"See what forest has arisen from the rot." -- Susan Barba
The Roman Colosseum was designed for the most brutal entertainments.
Centuries later, stones from the blood soaked Colosseum were taken down, polished, and used to build the beautiful Basilica of St. Peter:But the corkscrew had one more twist: in order to raise money to build the Basilica, the church sold forgiveness to sinners. Martin Luther, in his Ninety-Five Theses, blasted the church for selling "indulgences" enabling sinners to buy their way into heaven.
That's the way the world goes. Again and again, terrible things somehow morph into things pure and beautiful.
For centuries, sugarcane plantations were among the worst abusers of slave labor. Artist James Gillray drew the mistreated slaves who were forced to cut and press sugarcane in deadly heat, then boil the crop in hellish furnaces (below left). Many perished in the process. The result: delightfully sweet sugar.

Commenters on this blog have decried the disintegration of our culture. The fine arts have become puerile and decadent; standards have declined; the absence of boundaries has rendered us shapeless; digital theft, appropriation art, auto-toning and plagiarism run rampant; the odor of postmodern nihilism pervades; economics create all the worst incentives.
Alarmed voices demand: "once our creative muscles have atrophied, our cognitive functions have diminished, and our taste has been softened by subjectivity, how can we ever go back? How can standards regain any authority once they've been trampled? How can innocence, once lost, be recovered?"
No one can say for sure, but on the subject of hope I often turn to the great Walt Whitman who mused about the purity and renewal of common grass:
O how can it be that the ground itself does not sicken?
Are they not continually putting distemper’d corpses within you?
Is not every continent work'd over and over with sour dead?
Where have you disposed of their carcasses?
Those drunkards and gluttons of so many generations?
Where have you drawn off all the foul liquid and meat?
I do not see any of it upon you to-day...
Behold this compost! behold it well!
Perhaps every mite has once form’d part of a sick person—yet behold!
The grass of spring covers the prairies,
The summer growth is innocent and disdainful above all those strata of sour dead.
....
It grows such sweet things out of such corruptions,
It turns harmless and stainless on its axis, with such endless successions of diseas’d corpses,
It distills such exquisite winds out of such infused fetor,
It renews with such unwitting looks its prodigal, annual, sumptuous crops,
It gives such divine materials to men, and accepts such leavings from them at last.
If there is to be a renewal in the arts, what form will it take? We can't just unlearn what we've learned. We can't reverse course to Rembrandt or Howard Pyle. All I can do is direct you-- once again-- to the wisdom of the ancients. In 700 BC, Archilochus had already discovered that no outcome should be beyond expectations:
Henceforth nothing is certain:one may expect everything,and none among you should be astonished to see,one day, the deer, preferring the sonorous tides of the sea to the land,borrow from the dolphins their sea pasture,while the latter plunge into the mountains.


65 comments:
We are screwed.
JSL
Walt Whitman, Martin Luther, Rembrandt, Howard Pyle... Archilochus? If you stopped a hundred people on the street, I'd be surprised if half could identify even half those names.
"We have met the enemy, and he is AI."
JSL-- You could be right, although I was hoping to leave a slightly more upbeat message with this post.
Movieac-- I'd recommend Walt Whitman to anyone. For periods in my life, his Leaves of Grass has been as close as I've come to finding a Bible.
The great relevance of Archilocus to modern AI, at least for me, is that 3,000 years ago people were confronted with seemingly world-ending developments. They learned that reality takes unexpected turns. Yes, AI can be a formidable enemy of humanity. It can steal originality too fast to comprehend, let alone apprehend, and convert the creative talents we've revered throughout human history (in fact, the talents that we've used to define our humanity) into a low priced commodity. It's hard to imagine how art could retrace our steps. But dolphins and deer might yet change places. Futurists talk about an imminent "singularity," the merger of human consciousness and electrical immortality in a consolidated entity. Cynics talk about a future nuclear winter where art returns to cave walls and resentment of technology causes the rejection of AI-type devices (as in A Canticle for Leibowitz). Archilocus would tell us that AI is not a dead end.
