Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
9/1/2024, 3:39:21 PM
X
In reply to:
Joshua Decter
@joshuadecter
·
528d
@GaryMarcus @Isa_CamPaiva @McclaneDet If he had seen that Whitney show, he would have understood that there is a long history of artists - real artists, not a filmmaker rebranded by Gagosian as an artist - who have been experimenting with post-human (so to speak) processes of artmaking.
Joshua Decter
@joshuadecter
·
528d
@GaryMarcus @Isa_CamPaiva @McclaneDet Unlikely he saw that show.
Chiang is not an art historian nor an art critic. The article is more persuasive when he discusses writing & literature. He doesn’t seem to understand that key artists have radically challenged traditional notions of authorship & volition since Duchamp.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
528d
@joshuadecter @Isa_CamPaiva @McclaneDet Imagine he is familiar with that work, but space limits mean he couldn’t cover everything. I fail to see the naivete you reference.
Joshua Decter
@joshuadecter
·
528d
@Isa_CamPaiva @GaryMarcus @McclaneDet Chiang badly missed an opportunity to refer to this important example of an artist using early forms of AI, and the show was just at the Whitney Museum!
I’m surprised the New Yorker allowed the piece to be published in its current form- it’s just naive.
https://whitney.org/exhibitions/…
Isadora Campregher Paiva
@Isa_CamPaiva
·
528d
@joshuadecter @GaryMarcus @McclaneDet The processes you are describing are still not thoughtless, no? Hence the name conceptual art. Do you truly believe that all the output of such models is art? And if not, where do you draw the line?
Joshua Decter
@joshuadecter
·
528d
@Isa_CamPaiva @GaryMarcus @McclaneDet If an artist chooses to give over their decision-making to AI, or any other apparatus, that too is an artistic decision, which Chiang seems to not understand. Does Chiang know the long and complex histories of conceptual art practices, for example? Unlikely, based on his article.

The statement 'i didn’t read him as unaware of history' is part of a broader conversation about the understanding and critique of art history and AI in art. This conversation involves multiple participants discussing the merits and shortcomings of an article by Chiang, as well as the broader implications of AI in art. The statement itself is a defense of Chiang's awareness of art history, countering a previous critique.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is a measured response in a debate, adhering to the principle of doing no harm with words and actions. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others, as it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote understanding by providing a counterpoint to a critique, fostering a more nuanced discussion. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive dialogue by addressing the content of the critique rather than attacking the person who made it. [+1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly by contributing thoughtfully to the discussion. [+1]