Actually, the post’s follow up images posit that he MADE those toilets, since no two are the same and they don’t match existing designs. Saying he put in as little effort as AI “artists” is misunderstanding his work.
That’s the thing, people didn’t care about it till it had a well known person’s name actually attached to the piece though. It was submitted as just a toilet with a signature from an unknown person, it wasn’t originally known that it was from Duchamp.
To me, it feels like there are a few important questions Duchamp poses:
Does art have worth on its own without the artist? Without Duchamp, the piece may well have only been recognized as a toilet with a signature.
Is the artist an integral part to the meaning? I feel like in this case the answer is yes, because it was recognized for more than it was perceived because it became known that it was from Duchamp.
What is the difference between a tool and a piece of art? Namely, where do we draw the line?
Most people think he bought an off-the-shelf urinal, and they still understand, that would be art. It would still function as commentary. The object’s existence in a museum is a jab.
The flipside is-- y’know that handwritten card that goes around? Like ‘I would rather see your scribbliest stick figure than your fanciest AI slop.’ The anti-AI crowd loves it, and it means a lot to them. What would change if we found out it was made in Qwen?
Yes. It’s an added layer of meaning where he put in the effort, and still made a toilet. This is not a low-effort shitpost, even if it looks to be one from a basic perspective. And when you challenge the meaning of art, it says a lot that the effortmade is impossible to determine at a quick glance.
And I don’t know if it means a lot to people, or if it’s just a thing a lot of people agree with. And if it was made in a shitty ai slop generator, then it would change it from “defiant speach” to “I don’t agree with what I say, I just want you to like me.” And based on every piece of AI I have ever seen, even the stuff AI bros like to boast about, there would be a spelling error they didn’t notice.
The low-effort shitpost everyone thinks it is, would still have meaning.
“I don’t agree with what I say, I just want you to like me.”
I will remind you we’re talking about Fountain. Duchamp trolled the art world by meticulously recreating something trivial. If someone popularized an anti-AI screed, using AI, that would be funniest goddamn thing - and a complete rebuttal.
Imagine the glee in that reveal. Some guy spent hours rendering, tweaking, rendering, tweaking, giggling to himself the whole time, until it produced exactly the image you’ve seen. All flaws excused by the proud AI haters, the same way they (and its text) would excuse literally anything a hand does with a pen. And then - ta-da! Here’s the prompt and the seed! You all found meaning in a generated image, and experienced emotional connection because of it. Get loved, idiot. Get camaraderie’d.
Then you get to watch people twist in knots. It never meant anything to them! Anymore! It’s complete trash, and they’re throwing out all their favorite band’s t-shirts, because they always hated them. It tricked them… but not in any way that confers intent.
Jesus christ, you’re having more delusions than AI. Do you honestly think anyone would care about a picture of some text they agree with so much that the rug pull will affect them in any meaningful way? Do you think that guy hitting refresh on his prompt generator is putting in meaningful effort? Do you think anyone but AI chuds will excuse the blatantly obvious flaws the way you guys do?
Even at this second, I can’t even remember what the image looks like. It doesn’t mean anything to me. I just agree with the words.
I’m sure your little fiction brings you comfort, but it’s just fiction.
It doesn’t mean anything to me. I just agree with the words.
… the words are its meaning.
Those words say: flaws are fine, for anything done by hand.
If Fountain was an off-the-shelf urinal, would you go crack it with a hammer? That’s how people genuinely talk about generated images. They latch onto terms like intent and declare the robot cannot provide it, therefore, some image they quite enjoyed is now a useless husk. As if they can delete the emotional response from their brain.
Like a clever visual metaphor doesn’t parse, if it was rendered instead of scribbled.
Ah, so it wasn’t art for the years that people thought it was a store bought urinal? And it currently exists in a superposition state of art and not-art because it’s not actually known if he sculpted it or not?
Actually, the post’s follow up images posit that he MADE those toilets, since no two are the same and they don’t match existing designs. Saying he put in as little effort as AI “artists” is misunderstanding his work.
That’s the thing, people didn’t care about it till it had a well known person’s name actually attached to the piece though. It was submitted as just a toilet with a signature from an unknown person, it wasn’t originally known that it was from Duchamp.
To me, it feels like there are a few important questions Duchamp poses:
Serious question: does that matter?
Most people think he bought an off-the-shelf urinal, and they still understand, that would be art. It would still function as commentary. The object’s existence in a museum is a jab.
The flipside is-- y’know that handwritten card that goes around? Like ‘I would rather see your scribbliest stick figure than your fanciest AI slop.’ The anti-AI crowd loves it, and it means a lot to them. What would change if we found out it was made in Qwen?
Yes. It’s an added layer of meaning where he put in the effort, and still made a toilet. This is not a low-effort shitpost, even if it looks to be one from a basic perspective. And when you challenge the meaning of art, it says a lot that the effortmade is impossible to determine at a quick glance.
And I don’t know if it means a lot to people, or if it’s just a thing a lot of people agree with. And if it was made in a shitty ai slop generator, then it would change it from “defiant speach” to “I don’t agree with what I say, I just want you to like me.” And based on every piece of AI I have ever seen, even the stuff AI bros like to boast about, there would be a spelling error they didn’t notice.
The low-effort shitpost everyone thinks it is, would still have meaning.
I will remind you we’re talking about Fountain. Duchamp trolled the art world by meticulously recreating something trivial. If someone popularized an anti-AI screed, using AI, that would be funniest goddamn thing - and a complete rebuttal.
Imagine the glee in that reveal. Some guy spent hours rendering, tweaking, rendering, tweaking, giggling to himself the whole time, until it produced exactly the image you’ve seen. All flaws excused by the proud AI haters, the same way they (and its text) would excuse literally anything a hand does with a pen. And then - ta-da! Here’s the prompt and the seed! You all found meaning in a generated image, and experienced emotional connection because of it. Get loved, idiot. Get camaraderie’d.
Then you get to watch people twist in knots. It never meant anything to them! Anymore! It’s complete trash, and they’re throwing out all their favorite band’s t-shirts, because they always hated them. It tricked them… but not in any way that confers intent.
Yes, it would have meaning, but less.
Jesus christ, you’re having more delusions than AI. Do you honestly think anyone would care about a picture of some text they agree with so much that the rug pull will affect them in any meaningful way? Do you think that guy hitting refresh on his prompt generator is putting in meaningful effort? Do you think anyone but AI chuds will excuse the blatantly obvious flaws the way you guys do?
Even at this second, I can’t even remember what the image looks like. It doesn’t mean anything to me. I just agree with the words.
I’m sure your little fiction brings you comfort, but it’s just fiction.
… the words are its meaning.
Those words say: flaws are fine, for anything done by hand.
If Fountain was an off-the-shelf urinal, would you go crack it with a hammer? That’s how people genuinely talk about generated images. They latch onto terms like intent and declare the robot cannot provide it, therefore, some image they quite enjoyed is now a useless husk. As if they can delete the emotional response from their brain.
Like a clever visual metaphor doesn’t parse, if it was rendered instead of scribbled.
Stupid question, of course it matters
Ah, so it wasn’t art for the years that people thought it was a store bought urinal? And it currently exists in a superposition state of art and not-art because it’s not actually known if he sculpted it or not?
Use your words.