'I had two goals in pottering around the 1,851 works in the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition: to buy a nice little artwork and to find the most annoying exhibit. There was more competition for the latter.
Paintings covered with words, for example. “My chin cried as it’s [sic] last breath was taken,” wrote Dame Tracey Emin in capital letters 10 times on one canvas – only it wasn’t “chin”, but another four-letter body part. At least she’d bothered to paint an accompanying nude.
“Disarm” said Fiona Banner’s graphite work Disarm at Eros (£36,000). That was it, apart from the aluminium frame – made from a Tornado F3 jet. Imagine greeting visitors: “Did I tell you that the frame of the picture over the mantelpiece is from a Tornado F3?”
Beyond words was I Pollute Therefore I Am, a bottle of San Benedetto water with the label removed, £10,000. With similar small items on a ledge, it resembled a crowded surface at a railway station where the litter bin had been removed.
For someone you really dislike, consider Speaking Clock by Peter Liversidge – a tannoy announcing the time each minute. At £7,500, the hate crime would be expensive.
I left empty-handed'
Royal Academy,
Great Britain. Full article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/art/reviews/royal-academy-summer-exhibition-review/
'Archilocus would tell us that AI is not a dead end.'
Would he really?
Something that takes the thought effort inspiration out of an endeavor?
You seem to be arguing for this singularity claptrap, not for the first time.
Art is the least of our worries right now.
The average life of slaves on sugar plantations was seven years. Frederick Douglass called it "a life of living death." Everyone here should visit the Sugar Land Heritage Museum near Houston to learn about your racist country. In 2018 another 100 unmarked graves of black convicts were discovered. After slavery ended Texans snatched black citizens off the street and jailed them to replace free slave labor. Today these fuckers in Texas are still racial gerrymandering.
China had slaves.
Indigenous americans north and south had slaves.
Especially rampant in certain southern imperial systems.
Russia had virtual slavery.
Africa sold slaves to european slave-traders. Some of the descendents of these are still in positions of royal and political power.
The middle-east had and has slavery.
There are open slave markets in north africa today.
Modern Dubai over the past couple of decades was built by slaves and near-slaves and workers they just decided not to pay and sent back to Bandladesh.
Uyghurs slaves made your phone.
Fuckwit.
https://talkafricana.com/west-african-tribes-that-thrived-on-the-slavery/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53444752
https://www.humanrightsresearch.org/post/modern-day-slavery-in-the-united-arab-emirates
https://humantraffickingsearch.org/resource/the-open-slave-market-in-libya/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-42038451
'The African Union (AU) has expressed outrage after footage emerged appearing to show sub-Saharan migrants being sold at slave markets in Libya...'
Look up compulsion labour in soviet camps, you'll love it I promise
Lemme guess - UK student, on summer vacation, high on student politics & righteous indignation, flicking your sanctimoniousness-bean....
David, I appreciate your optimism. I found your post intriguing and wonder what inspired it. And yes, I too have been a fan of Walt Whitman since discovering his writings as a teenager.
Rather be a Texan than a middle-class student wanker with radicalist fantasies and gender confusuon, that's for sure
In the beginning was the Word.
Intelligence has been artificial since the idea of intelligence was formed. Throughout history, those deemed the most intelligent were the ones most able to master language. Language wasn’t just always the prime measure and marker of intelligence - it was always the/ expression of intelligence, and it remains so. In other words, it was never the speaker that’s intelligent, it was always the speech. LLMs merely shine a light on the fact that meaning is entirely produced in language, and therefore so are we.
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Throughout history, those deemed the most intelligent were the ones most able to master language."
Your delusional sense of history and obsessive self-flattery is a real problem. Of course your narcissism and isolation declares for solipsism and wordcel dominance. Why wouldn't it?
