While I was waay too young when I saw it to get the message that Kubrick stated in the interview about the last 2001 scene, the explanation “works” for me now. I don’t know enough even now to know about intentional historical French architectural inaccuracies, but the way image AIs “try” to make things now that they can’t properly grok conveys this feel. Could be confirmation bias, but the cringey Uncanny Valley feel I get from an weirdly attempted AI image fits. Also don’t think (IMHO) that that concept could have been conveyed to the audience well at the time without being over expository/heavy handed/hokey due to budget/time/technology of the day (even if they invented new tech in that time).
But also agree to feel the fur, as explanations of art by artists or art historians often sound like so much hot air. It’s like explaining a successful joke after you said it, so they can laugh for the “right reason”.
