in the north and, um, not Russia, you stand a pretty good chance at picking it out. (Doubly so if you just know it's in the Americas.)
Now, if you asked the same about Pakistan or Nigeria (#5 and #6 in terms of population, but far smaller and with far shorter sea borders), I'd bet that far fewer people would be able to pinpoint those with the same accuracy (whether in the English-speaking world or not).
I am fairly certain that most people in the non-English speaking world will also be able to place Canada on the map - I'd assume the French know exactly where Canada is. But I digress; it's not about placing a country on a map. It's more about we know that Canada is a separate country, and it has an identity distinct from other countries in its continent.
This goes beyond mere politeness; that you used this word is a bit suggestive. Refusing to acknowledge an identity is far more than just a lack of politeness.
I can appreciate where you're coming from in general, but this article isn't that. All Headlines suck, by their nature they have to cater to the lowest common denominator in who they assume their audience is, so we're using the headline to place an unfamiliar country in a continent that is familiar enough, at least in name.
> this site is my attempt at creating something that’s dedicated to discovering the hidden gems of the online realm (whether they be in the form of academic discourse, cutting-edge technology, cultural commentary, or artistic expression) and sharing them with care and consideration.
How is treating a country in the second largest continent in the world - which contains more than 50 countries, most of which have very distinct cultures - as representative of that continent showing care and consideration? Ghana is not an unfamiliar country, and most people, at the very least, know it's in Africa. If I confused Mexico with Canada, or Germany with Albania, I'd be treated as a dimwit, but somehow it's totally fine if I don't know the difference between Ghana and Kenya.
I agree with the parent comment; this "unfamiliar country" business needs to stop.
This is spot on. The real reasons the headline is "Africa" and not "Ghana" are:
- To sensationalize the story by positioning it as a another manifestation of a supposed "African" nature/character.
- The idea that African countries by themselves are too insignificant to seek/need to know about, but an entire continents? OK, maybe. Many people are comfortable in ignorance, real or feigned.
Putting Ghana on the title would have been just fine. I'm Ghanaian btw.
How exactly is that clickbait? You might not like it, but that doesn't make it clickbait. That's like saying it's clickbait to say Europe in a headline instead of Austria.
A tour guide for the U.S. definitely implies that you are going to see a variety of places in the U.S. That's implied by the word "tour" which means something roughly akin to "a journey through several different places".
This is merely an example where the writer of the headline believes that the average reader may not be familiar with the country of Ghana. If the demographics include Americans, I'd have to guess they were spot on. (I'm American, I know how Americans are.)
Would it really be similarly offensive if a headline referred to something happening in "South America" when actually it happened in Guyana? Or, a headline about something happening in "Europe" when actually it happened in Andorra? None of these headlines are inaccurate. They're just not specific.
I can obviously see why this is frustrating but to me it's a complete misunderstanding to blame the person writing the headline.
> Would it really be similarly offensive if a headline referred to something happening in "South America" when actually it happened in Guyana?
Yes. It's like saying that the art and culture in Georgetown is very similar to the art and culture in Santiago. Especially when you claim to be an arts-and-culture website.
> Or, a headline about something happening in "Europe" when actually it happened in Andorra?
What many people here are trying to point out is that the chances of seeing such a line about a European country (even a relatively unknown one) is waaaay less than the chances of seeing such a line about African/South American countries.
The original commenters critique is valid, as the discussion illustrates and ultimately vindicates. This comment you have left in response is dismissive, childish, and lacking of any meaningful contribution. Although, I suppose with a username like yours it should be of no surprise this is all you could meet them with. It is nevertheless disappointing to see such low-brow low-effort commentary on HN, and it is ironically your comment that is misplaced rather than the original commenter.
Anyway, I'm Ghanaian, and you can AMA. There's a lot of such art, many on walls of the erstwhile movie houses. Most of them are very realistic and collectible, but I guess only the garish ones command attention and so are easier to make into a story.
As a kid I once watched an artist paint one of these on a wall in a few hours, was very cool.
https://deadly-prey-gallery.myshopify.com/cdn/shop/files/D18...
Quality hardly matters when the real treasure was getting the movie in the first place.
One of those parents was a truck driver who was able to cross the Iron Curtain and always smuggled something interesting back.
A BBC article on it: https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20181107-the-last-film-po...
Anyway, those are usually avoided in comments unless they are particularly egregious, because as per the guidelines:
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The net effect of this is that, while I can look at the pictures and admire them (if that's the word) I have no idea whether I can trust anything in the actual text, since any given claim might just be an LLM confabulation.