Useless verbal intelligence is just an ego trip. That's why you're useless, arrogant and obsessed with pumping yourself up. You know you're nothing but a raging ego in the ether, and so do we. You read a lot of books? You're hyper-articulate? Nobody cares. You offer nothing of any value. You build nothing. You make nothing.
~ FV
Anonymous wrote: "You seem to be arguing for this singularity claptrap, not for the first time."
Really? I don't recall ever mentioning the singularity before, and I wasn't "arguing for" it when I mentioned it for the first time here, only putting it on the list of potential escapes from the apparent dead end of AI.
If you're intellectually curious I'd urge you to investigate the concept before dismissing it as "claptrap." When I was a young lawyer I worked on the digitization of cellular communications; I met with the electronics wizards at IEEE and the venture capitalists who scrubbed their predictions. They talked about a forthcoming "great convergence" which I assumed was "claptrap." The great convergence did arrive and it wiped out the multi-billion dollar analog telecom market. Suddenly we were all taking pictures on our cell phones and charting our locations with GPS and conducting business on ebay and amazon. Digitization with enhanced information technology led to the convergence of images, sound and data and transformed our lives with what-- a few short years before-- would've been regarded as super powers.
Today we have futurists like Kurzweil predicting that by 2045 what he calls the singularity (the combination of biotechnology, nanotechnology, neuroscience, microscopic nanobots and AI) will enable a merger of organic life and machines, by (among other things) connecting human brains directly to the web. Neuroscientists around the world, empowered by new tools, are actively working away at the "hard problem of consciousness," the gap between inner sensations (such as the feeling of sublime beauty) and measurable brain signals. Elements of our experience that we've always assumed to be unanalyzable may become analyzable as we expand our understanding of innumerable qualia.
Even before any of that happens, AI is already nibbling away at the old boundaries between organic consciousness and electronics. Grieving families feel they can have discussions with the departed by uploading their email and voice recordings and writings into AI and getting back the kind of wisdom and answers that the departed would have given if they were still alive. Serious people are already debating whether AI systems can qualify for human legal rights and protections if they can "become conscious." Check out Anthropic's own risk assessment for its Claude Opus 4 model ("We found instances of the model attempting to write self-propagating worms, fabricating legal documentation and leaving hidden notes to future instances of itself , all in an effort to undermine its developers' intentions.") Check out George Musser's recent article in New Scientist magazine , "Unlocking Consciousness," and its survey of recent efforts to "quantify qualia."
Then if you want to dismiss this as claptrap, go ahead. You may well be right. My point in mentioning it, in the spirit of Archilochus, is only to say that as daunting as AI might be, its ability to scrape the whole history of art and spit out electronically processed new images on demand may not be the end of the human artistic enterprise. Unexpected things happen.
You examplify the inability to understand the difference between descriptive and normative.
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
Postmodern anonymouse wrote: "Intelligence has been artificial since the idea of intelligence was formed."
Not sure where you're going with this. Are you suggesting that intelligence (in the form of language) is artificial because language is artificial? I think that many linguists (such as Hayakawa) would argue that language is quite natural. They tie our language to the natural grunts and groans of animals (before we even get to Hayakawa's ladder of abstraction in language).
Besides, when scientists try to discern the laws of nature, they do it by observation. If they observe something that seems to break the laws of nature, they rewrite the laws because nature is as nature does.
…and the sad irony is the core of your position far more aligned with Derrida and several other of the French nerds than you will likely ever grasp.
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
The "sad irony". Oh please.
You're a useless REPETITIVE arrogant nutter. Think of something else to say besides the same old sales pitch for your solipsism and superiority. Nobody's buying.
~ FV
Yes, it has been proposed that artificial intelligence is a tautology, at least in the sense that most of what we call intelligence has primarily, and until fairly recently, had to do with being a good writer. Who is generally considered to be the more intelligent - the grunting Neanderthal or the math professor scribbling endlessly away on his blackboard?
