I’m 100% positive that this comment will get downvoted heavily

Don’t worry, buddy, I’ll get you started. 🫡

I don’t think Resurrections is a film that can be talked about plainly. Not right now, anyway.

It’s really interesting because it’s an almost objectively terrible movie, but it’s self-aware of that, as if it were mocking people for being interested in the first place, deliberately rubbing their noses in the carpet shit-stain they somewhat innocently paid to see. And so, it is a film that wields its audience as a weapon against the producers that forced its birth, and there is essentially no way this plays out without a lot of unbridled anger and resentment.

I actually like it for having the balls to be that awful. But for a lot of people, who simply do not care about the “broader conversation” this film sits within, there’s just nothing else to talk about but how boring that particular Sunday was for them.

so why the pretence that this particular shape, the “R. Mutt” signature, has significance?

Because reinterpretation is not an art historian’s job.

The original reaction is lost to time, dude. A modern audience is, broadly, already aware of the transgressive urinal, and so already more accepting of it. There is no recreating the piece. There is only recreating what it was.

If you think that’s BS

I don’t, other than it seems to be something you’ve written specifically to tick the boxes you think I’m looking for.

Would it baffle you to know I might consider this “critique” to be art where the image itself is not? I leave that as an exercise to the reader.

But anyway. Yet again, your contempt for the modern art world really betrays your jealousy of it. Do I just take your word for it that these critics have nothing to say?

If you think that the writings of these critics are smug, self-important hogwash, then why are you using their tools, the tools of the enemy, to justify to me why I should care about this talking cup?

Again, to the crowd: this is why what barsoap is saying is bullshit. It’s just a chess move to them. They don’t actually believe any of this. Their sole motivation is salvaging gen AI’s reputation.

buy a random [urinal] off the shelf, then proclaim it to be original.

This is profoundly offensive to art history, actually. A museum?

People go to great lengths to preserve CRT setups for old video games, but you’re like “nah, a TV is as good as any other.”

Dude, your contempt for art is insane. I’m telling you, you’re jealous that I respect the profane and “meaningless” urinal and not your AI toys.

Were they chuckling because the talking glass confuses and upsets the rule-of-three comedy technique being used?

I guess I’m talking to the crowd here because this is important: The reason this is notable evidence of AI and not human choice is because it is incoherent.

People know what a knock-knock joke is, and it wouldn’t work so well to say “knock-crack” for a chuckle but still expect me to ask “who’s there?” after. In comedy, and in visual art, the talking glass is an example of poor grammar.

A person, a human artist, could say knock-crack to me. Maybe they just have poor grammar generally. Maybe they did intentionally choose or ask for a giant talking cup for no reason, even though it harms the other joke they’re obviously interested in telling. But I flatly don’t believe this. It is far easier to believe this is random noise from the machine we already know generates random noise.

barsoap is reaching for the stars here to justify something they know is bullshit.

Oh my god.

Jesus christ.

I was thinking, “nah, that seems nitpicky, I’m sure a real person could write either.” But that is the entire setup for the punchline. I’m gonna rip my hair out.

This Excel joke is pulling on 100 years of surrealist cultural history? That’s incredible.

As a connoisseur, maybe you can explain why the oversized glass is talking about itself to me.

Why should anyone be interested in a urinal on a pedestal?

It is incredible how jealous AI-hornies are of the toilet.

This might seem like an odd thing to say, but it seems too well-made for stick figure art. It’s too perfect, but for seemingly no reason. It’s got no verve, no life to it, but its lines are so perfect that it’s weird it doesn’t have those things, you know? Someone with this degree of skill wouldn’t make something this boring to look at unless it was part of the joke, but I don’t think it is?

It’s very strange.

The only person I can imagine drawing this manually is, like, an office worker who has this idea for a joke but who also doesn’t really know what memes are on the Internet—like when someone misuses the success baby or something.

If you’re going to pout, we can put you in the corner. That might be funny.

My friends do that.
Live your dream, mate.
Be free~

because it’s sort of how the food chain works,

If you’ll notice, it’s not very often a vegan advocates for cheetahs to stop eating antelope.

That was a good read, thank you. :)

are flawless

I cannot help you. You are having a conversation in your head that no one else here is a part of. You gotta come back down to Earth, man.

I imagine at least some of that ridicule stems from this being kind of the exact wrong answer to the big, societal “why is everyone so lonely now?” question.

It’s a bit like watching a pack-a-day smoker buy lozenges for their throat or something, as if you’re not supposed to think about the cancer.

No, it doesn’t.

You distrust AI therapists.
You distrust bad therapists.
You do trust good therapists.

See? Works just fine.

How was this question phrased in the survey?

Because in a very literal sense, Canada is being unfriendly. They should be. Amerikkka needs like infinite punishment right now.

Man, what if we abolished copyright, but also banned gen AI completely. I think that would be the funniest answer.

It’s friday and I’m going to have plenty of drinks, there will be no soda in sight.

Um… congratulations?