-
@MMikeMMa There’s a fair amount packed into my half-quip. 1) The original thread is valid. 2) It’s doing from an art-history perspective what you might think of as spotlighting structural aspects of the different systems in play: the contest, the critique, the art piece itself.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite Mood 0
-
@MMikeMMa 3) Much of the reflection I’ve see on this contest, the latest wave of AI origin art from DALL E, uses ideas from a generative domain (what’s good art, who makes art, how is art made, etc) to talk about a system that’s at core derivative. So it’s a sense making category mismatch.Permalink On twitter.com
-
@MMikeMMa 4) Bc the mismatch is using a generative view, a bigger pattern to note is that we often apply these generative perspectives to new tech by default, even where they’re obviously not tools that do creation / origination.Permalink On twitter.com
-
@MMikeMMa 5) And *that’s* a bit ironic, bc the point of the original thread is to understand more about the art that DALL-E made by looking at the built-in limitations coming from art-history lenses like Orientalism, etc.Permalink On twitter.com
-
@MMikeMMa 6) This ironic mismatch of a sense making approach that still offers some insightful criticism was part of what made the Monty Python bit from the Holy Grail so brilliant: it was hilarious, accurate, and self-aware in its functional limits all at the same time.On twitter.com