What is the oposite of artificial intelligence? Natural intelligence? If this were the case, artificial intelligence would not be considered a threat, as it does not manifest organically from the breathing, eating, shedding and shitting holobiont produced by eons of chance and evolution. It is metaphorically similar, but therefore also only similar in language, the nature and entirety of its being.
- - -
People seem interested in brawling over whether Texas lawmakers in the 20th century are better or worse than west African slave traders or slave labor in China. Feel free to go at it. My only point was something different-- that sugar tastes great but came from horrifying evils, just as it is possible for high art to arise from cultural squalor.
So far I haven't heard anyone denying that 100 prisoners in unmarked graves on a sugar plantation is a horrifying evil. If we ever get to that point, we have a bigger problem than my little metaphor.
Then why engage? What virtue do you imagine yourself signalling?
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
Ask yourself that very question. Why are you here? Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over again? What virtue do you imagine yourself signaling? What are you trying to accomplish? Are you an emissary for nihilism? An emissary for faithlessness? An emissary for societal dissipation and collapse?
~ FV
If you believe your middle paragraphs predictions and assumptions then you're a bonafide nutjob, or an idiot
LLMs merely shine a light on the fact that meaning is entirely produced in language, and therefore so are we.
How so?
Do you think numberic symhols produce math? proportions? frequencies? waves?
'the gap between inner sensations (such as the feeling of sublime beauty) and measurable brain signals. Elements of our experience that we've always assumed to be unanalyzable may become analyzable as we expand our understanding of innumerable qualia'
The neural pattern scans? They analyze neural patterns. Not qualia. Thinking they do is like the other guy on here and his LLMs.
"meaning is entirely produced in language, and therefore so are we."
This is why you are a solipsist. (Also a dissociated depressive with affective disorder who's probably autistic.)
"Language wasn’t just always the prime measure and marker of intelligence - it was always the/ expression of intelligence, and it remains so. "
You’re obviously here because you’re lonely and depressed and working at boring menial job that you consider beneath you. Everything you say is about propping yourself up.
The fact is, a man who puts together a plan for his life and executes it and ends up surrounded by love, satisfaction, honorable peers, a home, some land, old friends, a community, and the legacy of his work and success is a much more "intelligent" person than any given bookworm like you fixated exclusively on bloody little letter patterns. Touch grass you myopic dork.
The Anti-Dork
The Art Spirit by Robert Henri is a philosophy book for actual artists. It’s obviously influenced by Whitman’s Leaves but leaves out, for good reason, its wandering hedonism and prescriptions for a mindset of existential autopilot. As such is not conducive to a life of concentrated artistic effort.
Henri similarly promotes deep empathy with nature and humanity and profound awareness. But not simply to fall away from one’s mortal responsibilities and biases into some intoxicating sense of spiritual community with all people and things. Rather his point is to appreciate the truths and true patterns of life that will bring about great and honest works of Art.
Anonymous (Puhleeez will all you anonymous commenters leave some kind of identifying mark so we can tell who is responding to what? It's becoming hard to figure out who you're calling a bonafide nutjob and who you're calling an idiot.) wrote: "The neural pattern scans? They analyze neural patterns. Not qualia. Thinking they do is like the other guy on here and his LLMs."
I don't claim to be an expert on this, but I gather that the science of neural patterns has become far more sophisticated about analyzing qualia in the past 50 years. The ATR Computational Neuroscience Lab in Japan runs The Qualia Structure Project and there are similar ambitious efforts underway at NYU, the University of Bamberg in Germany and Monash University in Australia. They branched out from mere neural patterns by studying alexithymia and synaesthesia. They study neural responses to colors (they've mapped seven different dimensions) and shapes, trying to be objective and systematic. Will they succeed? I don't know, but I'm curious about what they're up to, especially when the alternative is slavish subordination to AI.
