Artist designs a machine-learning assisted sculpture, then casts it in the powdered remains of the computer used to design it

Originally published at:


Typical human behaviour; deleting the work of the “assistant” and claiming the fruits of labour for the “artist”.


he filled the mold with a resin impregnated with the computer that ran the algorithm, which Snell had ground to powder.

Memo to self: Do not collaborate on an art project with this guy.


i am tripping right now


The sculpture is alright, the sculptor however…


My parents had almost exactly those mod statues when I was a child. Swedish design FTW!

1 Like

Yeah, right. . . they never shut their eyes. Ask Dave Bowman about that one.


“I consider myself, not the computer, to be the artist,”

I consider him to be the bullshit artist.

If you don’t explain how your algorithm works, then calling it “AI” is meaningless. You can call just about anything “AI”.


Plus, who actually gives a flying fuck whether the source material for the sculpture was that PC, any other PC, or any other lump of metal and plastic, whatsoever.

On both counts (AI and raw materials) this is bullshit. But of course ‘interesting sculptures you could imagine seeing in a local furnishing store’ gets no airtime. Needs a provocative conceptual backstory to be deemed ‘art’.

Conceptual art usually brings out the same reaction in me. “Conceptual art, my arse. Is that conceptual enough for you?”

1 Like

He will be first on chopping block when Skynet becomes self-aware.


Yeah, this isn’t creepy at all. God help him when our silicon overlords become aware and then notice his crimes.


“You thought Snell was the one who designed the sculpture, but it was me, Dio!”


That’s a pretty salty take. Did an artist wrong you in some way?

The material the sculptures are made from do matter–your typical house cat won’t appreciate the difference, but as human beings who habitually, obsessively look for meaning in the matter of their world, thinking 360-degrees around an idea is what the imaginative faculty does best. If the intangible, non-quantifiable aspects of things weren’t allowed to matter to us, our existence wouldn’t be much of anything except eating, sleeping, and reproducing.

It’s fine if you want to say you don’t like or appreciate more conceptual artworks, but there are plenty of us who do give a flying one about the artist’s concept.

Edit: That said, “I asked the computer to close its eyes and dream” is just showmanship, and I’m not sure about this particular sculptor…

1 Like

No, not at all. But too many second and third rate ‘artists’ get away with metaphorical murder merely by adding a layer of the allegedly ‘conceptual’ to try to turn (often fine) craft into ‘art’. Mostly I don’t buy it.

That’s absolutely fine. Carry on, do.

I thnk there is a difference (or maybe a fine line?) between showmanship and bullshit.

/God crosses her legs, raises her brow, and looks into the camera


You want AI driven robot overlords? This is how you get AI driven robot overlords!

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.