LEOS10301

@leventnacakci “…the viewer is led to believe that the resulting image is a natural and objective representation of those sounds. “ When has art ever been a natural and objective (!), representation of reality?! One of the main aspects of art is to show the artists perspective.

Refik Anadol’s work frequently employs terms like “fluid dynamics,” “latent space,” and “algorithmic brushstrokes,” which give the viewer a false sense of intellectual depth. But the reality is this: these terms often serve to mask the artist’s aesthetic choices behind a façade of scientific authority. When the artist says, “I am visualizing bird sounds recorded in a forest,” the viewer is led to believe that the resulting image is a natural and objective representation of those sounds. However, as discussed earlier, the direction of the flow or the choice of color is entirely arbitrary. In a scientific experiment, input A should consistently produce output B, or at least the relationship should be demonstrable. Here, however, input A (bird sound) can be transformed into color C or motion D depending on the artist’s mood that morning. This is not an experiment; it is simply decoration. Phrases like “artificial intelligence is dreaming” or “data sculpture” mystify technical processes. Calling a pixel-generation process based on statistical probabilities “dreaming” is nothing more than presenting a basic mathematical regression as something magical. This causes the work to derive its power not from its own aesthetics, but from the “coolness” of science and technology. If we were to replace the bird sounds with the sound of a vacuum cleaner using the same “mapping” settings, we would still obtain a “mesmerizing” visual. In other words, the beauty of the image does not come from the essence of the data, but entirely from the artist’s graphics engine. In this context, extracting data from bird sounds is not a technical necessity, but rather a storytelling device—a marketing element of the project. Wrapping data in a scientific veneer reinforces the illusion that the work is “meaningful.” But once this illusion dissolves, what remains is merely a high-resolution “screensaver.” Real science uses data to understand reality; this kind of “art,” by contrast, uses data merely as spectacle. Instead of saying, “I shaped this data according to my own will and created something beautiful,” the artist claims: “Through scientific algorithms, I revealed the hidden architecture of the data.” This rhetoric is nothing more than putting on a mask of scientific authority to influence the viewer. This form of pseudo-scientific framing is monetized; data is dramatized, the viewer is drawn into a sense of technological awe, and reality is obscured through spectacle.

Untouched photo from tonight. Good, night, moon.

@Nicolas_Sassoon Awesome. Please let me know when it’s ready, would love to collect.

@LEOS10301 this one is RGB 204 so its not new, but a new series is coming for these types of OLED displays :)

RGB Studies 204 OLED (left) vs LCD (right) with a LED candle for good measure

gm to all the Gazers out there. @MattKaneArtist

@Nicolas_Sassoon OLED is so much nicer!

@scitechgirl @grok is this true and is there an evaluation of likeliness of success in humans if true?

BREAKING🚨: Scientists Are Attempting the Impossible: Regrowing Hearing Nerves in Humans What if the silence you’ve lived with for years could suddenly vanish? What if lost sounds — your loved one’s voice, music, even laughter — could come back? Scientists at the University of Sheffield are daring to do the unthinkable. They’ve launched a groundbreaking trial using stem cell injections that might regrow the tiny nerves in your inner ear — the very ones that make hearing possible. It’s early.But in animals, similar treatments have already restored hearing. Now, for the first time in humans, science is stepping into a realm that was once pure science fiction. Could this be the moment when deafness becomes reversible? The world is holding its breath. Source: University of Sheffield, Open Access Government (2026)

These are really interesting!

@summergwagner is taking it to another level. ❤️‍🔥

@summergwagner What is this one called? So good!

new work Feb 2026

@summergwagner @SamSpratt Wow. Love these so much.

@musicalnetta Congratulations! Your mask deep dives are always thought provoking and one of the things I look forward to reading when they come out. Thank you, and congrats, well deserved!

And just like that - an entire year has gone by...with posting tonight's deep dive I have done 366 deep dives in a row, if you count my first "Favorite Masks" thread on the Masks of Luci. It has been long and short all at once, and I have met so many of YOU because of it.

@SamSpratt This is incredible. Such a beautiful immersive experience. It really helps to see everything in one place and how it all ties together. Congrats on the launch and turning a setback into something better!

This is stunning. Going through the new website for @SamSpratt is such an inspiring experience. It really is a work of art in its own right and has me even more excited to see the journey ahead.

Great article by @CypherDAO on the amazing PXL art from @kimasendorf

@eli_schein Amen. Never understood this practice. Limit distribution to those who have owed the artists work in the past or currently, then release to public after if any remain. Ensure collectors have a chance even if they not current collectors of your work but other well known artists.

We have 5+ years of market data to show that indiscriminately minting artwork to whoever can click buttons fastest is severely net negative for the long-term health of an artist’s body of work.

@Eko3316 This is 🔥

Gm if you love computer generative art!

@harvey_rayner Dislike editions in general, much prefer 1/1/x for several reasons: Its the best combination of unique art plus a collection to build community and enthusiasm around. 500 may not be the right size, varies by artist, and collector base and price and goals of the artist.

If you have $200 to spend on your favorite code artist's latest collector-curated release, would you prefer to buy? - A: NFT from 1/1/500. (Unframed, high quality print available for additional $500) B: Framed, high quality signed print (13"x19") from 1/1/∞, shipped and ready to hang.

@ape6743 Are you going to compensate the victims?

The exploit has been contained. NFTs are safe.

@tinoch Dislike editions. It’s like owning a poster of the same artwork. The sweet spot is 1/1/x. Gives the best of all worlds: * The uniqueness of each piece * Part of a cohesive whole * community and excitement from shared collection with others. Gazers is a great example of this.

I used to believe 1/1 art held the ultimate value because I'm the only one who owns it. But after years in this space, I've changed my mind. I now see and appreciate far more intrinsic value in editions. Each collector owns their own specific edition. But you don't just own "yours", you share the joy, the vibe and the story with the other collectors who have the same affection for the work. That shared experience builds real community. Relationships form between collectors, deeper bonds grow with the artist, and a genuine support network emerges. Don't get me wrong: I still love the singular magic of a 1/1. That uniqueness hits different. But editions? I personally think they're more fun, more dynamic, more alive. You get to be part of something bigger than yourself. I guess that's the power of network effects in art, when ownership multiplies connection instead of isolating it. What do you think?