“I’ve made a bot that ‘likes’ everything on Facebook,” said Julien Deswaef […]
While it sounds an easy project to execute, it turns out that Facebook has its own scripts programmed to penalise ruthless automation. Because of this, Julien has had to mimic the sporadic interactions of humans to keep the bot under the radar. The artist has also had to forfeit his own Facebook account to the bot — you could interpret this as performance art, but Julien calls it software art. Many of his friends instantly complained about having everything liked by him. I follow him/it on Facebook, and yes it’s frustrating, but it is only irritating because it holds up a mirror of how pathetic your Facebook life really is; the bot likes every single mundane trace you leave on the site.
— Popular Protest | Grafik (via new-aesthetic)
12:55 pm • 2 June 2014 • 200 notes • View comments
Robot Artifice, pt. 1
"…Why is it interesting for artists and poets to mechanically operate words and signs in a time when we carry computers in our pockets to do this for us? What’s more interesting is how that constant proximity to machines generates a visceral flow of language in and out of them all the time. Our material engagement with the world and with other people is mediated by networked computers, and yet it’s not fully determined by them. Our modes of engagement aren’t exactly equal to the computer’s. The constant proximity of machines reminds us that we’re not machines - that we’re weird and hungry and messy and queer and lonely and gross in ways that they (the machines) can’t be.
This is why self-design is less interesting than the selfie. Self-design makes a big, legible version of the self, while the selfie is its diminutive. It is the abject residue of personhood’s digital molting, images shed in square, flat flakes like bits of a snake’s skin. With the selfie, social media sites facilitate a naked openness of the self as it changes and grows. The personal brand flounders and drowns in the swampy reality of personhood…”
— Brian Droitcour, from “The Poet’s Materials”
3:07 pm • 26 May 2014 • 5 notes • View comments
“For sublime objects are vast in their dimensions, beautiful ones comparatively small: beauty should be smooth and polished; the great, rugged and negligent; beauty should shun the right line, yet deviate from it insensibly; the great in many cases loves the right line, and when it deviates it often makes a strong deviation: beauty should not be obscure; the great ought to be dark and gloomy: beauty should be light and delicate; the great ought to be solid, and even massive.”
— The Sublime and Beautiful Compared. Burke, Edmund. 1909-14. On the Sublime and Beautiful. The Harvard Classics
9:00 am • 16 August 2013 • 4 notes • View comments
woodcut by Howard Simon for ‘The Cherry Orchard’ by Chekhov
3:50 pm • 5 July 2013 • 17 notes • View comments
“Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.”
From Scalia’s dissent in LAWRENCE V. TEXAS back in 2003.
At least I know he’s having a terrible day. It makes me smile.
12:20 pm • 26 June 2013 • 16 notes • View comments
“the amount of knowledge in any culture is far greater than the capacity of individuals to learn or figure it all out on their own. He suggests that individuals tap that cultural storehouse of knowledge simply by mimicking (often unconsciously) the behavior and ways of thinking of those around them. We shape a tool in a certain manner, adhere to a food taboo, or think about fairness in a particular way, not because we individually have figured out that behavior’s adaptive value, but because we instinctively trust our culture to show us the way. The unique trick of human psychology, these researchers suggest, might be this: our big brains are evolved to let local culture lead us in life’s dance.”
— Why Americans Are the Weirdest People in the World (via ario)
9:00 am • 23 May 2013 • 83 notes • View comments
Three Ohio Bucks Found Drowned with Antlers Locked.
Click through to Field & Stream for the full story and lots more pictures, but be warned, some of them are grisly:
The best way to untangle the pileup, Burke and Shields decided, was to sever the heads of two of the deer and remove their bodies; then the third deer would be removed intact, with the racks of the first two bucks still locked in its antlers.
(Hat tip to Radiolab listener Mercedes!)
This is now my house sigil.
1:34 am • 4 May 2013 • 1,201 notes • View comments