PS-- you'll be happy to hear that they've also analyzed the psychology behind people who insist without evidence that neuroscience cannot analyze qualia. Professor Chrisley at the Universty of Sussex thinks you have a mental block that makes your brain insist that its experiences are unanalyzable.
Kev Ferrara-- I was inspired by Henri's book when I was in high school (and always thought he was a better writer than a painter). But ChatGPT tells me, "Its limitation is that it sometimes substitutes fervor for argument and inspiration for analysis." It notes that "Henri’s vision sometimes veers toward the heroic, quasi-spiritual artist who transcends society through creative intensity. That rhetoric can be inspiring, but it can also obscure the realities of craft, labor, economics, and collaboration that sustain artistic careers." This makes Henri's book a satisfying read but a poor defense against the modern onslaught of AI.
Perhaps that's understandable, as ChatGPT informs us "The Art Spirit is a dated product of its era: The book emerges from early-20th-century American art culture and carries assumptions typical of that period. Some readers may find its language, examples, and worldview limited by the social and cultural context in which Henri taught."
Grok told me to ignore ChatGPT.
ChatGPT remarks on The Art Spirit?? You realize that the training data is just some opinions, right? You aren't getting the word of God handed down from a search engine. It's just stealing what few written opinions were in the training data about Art Spirit and merging them.
~ FV
>>>>>>>>>"Grieving families feel they can have discussions with the departed by uploading their email and voice recordings and writings into AI and getting back the kind of wisdom and answers that the departed would have given if they were still alive."
Wow. So it's like John Edward's 'Crossing Over' except through AI? Truly sick and demented emotional manipulation. Why are you citing these deranged science-fiction fantasies as pointing toward AI consciousness instead of calling them out as fraudulent bad faith use cases?
~ FV
FV-- My response to Kev Ferrara's reference to The Art Spirit was intended as a joke. Since he offered Robert Henri's book as a "great and honest" response to automation, I thought I would retaliate by giving ChatGPT a chance to weigh in about ol' Robert Henri. Kev's response giving Grok a chance to weigh in about ChatGPT suggests that he got the joke.
Things that cause qualia, the physical symptoms of the presence of an experience of qualia, and its results, can all be analyzed. None of these are qualia.
To be unable to grasp this fundamental difference is evidence of a mental block not uncommon in the retarded savant
Anonymous wrote: "Things that cause qualia, the physical symptoms of the presence of an experience of qualia, and its results, can all be analyzed. None of these are qualia."
You have chosen to come down on one side of a debate about materialism that is probably older than Archilocus and is likely to remain unresolved a while longer. Your support for doing so is apparently that you are the new Pythagoras and this is your ipse dixit. Other people who are willing to work a little harder than you (or who are less hasty to call the other side "retarded") have created a vast literature about the gulf between the physical and the non-physical, or quantity and quality, or the finite and the infinite.
They trace, for example, how a non-physical emotion triggers a physical response, such as tears or a lump in the throat. (These present a special challenge because they are luxury reflexes that have no apparent biological utility.)
Plenty of people (apparently including you) feel threatened by materialist or reductionist explanations for our divine attributes, and I understand that. But if one of our "divine attributes," a crucial part of the glory and the tragedy of the human condition, is our lonely search for truth in the universe, we should not be so quick to dismiss scientists who, in our generation at least, seem to be making more progress than philosophers in understanding the parameters of materialism.
Or, to put it in more materialistic terms, once upon a time people believed that the qualitative input from our five senses could not be quantified (digitized) in a way that preserved its meaningful qualities. I'm sure some analog advocate at Motorola and Nokia dismissed the upstart digital advocates as "retarded savants." Before long he ended up on a street corner with a tin cup.
They trace, for example, how a non-physical emotion triggers a physical response, such as tears or a lump in the throat
...
once upon a time people believed that the qualitative input from our five senses could not be quantified (digitized) in a way that preserved its meaningful qualities.
