do you not feel most of the work lies in selecting a moment in time & a point of view?
I do feel that way, which is why in the next paragraph I mention selection.
What does that mean for Jackson Pollock style paintings, where the content of the painting is at least partly determined by chance?
Or algorithmic art, where the artist writes code for a computer to execute (such as a fractal renderer or cellular automata) but doesn't necessarily know what the final result will look like?
Or Duchamp's Fountain, or photography in general, where you're just adding a frame to a thing you didn't create.
I feel like 10 years ago it would be very uncontroversial to say something like "art is as much discovery and the act of selection as it is creation", but not so much now.
Distributed computing would eliminate the water usage, since the heat output wouldn't be so highly concentrated, but it would probably somewhat increase power consumption.
In an ideal world I think data center waste heat would be captured for use in a district thermal grid / seasonal thermal energy store like the one in Vantaa.
Of course that isn't to say that we shouldn't be thinking about whether we're using software efficiently and for good reasons. Plenty of computations that take place in datacenters serve to make a company money but don't actually make anyone's lives better.
Okay, now imagine the city spending a billion dollars a year on preventing shark attacks, and elections being decided based on the candidates shark policy.
I used to think the same thing, but the thing is we don't care about the energy that goes into the sunscreen, we care about the remaining percent that goes into the skin. If you go from a sunscreen that absorbs 98% of the sun's energy to one that absorbs 99% you are halving the amount of energy your skin is exposed to.
If you're still getting burned with 98% absorption, then increasing that number by 1% would actually make a huge difference. And that's without even considering things like having a safety margin for improper application.
Its kinda funny to me, its like you can talk about how shitting is necessary for humans to live but don't you dare say you're gonna go take a dump.
Goddamn
I previously kinda liked Hertzog (he was amusing to listen to if nothing else), not any more.
How do you boil 11,000 rats alive and then go on and make 10 minute long thinkpieces about the profound sadness of the death of a single penguin that leaves its flock? What a fucking masturbatory asshat.
There are actually some fossils of dinosaur mummies, a rare preservation of a rare preservation. For some species these give us direct evidence of their physical appearance beyond their bone structure.
This is more psychotic than any of the dialogue in American Psycho.
It needs a port that you can attach your bag of caffeinated noodles to.
I don't think I would have brought a new person into the world during any of the other time periods you mention either.
Because, as a reaction to generative AI, so much emphasis is now placed on authorial intent, and the interplay of that intent and the process by which the artist realizes it. Such as being able to recognize a specific artist's mannerisms and read emotions into the shape of their individual brush strokes. Like in your previous comment:
I feel as if 10 years ago the conversation was very different. I think back then if someone said "the most important thing about art is being able to see the imprints of the artist's will flowing from their mind, through their hand, and into the workpiece" people would immediately bring up something like Fountain and say that art can also lie in selection and the creation of context, not just in the creation of the object itself.