(Which is too bad, since on the face of it it seems quite interesting, and probably many of the things the LLM has generated are in fact true.)
Less of this, please.
> The posters were typically painted on used flour sacks, sewn together and primed for colour. These weren’t just any flour sacks either — they were durable, easy to roll up, and ready for reuse.
> And the designs? Let’s just say they didn’t rely too heavily on accuracy.
LLM writing tropes that are so bad, they're good.
The text adds some pieces of information you wouldn't get from the images alone: they were painted on flour sacks, used at mobile cinemas, now exhibited at galleries in the West, etc. And it provides citations and artists' names for those who want to learn more.
The art criticism is unsophisticated, the images don't completely match the descriptions, and some of the facts might well be hallucinated or at least taken out of context. But you got that with traditional media and human writers/editors too.
For what it's worth, I'd guess there is a real author, whose command of the English language is worse than ChatGPT, and who asked the LLM to rewrite his work in the right style for the website.
The single live link suggests that they do.
https://deadlypreygallery.com
[0] https://static.wixstatic.com/media/d5cc5f_5c451a5882264776a4...
(the bbc seem to have lost the body of their original article)
The clickbait title is about "Africa" and "bad", but it's specifically about Ghana and awesome.
https://www.instagram.com/losone_african_arts/
I like this movie poster art. I think it conceptually reflects what you will see in the movie. It also looks genuine and authentic.
When will Westerners stop treating Africa as a monoculture.
Either of these better titles or no?
“…from Ghana, Africa…”
“…from Africa’s Ghana…”
(China, Asia & Asia’s China don’t really fit so probably not?)
The Asia comparison would work better if instead of talking about China we were talking about Laos.
No need to cherry-pick some random metric and try and justify a point that's not worth justifying.
I'm not justifying anything. I also think it's more polite to say "Ghana" rather than "Africa". I just don't agree with the arguments.
Now, if you asked the same about Pakistan or Nigeria (#5 and #6 in terms of population, but far smaller and with far shorter sea borders), I'd bet that far fewer people would be able to pinpoint those with the same accuracy (whether in the English-speaking world or not).
This goes beyond mere politeness; that you used this word is a bit suggestive. Refusing to acknowledge an identity is far more than just a lack of politeness.
Asia is only ~50% larger than Africa.
I expected different posters for the same movie from different African countries.
Imagine buying a cook book of European cuisine only listing UK dishes.
A sample from the website's About page:
> this site is my attempt at creating something that’s dedicated to discovering the hidden gems of the online realm (whether they be in the form of academic discourse, cutting-edge technology, cultural commentary, or artistic expression) and sharing them with care and consideration.
How is treating a country in the second largest continent in the world - which contains more than 50 countries, most of which have very distinct cultures - as representative of that continent showing care and consideration? Ghana is not an unfamiliar country, and most people, at the very least, know it's in Africa. If I confused Mexico with Canada, or Germany with Albania, I'd be treated as a dimwit, but somehow it's totally fine if I don't know the difference between Ghana and Kenya.
I agree with the parent comment; this "unfamiliar country" business needs to stop.
- To sensationalize the story by positioning it as a another manifestation of a supposed "African" nature/character.
- The idea that African countries by themselves are too insignificant to seek/need to know about, but an entire continents? OK, maybe. Many people are comfortable in ignorance, real or feigned.
Putting Ghana on the title would have been just fine. I'm Ghanaian btw.
The only debatable part is that it's not all of Africa. But otherwise it's a very accurate description of the whole article.
Clickbait is "You won't believe the art that came out of this continent!" or "Look at the wild things artists did to attract an audience!".
Like a tour guide for the US and you only list places in Texas.
This is merely an example where the writer of the headline believes that the average reader may not be familiar with the country of Ghana. If the demographics include Americans, I'd have to guess they were spot on. (I'm American, I know how Americans are.)
Would it really be similarly offensive if a headline referred to something happening in "South America" when actually it happened in Guyana? Or, a headline about something happening in "Europe" when actually it happened in Andorra? None of these headlines are inaccurate. They're just not specific.
I can obviously see why this is frustrating but to me it's a complete misunderstanding to blame the person writing the headline.
Yes. It's like saying that the art and culture in Georgetown is very similar to the art and culture in Santiago. Especially when you claim to be an arts-and-culture website.
> Or, a headline about something happening in "Europe" when actually it happened in Andorra?
What many people here are trying to point out is that the chances of seeing such a line about a European country (even a relatively unknown one) is waaaay less than the chances of seeing such a line about African/South American countries.
a shit stirrer shows up and now 2/3 of the comments in the thread are offtopic. is that the kind of commentary you seek?
billions must die.