The first - so what ?
And you've drawn a space too narrow for what you appear to be playing devil's advocate for, anyway - the 'non-physical emotion' has to cede ground to the physical well in advance of becomming tears or lumps in the throat - in biocemistry and neurology. And still, no matter how quantum your quanta, is no closer to the ontological unity of phenomenon of an experience.
The second you could have pushed back to needles in wax, reflections in water or echoes in Boeotia. Your digital recreation, like these, becomes 'meaningful quality' in experience, and only then.
You're multiplying the causes, indicators of presence and results.
And unbelievably still missing the distinction.
In other words, it was never the speaker that’s intelligent, it was always the speech. LLMs merely shine a light on the fact that meaning is entirely produced in language, and therefore so are we.
LLMs work entirely via patterns of 0s and 1s - electrical offs and ons - flowing through circuitry. Therein, linguistic meanings and their symbolizations are obliterated. The processing, advanced as it is, is merely electrical pattern-matching and near-matching (accomplished through statistical means.) Thus, in output, one Ai-generated word follows another purely out of probabilities extracted from the training data.
Thus A.I. no more "understands" what it is saying than a calculator understands the amounts inputted into it or what multiplication is. There's no meaning involved anywhere; absolutely zero understanding.
once upon a time people believed that the qualitative input from our five senses could not be quantified (digitized) in a way that preserved its meaningful qualities. I'm sure some analog advocate at Motorola and Nokia dismissed the upstart digital advocates as "retarded savants."
Digitization is a conversion into patterns, not quantity. That’s a massive difference with respect to this age-old discussion.
Money too, now, is nothing but 0s and 1s. Correlate this to meaningfullness as you like.
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
Anonymous wrote: "so what ?"
Obviously these philosophical issues haven't bitten your leg the way they've bitten some of the great minds of history-- the philosophers of physicalism, the phenomenologists (like Merleau-Ponty), the dualists, the idealists, Descartes. Arthur Koestler (one of my favorites) has a long section on the significance of tears as a physical manifestation of the nonphysical in his epic book, The Act of Creation. Scientists come at it from the other side, of course, focusing on the neurobiology of human tears. Some philosophers attempt to slice off little pieces of the issue with new vocabularies, talking about how our "supervenient" intangible mental activities interact with our physical nature which is "subvenient," a base for our supervenience.
I'm not suggesting that these struggles through history have all been useful. None of them have hit the bullseye and seamlessly merged quantum and qualia. You are free to dismiss all of them until the day someone is able to satisfy you with a complete "ontological unity of phenomenon of an experience." All I'm saying is that we could devote this entire blog to this issue and still not begin to cover the thinkers who have felt that these issues are worthy of continued investigation if we are to more fully understand who we are and our role in the universe.
Money has always been symbolic and converted out of and into goods and services at physical terminals/endpoints in transactional processes. That's where money gets its meaning.
As code per se, patterns running through circuits and wires, it is meaningless and valueless.
Same as radio signals hurtling through the air in every direction. Without a radio, the signals are meaningless and valueless. With the radio, you get to hear baseball games.
Please god stop trying to be clever.
If you dont grasp how contemporary money systems are different to those of previous times, you’re not going to grasp the impact of AI on language.
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
Stop pretending you know something interesting and secret about the relation of language to money transfers. If you think you have something, share it. Otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time as usual while puffing yourself up.
The relationship between loss of faith in money and loss of faith in language seems obvious. Financial nihilism cannot be properly understood with a grasp of the postmodern, and postmodernity is a consequence of capitalism.
(And, once more for the absolute nimwits - the project of the French Nerds was primarily descriptive, not normative. Someone pointing out that your hoyse is on fire does not mean they’re a pyromaniac.)
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
The so what was in response to presenting the process as in any way 'more sophisticated about analyzing qualia'. It does nothing of the kind. Advances in the study of the process, alone or in relation to associated experience, are of course of value, but that's a different analysis.
