so why the pretence that this particular shape, the “R. Mutt” signature, has significance?
Because reinterpretation is not an art historian’s job.
The original reaction is lost to time, dude. A modern audience is, broadly, already aware of the transgressive urinal, and so already more accepting of it. There is no recreating the piece. There is only recreating what it was.
If you think that’s BS
I don’t, other than it seems to be something you’ve written specifically to tick the boxes you think I’m looking for.
Would it baffle you to know I might consider this “critique” to be art where the image itself is not? I leave that as an exercise to the reader.
But anyway. Yet again, your contempt for the modern art world really betrays your jealousy of it. Do I just take your word for it that these critics have nothing to say?
If you think that the writings of these critics are smug, self-important hogwash, then why are you using their tools, the tools of the enemy, to justify to me why I should care about this talking cup?
Again, to the crowd: this is why what barsoap is saying is bullshit. It’s just a chess move to them. They don’t actually believe any of this. Their sole motivation is salvaging gen AI’s reputation.
buy a random [urinal] off the shelf, then proclaim it to be original.
This is profoundly offensive to art history, actually. A museum?
People go to great lengths to preserve CRT setups for old video games, but you’re like “nah, a TV is as good as any other.”
Dude, your contempt for art is insane. I’m telling you, you’re jealous that I respect the profane and “meaningless” urinal and not your AI toys.
Were they chuckling because the talking glass confuses and upsets the rule-of-three comedy technique being used?
I guess I’m talking to the crowd here because this is important: The reason this is notable evidence of AI and not human choice is because it is incoherent.
People know what a knock-knock joke is, and it wouldn’t work so well to say “knock-crack” for a chuckle but still expect me to ask “who’s there?” after. In comedy, and in visual art, the talking glass is an example of poor grammar.
A person, a human artist, could say knock-crack to me. Maybe they just have poor grammar generally. Maybe they did intentionally choose or ask for a giant talking cup for no reason, even though it harms the other joke they’re obviously interested in telling. But I flatly don’t believe this. It is far easier to believe this is random noise from the machine we already know generates random noise.
barsoap is reaching for the stars here to justify something they know is bullshit.
Oh my god.
Jesus christ.
I was thinking, “nah, that seems nitpicky, I’m sure a real person could write either.” But that is the entire setup for the punchline. I’m gonna rip my hair out.
This Excel joke is pulling on 100 years of surrealist cultural history? That’s incredible.
As a connoisseur, maybe you can explain why the oversized glass is talking about itself to me.
Why should anyone be interested in a urinal on a pedestal?
It is incredible how jealous AI-hornies are of the toilet.
This might seem like an odd thing to say, but it seems too well-made for stick figure art. It’s too perfect, but for seemingly no reason. It’s got no verve, no life to it, but its lines are so perfect that it’s weird it doesn’t have those things, you know? Someone with this degree of skill wouldn’t make something this boring to look at unless it was part of the joke, but I don’t think it is?
It’s very strange.
The only person I can imagine drawing this manually is, like, an office worker who has this idea for a joke but who also doesn’t really know what memes are on the Internet—like when someone misuses the success baby or something.
If you’re going to pout, we can put you in the corner. That might be funny.
They mean that the code is being written like it were python. You can’t get rid of the curly braces, but you can shove them all under your bed where mom can’t see.
Well… yes, but I assume that this specifically was sabotage. Like how Intel products have been throttling amd cpu performance for years.
You two are doing fantastic and I love you.
. and … are how terminals navigate around file systems.
The command cd . means “change directory (cd) to here (.)”
cd .. means “change directory to here, but one level up: my parent directory.”
So following that model, winrar and maybe older versions of 7zip used folders called ‘.’ as navigational tools within the archive browser. If you double-clicked through them, you’d see where they go.
I don’t know how much of this you knew, but the point is it shouldn’t freak you out too see them.
I think it’d be nice if there was an OS-app version of the web browser middle-click. I never feel confused about whether an opened link is or is not taking focus because I shared my intent by which mouse button I used (left: open and switch, middle: just open).