PostmastersBC

it's time to go 👋🏻

@elonmusk Replace the state bureauracy with loyalist bureaucracy Empower the theocratic new elite, rule. This is not rocket science, thats why you did not figure it out.

Unless Trump is elected, America will fall to tyranny. Trump must win.

@BobLoukas current or historic?

On the look out for some good digital art. Any ideas? Not interested in PFP collections or generative.

@postanika What i meant to say is that it is refused by the market so far(there is no other metric)

@postanika btw .jpg is a proprietary format, maybe an aura of corporate power over everything open source?

💭 The history of art is also a history of rejection. I’ve written that somewhere before. Once the patterns that recur throughout art history become apparent, you might expect there to be a learning curve. But there isn’t one. Why is that? I’m also not sure why there is so little understanding of the fact that the very things that are so feverishly, vehemently and vocally rejected—be it photography, video, the internet, Instagram or, more recently, NFTs and artificial intelligence—ultimately win out in the end. Herbert W. Franke (1927–2022), Germany’s best-known science fiction author, metaverse visionary and computer artist, devoted decades of his life to writing books and texts that remain as relevant as if they were written yesterday. He wrote tirelessly to demonstrate that art can indeed be created using technology, and that such art deserves serious consideration. And no, this rejection did not begin with the advent of technology or digitalisation. Vera Molnár, the grande dame of generative art, once recalled that modern art was not even discussed at the art academy in Budapest in the 1940s. And on the rare occasions when Picasso was mentioned, he was accused of perverting the tastes of the young and dishonouring women. We do not have to look far to find historical examples of this resistance to innovation: the notorious ›Salons des Refusés‹ in Paris in the 1860s, where Manet’s ›Luncheon in the Grass‹ was ridiculed, is one example. Then again, highly critical attention also bolsters the legitimacy of the avant-garde. (…) This is precisely why art produced with the aid of modern technologies is more relevant than ever. We live in a post-digital world. We are surrounded by technology. Algorithms and AI already wield significant influence over our daily lives, often unbeknown to us. Critical reflections by artists can enlighten us about these new technologies and help us live with them in a more conscious way. Conversely, fear and rejection only hinder us from adopting an informed approach to technology.

@postanika Time to move on!?

@postanika most people writing the ‘history’ today are ‘positioned’ on both the critical and market side of the game. Apparently favoring the ‘generative’ narrative, pretty much ignoring all the rest. Is it because it can be marketed as a unique commodity? How progressive is that! Time to .

@postanika which is a combination of market forces and some academic judgement that is mostly (almost exclusively) focused on adaptation of technology not its historical or creative propositions (historical or current) Objectively viewing the field ……

@postanika ‘professional’ point of view. compared to a transactional sytem dominated by buyers with scant to no knowledge of art history, art. Now that some of the artworld(market) get involved it is still a intensely market focused and also elitist system that trying to build a history….

@GaloAndStuff @TinaRiversRyan as Far as I know Vasarely never used computers

@TinaRiversRyan Interesting question! Highly doubt it since image tech like framebuffers were pretty sparse in that era. But now I’m curious if Vasarely ever used a computer to inform his paintings around that time.

Hey real quick can anyone think of a painting (as in, oil on canvas) of an image plotted within computer space from before 1967? I’m about to call this painting the first painting of virtual reality and don’t want to get massacred but I think I’m right…? But maybe not!

Waiting for @verizonfios @VerizonSupport for 1:29:53. That is an hour and a half after trying their callback scam twice yesterday. The machine said 20 min

@Noahbolanowski @postanika @thefunnyguysNFT and than they promoted Peter Max. who?

@postanika @thefunnyguysNFT My favorite instance of artistic rejection :) x.com/Noahbolanowski…

The history of art is also a history of rejection. I’ve written that somewhere before. Once the patterns that recur throughout art history become apparent, you might expect there to be a learning curve. But there isn’t one. Why is that? I’m also not sure why there is so little understanding of the fact that the very things that are so feverishly, vehemently and vocally rejected—be it photography, video, the internet, Instagram or, more recently, NFTs and artificial intelligence—ultimately win out in the end. @HerbertWFranke (1927–2022), Germany’s best-known science fiction author, metaverse visionary and computer artist, devoted decades of his life to writing books and texts that remain as relevant as if they were written yesterday. He wrote tirelessly to demonstrate that art can indeed be created using technology, and that such art deserves serious consideration. And no, this rejection did not begin with the advent of technology or digitalisation. Vera Molnár, the grande dame of generative art, once recalled that modern art was not even discussed at the art academy in Budapest in the 1940s. And on the rare occasions when Picasso was mentioned, he was accused of perverting the tastes of the young and dishonouring women. We do not have to look far to find historical examples of this resistance to innovation: the notorious ›Salons des Refusés‹ in Paris in the 1860s, where Manet’s ›Luncheon in the Grass‹ was ridiculed, is one example. Then again, highly critical attention also bolsters the legitimacy of the avant-garde. As @AnneSpalter, an artist and collector who, with @MichaelSpalter, has amassed one of the most extensive private collections of early computer art since the 1990s, recently tweeted, »AI might be the most important technical advancement in artmaking since paint got put into tubes.« You might think that this is a direct route to acceptance. But it is not. What we find instead is yet another tedious debate about whether art made in collaboration with artificial intelligence can ever truly be called art. The answer is simple: it depends. Not everyone who takes a photograph is an artist, just as not every output qualifies as art. Image: MATH ART 95 - No. 25 by Hebert W. Franke. In the collection of @thefunnyguysNFT

@postanika @thefunnyguysNFT “The answer is simple: it depends.” cant argue with that. - that’s where we are now. The only people who are invested in it are the people who are invested in it. :)

@postanika life is wondrous

@PostmastersBC hahahahaha on it 🥹

i don’t know who needs to hear this again: art does not need to sell out immediately

@postanika you see, you are catching up :)

@PostmastersBC wow, he sold 9 out of 10 pieces in an exhibition. and sold 15 artworks in total. first auction upcoming.

@postanika he must be crypto native

@postanika hahaha. thats an old fashioned view of ‘art’

@elonmusk it absolutely makes sense, it is part of free speech democracy, you cannot pick and choose. it subsidizes many things some could call frivolous, like rockets and other stuff what you call existential, the biggest army, etc. the university system, subsidies suck indeed

Doesn’t make sense that American taxpayers are forced to fund anti-American activities