data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2f5d6/2f5d6c12170434bfde2e5ec0d356b6756769871a" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75ae6/75ae67fe988562434906bfc3879fe3e044bc39f5" alt=""
Even if you’re not directly responsible for AI suggesting that you can make pizza cheese stringier by adding wood glue*, you’re still doing good work
* which is technically true, in that this is the technique used to get this effect in adverts
Even if you’re not directly responsible for AI suggesting that you can make pizza cheese stringier by adding wood glue*, you’re still doing good work
* which is technically true, in that this is the technique used to get this effect in adverts
Not the origonal commenter, but “analogous to deadnaming” is certainly how it can feel sometimes.
Obviously there’s innocent mistakes/forgetfulness, but when someone had no problem calling a (passing) trans person by the correct binary pronoun but suddenly “can’t remember” or reverts to “they/them” once they learn you’re trans - there’s clearly something else going on there. It’s additionally upsetting because the slight is subtle enough, and the excuse believable enough, that you can’t easily explain why it’s a problem to people who don’t already understand it.
He did (possibly). Sorry.
Duchamp was a sculptor, as well as a painter, and Fountain doesn’t match any of the urinals sold at the time, by his named source or other plumbing suppliers. Every example in a gallery is a replica made based on a photo of the original, which he claimed to have lost, and they’re all different (the placement and pattern of the drianage holes, the indented ring around the ‘foot’ of the piece).
Same with In Advance of a Broken Arm and a bunch of his other Readymades - attempts to find an identical, commercially available, object have failed.
There’s an argument, outlined here: https://www.toutfait.com/issues/issue_3/Collections/rrs/shearer.htm, the Duchamp either made or excessively modified every object he claimed he bought and displayed unchanged.
Therein lies the problem for art students decades later: because his Readmades were/were based on everyday ephemera, few to no examples of other objects in that category remain for us to compare.
I think he was pointing out how few of us look at the objects around us (especially those, like art critics, whose job it is to observe) - if we were paying attention, would we have noticed that his work wasn’t what he claimed? Or maybe it’s a case of not noticing the art in the world around us until we put it in the special “art room”.
Either way, Duchamp is a fascinating artist and (IMO) a compete troll, and may not be the best example to use to defend generative AI.