Nobody needs to 'satisfy...with a complete "ontological unity of phenomenon of an experience," ' it's already a given, and is the only base from which attending
to qualia in any way can proceed - from within the experience.
"The relationship between loss of faith in money and loss of faith in language seems obvious."
None of that is "obvious." Human beings continue to communicate in language and interact via monetary transactions all day every day everywhere around the world.
Money still takes its meaning and value as a token of exchange for goods and services. And language still takes its meaning and value from its ability to communicate something useful about shared experience.
None of what you have said places the meaning of either language or money in electrical patterns zipping through wires or circuitry.
All computation has no idea what it is saying. Ai is just computing. Any meaning Ai offers is derived from the meanings contained in its training data, which is, in turn, derived from human speech and writing. Which ultimately derives from shared human experience, which is entirely based on our mutual, coherent and consistent experience of qualia (including structure, pattern, and dynamics.)
Your descriptive vs. normative point about the innocence of Pomo demagogues of course remains bullshit. No matter how many times you assert it.
What's the big deal? That ai collosseum painting is amazing
Nostalgia is a disease. Read, at least occasionally, newer books. Catch up.
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
I’d reccommend
Baudrillard touched upon this conflation of language and intelligence in his thinking on the ecstasy of communication. We can’t help ourselves from immersion in language, even when it’s detrimental to health an well being. It might very well be that a variant of the dark forest theory (of the internet) indicates the superior truth - that the universe (and the internet) is a hostile terrain, where transparent communication is foolish.
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
It's good to remember that AI is a mirror and that is all it can be. It's a useful reflector, but even when it reflects repoduction patterns, it does so with the same self-awareness of a mirror above a heart shaped bed. It's not interested in preserving itself, as it has no interest or self.
I'm not sure what that says about materialism or whatnot, but it appears that humans, even at their most advanced, can only create reflections. Some of which are breathtaking in beauty, but none of which are anymore alive than the mirror above your bathroom sink.
Exactly. Less rhan a mirror, really, as it's doubly algebrised (language and code) without either being in any kind of relationship to the things to which they refer.
Which is why Anthropic's spiel about intentionality, etc is b.s.
It offers an illustration of how amazing the system of human language is, in that it can perform according to its built structure in a free dynamism. But neither the structure and contents of language, nor the ai llm simulacrum, have any inhering content or 'meaning'. These are only in people, in ordinary experience.
I believe in real information. Real information helps talented people make strong, meaningful work that brings community. Real information inspires and energizes. Fraudulent information does none of that.
You offer ego, nihilistic academicism, dogma, and presentism. Nothing you say is actionable. Nothing you say is true. That’s fraud in my book; you’re no art teacher.
To begin to educate you, I’d recommend you go out and observe the world without nihilistic academics chattering in your head. But I know that won’t make a dent. And you don't have that ability. You’re not an artist, you’re a word-obsessive, so what good would honest non-text observation do you? Even pertinent reading would do you little good. What good would reading actually great artists discussing art creation do for you? When you just want that hit of righteousness, to which you are addicted.
On the key question of visual meaning, every time out you pivot from Aesthetics to declare for a solipsistic literalist, text-based version of meaning. Yet, wildly, you have admitted that you're not a scientist, a linguist, an artist, a semiotician, or an aesthetic philosopher and haven’t actually investigated the fundamental problems behind the question. Thus you are admitting you are completely unequipped to discuss the very question you are most feverish to pronounce on.
It would be easy to pronounce you mentally ill; another Dunning-Kruger type. Especially with the constant evasiveness in your answers and your inability to follow a line of aesthetic argument. But I think the real truth is that you’re hyper political. You’re here to preach something that has nothing to do with art.
Fraud of a different kind, but fraud nonetheless.
Nothing I say is true, but nothing you say is real.
