There are three ad hoc readings in the news today that had a few interesting words requiring comment. There is nothing ‘Biblical’ here; these words are not texts that anticipate or paraphrase the subject of a sermon that begins with the cliché words: "Let us take for text" – used when Wright spoke of ‘an architect of ancient times called carpenter’ in The Future of Architecture, noting the ‘lilies of the field’ reference in Matthew 6:25-34. These articles are general news reports with a few words in them that caught the eye; words that required comment about their fleeting references and innuendos. The reports were never purposefully selected other than being chosen to be read in no particular order because they were there.
The articles include: one on AI in architecture; one on the development of a listed heritage site; and another on AI in art:
The one word that caught the eye in the AI in architecture report was mimicked. Finally it seems to be acknowledged that AI has no native intelligence as always appears to be being suggested with the word 'thinking,' and the expression of amazement with the result; that the best AI can do is to merely mimic the processes that it has been programmed to manipulate; that is, to exercise algorithms that all relate to the experience as analysed and restructured by programmers, in an attempt to imitate the human activity as best they can. The definition further suggests a sense of entertainment, sometimes ridicule. While the latter outcome has yet to be achieved by an arrogantly confident AI - is it something to look forward to? - there is a lingering sense of entertainment with this technology as the eye waits for the surprise of the unexpected 'creative' outcome: WOW!
That the programme might involve the implementation of some cunning 'red herring' outcomes in a cleverly manipulative manner to give unusually unique images, does not give AI any 'intelligence.' It is all purely the result of the mathematics, when one plus one is encouraged to be three or thirty-three to stimulate unknown, but desired differences and deferences.
The heritage site development presents a real concern for the unique listed sites in Brisbane. Shafston House is a classic Riverside mansion designed by the renowned architect Robin Dods. The development proposal seeks to build a tower to one side of the grand Federation home, directly in front of an existing apartment building that currently enjoys river views.
While it is difficult to put all the issues here in context, the words that catch the eye in this text are those of the architect who designed the new tower. Residents in the existing building complain that they will lose their river views; that they will be left staring at a 'proverbial' blank wall.
The reported response from the architect is telling:
Mr Brown said residents would not be looking out at a "blank wall".
"It's got depth, it's got tonality, it's got texture in the materiality of it, at a high standard," he said.
One is left gobsmacked at such seemingly arrogant insensitivity. Perhaps this attitude explains everything that might be wrong in this development? A high standard depth, tonality, and materiality, whatever these might be, seem to be no good substitute for river views or a blank wall.
Unfortunately Brisbane, a hilly river city, has no right to view. A previous Lord Mayor boasted that he would defend the right of any developer to be able to block another's view. One wonders what might promote this blatant rudeness to matters civic and civil from a public servant: might it be profit?
So much for planning and planners: so much for simple manners! Have architects forgotten the Trystan Edwards book: Good and Bad Manners in Architecture?
The final text concerns AI in art. Here the words of one illustrator stand out: true art is about the creative process much more than it’s about the final piece.
The suggestion is that art is a process, not product.
Is it this perception of art that gives us all the madness we see today, where the intimate process known only to the artist is considered to be the ‘art’ rather than the stand-alone product? Here one is reminded of the law student, who spoke so quickly that no one could understand, boldly declaring: "I know what I am saying."
Are we in a world where artists know what and why without giving two hoots about what anyone else thinks? Is the method in their madness just a cover for raw incompetence; a driving nothingness labelled as art? Is this why the texts that accompany the images in publications seem so alien?
We need to be alert, ever critical of what we read. It is simply too easy to relax and let complex matters be stymied by ad hoc phrases that pretend to formulate current acceptable wisdom and understanding. Traditional art made it clear that persons and personalities were irrelevant, unnecessary, and unwanted distractions. It seems a difficult pill to swallow in a world of self-promotion hyped by social media.
All three texts highlight the need for an awareness which one might call empathy - the thinking of and caring for another's thoughts and feelings, whether this be while mimicking, planning, or drawing, using whatever tools one might choose. AI has no inherent necessity to be boldly, carelessly brazen; that selective characteristic lies only in ourselves: we need to take heed, lest we forget and overindulge our private senses.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.