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 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!".

- 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.

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?

The single live link suggests that they do.

https://deadlypreygallery.com

Sure. But if the author doesn't notice the nonsense that the LLM is introducing, it harms as well as helping.

"Primed for colour" is a strangely uninteresting thing to be saying about the sacks. If this requires any non-trivial effort, it would make more sense to describe the process. If the author actually wanted to talk about that, chances are the LLM removed useful information.

And putting aside that "These weren’t just any flour sacks either — they were durable, easy to roll up, and ready for reuse." is three "classic LLM tropes" in a row ("not just any"; a gratuitous emdash where any dash at all only becomes necessary because of that introduction; an ascending tricolon), it's just a bizarre thing to say. First off, if the sacks were sewn together to make a larger banner, then it doesn't make sense to talk about rolling up the individual sacks. Second, the phrasing suggests something exceptional, but these are all totally ordinary and trivial properties of pretty much any sort of flour sack. Many different materials are used, but all of them would be "easy to roll up" when empty, and making them durable and reusable is just common sense in that environment. The artists were clearly just using a fairly obvious material they had at hand, so this sudden bit of marketing-speak is entirely out of place. Third, the features highlighted all have to do with the sacks, but not with either each other nor the banners. In particular, a sack being "ready for reuse" is ready for reuse as a sack, not for its material being repurposed for something completely different (we typically call that "recycling", not "reuse").

The bit about "the designs" may well even be true, but it's a complete non-sequitur here, a point that doesn't really merit deeper explanation.

The writing isn't just "banal" but nonsensical in context, veering off into free-association. There's more potentially being hallucinated here than just the "facts". Never mind the accuracy or truth of what's written; this sort of thing makes it hard to accept that the prose even reflects the author's intent.