3 ms·
No mention of Holly Herndon or Mat Dryhurst at all? Whoever wrote this completely failed to do their research — more than anyone else I'm aware of, they've been
by peterldowns 2y ago
No mention of Holly Herndon or Mat Dryhurst at all? Whoever wrote this completely failed to do their research — more than anyone else I'm aware of, they've been working to explore the possibilities of how working with AI can be considered Art.
Some assorted reading:
- https://x.com/matdryhurst/status/1830554355025477940 https://x.com/matdryhurst/status/1830554355025477940
- https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/11/20/holly-herndons-infinite-art https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/11/20/holly-herndons...
- https://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/15858/art-in-the-age-of-ai-holly-herndon-mat-dryhurst-with-hans-ulrich-obrist https://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/15858/art-in-the-...
EDIT: didn't mention Archillect either. Extremely low value article.
EDIT2: finished reading, and no mention at all about Section 230 protections despite discussing "tech platforms", and a single reference to "fair use" being referenced in a callout box. Whoever wrote this should be embarassed by how little they say with so many words.
- smokel 2y agoWhat makes Holly Herndon and Mat Dryhurst so special? There are tons of artists working with AI, some even before these two particular artists were even born.
- Jiocus 2y agoI've been giving far too little though about AI and the hype around it (might call me a sceptic), but I feel compelled to defend the article as it gave me some new perspectives, and is undeserving of your, frankly, low quality comment. If it was a flame bait, then I got hooked (sorry HN) You namedrop three(?) artists and insinuate something about two legal frameworks - but provides no arguments or context why they should've been a natural inclusion in the article or how your critique relates to it. Is that.. yes, a low value comment.