10 ms·

> can't tell if this article is trying to make it seem like a negative or not It left no ambiguity for me. Both the project (which is great art in itself) an

> can't tell if this article is trying to make it seem like a negative or not It left no ambiguity for me. Both the project (which is great art in itself) and the commentary opens a door for a hard truth, and new questions emerge, In tech, might we learn from this? from TFA: "Looking for freedom, we found slavery.” Every parent. Every patrician, condescending patron. Every "elite". Each have their idea of what "freedom" is best for others. And the people say: "Boaty McBoatface!" In cybersecurity we want people to be safe. But the people say; "Give me TikTok, Microsoft...." Would Rousseau want us "being forced to be free"?

astrobe_ 2y ago
> Would Rousseau want us "being forced to be free"? Probably. The French revolution actors were inspired by his work, and the French revolution led to the declaration of the human rights, which states that all people are born free and equal. If you take this claim as universal, then your moral duty is to make it happen. So yes, do free people even if they believe their situation is fine. Perhaps for instance because they've been brainwashed into believing it is, or perhaps they don't even know what freedom is. Unfortunately countries/organizations/persons that claimed to do that too often also had ulterior motives. The phrase "looking for freedom, we found slavery" is interesting because if there's slavery, then there's a master. The master we are talking about is "norm" or "convention". The term "slavery" can be apt in some cases, but generally is excessive. "Anticonformity" was somewhat a dismissive word in my country up to some point, but I have not heard it in that way for while, which suggests that people accept more easily "abnormal" people. When you want your freedom and you can have it, then there's no slavery nor tyranny.
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  You've inspired me today. It's odd that in almost all walks of life, freedom comes from non-conformity. In arts, and in science, "progress" is a movement away from wherever we are. We may not like non-conformists, but we absolutely rely on them to move forward. Yet totalitarian technological social systems are the only creation that make those who conform "more free". By design they limit options at the margins while enabling those in the middle of the mediocrity curve. Slavery is freedom. And thus, since time stops for no man or machine, systems invite their own inevitable destruction. Technology is not just "a way of not having to experience the world" (Max Frisch), but a way of not having to experience change. And I think the "master" that you speak of is fear (fear of things changing).
jarjoura 2y ago
2010s visual art was full of super saturation and hyperrealism due to Marvel and Instagram filters. Sony's "Into the Spiderverse" freed itself from the shadow of Pixar, and has forever changed what high quality, mass audience, computer animated films can be, and Dreamworks has already shifted its own design towards more expressive unique cartoon language. Also, the rising shift of A24's unique visual aesthetic in the 2010s remained quite obscure until "Everything Everywhere All at Once" 2 years ago finally brought its "freedom" of visual expression to mainstream audiences. Now, others want to capture that same visual style and I'm seeing a broad shift away from over saturation, hyper realism, and toward the more muted and mundane. I'm impressed that Marvel is already applying some of it in "Agatha All Along". Anyway, my point still stands, artists will constantly push back against whatever is mainstream in an effort to be seen and to define their own aesthetic/brand. It's easier to be 1 of 10, than it is 1 of a million. Plus, if they're lucky enough, they get to be known for starting or accelerating the movement. Every single decade has very clearly defined aesthetics that designers copy until something new comes along to disrupt it.

astrobe_ 2y ago

> Would Rousseau want us "being forced to be free"? Probably. The French revolution actors were inspired by his work, and the French revolution led to the declaration of the human rights, which states that all people are born free and equal. If you take this claim as universal, then your moral duty is to make it happen. So yes, do free people even if they believe their situation is fine. Perhaps for instance because they've been brainwashed into believing it is, or perhaps they don't even know what freedom is. Unfortunately countries/organizations/persons that claimed to do that too often also had ulterior motives. The phrase "looking for freedom, we found slavery" is interesting because if there's slavery, then there's a master. The master we are talking about is "norm" or "convention". The term "slavery" can be apt in some cases, but generally is excessive. "Anticonformity" was somewhat a dismissive word in my country up to some point, but I have not heard it in that way for while, which suggests that people accept more easily "abnormal" people. When you want your freedom and you can have it, then there's no slavery nor tyranny.

nonrandomstring 2y ago
You've inspired me today. It's odd that in almost all walks of life, freedom comes from non-conformity. In arts, and in science, "progress" is a movement away from wherever we are. We may not like non-conformists, but we absolutely rely on them to move forward. Yet totalitarian technological social systems are the only creation that make those who conform "more free". By design they limit options at the margins while enabling those in the middle of the mediocrity curve. Slavery is freedom. And thus, since time stops for no man or machine, systems invite their own inevitable destruction. Technology is not just "a way of not having to experience the world" (Max Frisch), but a way of not having to experience change. And I think the "master" that you speak of is fear (fear of things changing).

jarjoura 2y ago

2010s visual art was full of super saturation and hyperrealism due to Marvel and Instagram filters. Sony's "Into the Spiderverse" freed itself from the shadow of Pixar, and has forever changed what high quality, mass audience, computer animated films can be, and Dreamworks has already shifted its own design towards more expressive unique cartoon language. Also, the rising shift of A24's unique visual aesthetic in the 2010s remained quite obscure until "Everything Everywhere All at Once" 2 years ago finally brought its "freedom" of visual expression to mainstream audiences. Now, others want to capture that same visual style and I'm seeing a broad shift away from over saturation, hyper realism, and toward the more muted and mundane. I'm impressed that Marvel is already applying some of it in "Agatha All Along". Anyway, my point still stands, artists will constantly push back against whatever is mainstream in an effort to be seen and to define their own aesthetic/brand. It's easier to be 1 of 10, than it is 1 of a million. Plus, if they're lucky enough, they get to be known for starting or accelerating the movement. Every single decade has very clearly defined aesthetics that designers copy until something new comes along to disrupt it.