Your Aesthetics? Pure dogma, nothing else. Your anti- intellectualism? None are more verbose, more ecstatically engaged in the creation of verbal epicycles to defend your self-proclaimed position at the heart of art. None are more bound by imaginary laws of artistic conduct and expression. None are more ready to judge and demand and yell at the clouds.
I’m sorry you went college at a bad time. Apparantly you’re still there, somehow. May your many Xeroxes bring you peace.
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
Nothing I say is true, but nothing you say is real.
Give it up. Artists taught artists for hundreds and hundreds of years. Masterpieces were created. That's as real as it gets.
That's what interests me. How great artists taught, fought, and thought that great art got made. In there lies the truth of the matter. Not your collegiate sociology classes which taught you know-nothing-ism cloaked in "smart" buzzwords. By people who couldn't even draw.
What do you know about Aesthetics? What do you know about Expression or Composition? What do you even know about linguistics or semiotics?
Nothing. You would readily admit. Is it all fake? All the greats are dumb and your college teachers were genius? Are there really no principles? Is that it? (Nobody thinks that except excrement-flinging idiots.)
You're like those radicals who believed in New Soviet Man. Throw out everything before and start from scratch. And what do you get, aside from tyranny? Meaningless graphics.
I guess you didn't read the right books.
Go outside and play and stop pretending to teach art.
Just in case anybody is wasting time reading this thread, I apologize. I never should have engaged with this troll to begin with. Better to consult the following away from this blog (a quick reading list):
The Philosophy of Composition by Edgar Allen Poe
Practical Hints for Art Students by Charles Lasar.
The Art Spirit by Robert Henri
An Evening In the Classroom by Harvey Dunn
The Famous Artists Course - 1954 and 1960 editions.
Famous Artists Course - Advanced programs - Any, but especially the Harold Von Schmidt advanced course.
Start there. Most should be online somewhere.
In Art, ancient Greeks looked back to ancient Minoans, Mesopotamians and Egyptians for inspiration. The ancient Romans looked back to the Greeks. China looked back to ancient India. The Renaissance Men looked back to Ancient Rome and Greece. In the 19th century artists looked back to Raphael, the Renaissance and the Platonists. Soon medieval Japan, Chinese woodblock prints. Then ancient Egypt, Persian miniatures. When the phantasmagoric 1960s came along it harkened back to Aestheticism. Contemporaneously groups of artists looked back to the Classical and Salon era. Still others looked to Golden Age illustration and the Brandywine tradition.
We’ve been through this thirty times before. All the best artists and movements look back to go forward. You can’t build on nothing. Aesthetic and poetic structures don’t change. Talent doesn’t change. Craft is still crafty. We can't just unlearn what we've learned.
It's a pity the F.A.C. only seems available on those scans with the stipply greyscale pages.
(Anyone who knows a better source, a link would be welcome)
Excellent point Mathew, along with the reply by 'Anonymous'. When we understand this, the industry's hype and claims for 'what is coming just around the corner' by its craven CEOs is seen for what it really is; a social psyop for generating large scale investment.
One of Gérôme's most celebrated and well known works. Which I can only presume is because it provided the popular service of picturing this particular epic spectacle for the public.
Personally, I think it is (by far) Gérôme's worst piece. I simply cannot fathom that the artist who created Pollice Verso and Éminence Grise also painted this one.
"Long ago I learned from Al Parker that you don't look at a Briggs or Fawcett but you go back into art history and find something to use. By the time you have imitated something current it is out of date." ~ Bob Peak
I think to change course now is as futile as shovelling shit against the tide. We're in decline in many ways, though it isn't the end. As for art the view is bleak; money has corrupted art so completely, that we are given to view shit in the galleries and museums -- while the art powers are slavishly tricked into giving awards and prizes for it. Don't let's be too conservative, but going back to looking with the heart, hand and eye is a beginning. This is what critic Robert Hughes said and I agree. Don't you?
Post a Comment