Sadeq Rahimi, “The ego, the ocular, and the uncanny: Why are metaphors of vision central in accounts of the uncanny?”

“I like Simone Weil’s idea that writing is actually the translation of a text we already carry within us. That notion makes a heavy task lighter. In fact, though, writing is the backbreaking work of hacking a footpath, as in a coal mine; in total darkness, beneath the earth. In poetry there are moments of illumination. A streak of light falls in the dark corridor, then the darkness slams shut overhead once more. In prose the darknesses are even thicker, the black clods even harder.”

— Anna Kamienska, from “In That Great River: A Notebook”

Source:

Dr. Liu also said she "believes the university [cancelled her presentation] out of fear of being pressured by the Donald Trump administration" and that it speaks to the “climate of fear” universities in the U.S. are now living under in which they preemptively “self-censor” themselves to avoid retaliation. Supposed "antisemitism" is only the excuse.

Avatar
Reblogged
Avatar
xzazupsilon
brain: slartibartfast
me: huh?
brain: that was a dude from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, remember?
me: yeah, what about it?
brain: yeah
Avatar
Reblogged
[...] I felt that I was leaving part of myself behind, and that wherever I went afterwards I should feel the lack of it, and search for it hopelessly, as ghosts are said to do, frequenting the spots where they buried material treasures without which they cannot pay their way to the nether world.

Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited, 1945

Avatar
Reblogged

lifted this tidbit from another good essay on the marxist position on AI and AI art by Pol Clarissou:

“Among the loose social crowd of online artists and creative hustlers, the reaction to this new technology has been short-sighted at best. While there are legitimate grounds to criticize the way this technology fits into systems of exploitation, the arguments from the self-identified artists tend to follow a few distinct lines of thinking:

That there is an ontological difference to human creativity or the artist’s superior mind. The mild version of this take compares it to “the stupid machine.” The explicitly exceptionalist and dehumanizing version compares it to other supposedly less intelligent or less imaginative humans and lazy parasites.

That there is an unalienable right for the artist to hold onto their creative output as private property, to be protected from “theft” (which in the case of AI art becomes even prospective theft, like an extension of protections against plagiarism shifting into an unconditional protection against replacement by other artists with more productive tools).

That more efficient AI methods lead to the displacement of the artists’ conditions of economic existence: the erosion of their market share, client pool, contract opportunities, etc.

The first argument implies an ideology of arts that posits artists as uniquely more human than the masses, or that posits “creativity” as a universal right but doesn’t stop to ask why only some people are allowed to make it their life’s purpose, as opposed to a hobby they have limited time for. The second argument implies an ideology of arts that relies on the frameworks of private property and copyright, without a clear understanding of how these frameworks came to be and how much of a danger they are to both individual artists themselves and culture at large. The third argument is legitimate, but answers to it tend to fall back into the above reactionary pitfalls that will eventually turn against the artists that promote them, as we’ll get into.”

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.