Showing posts with label Anonymous. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anonymous. Show all posts

Sunday, 14 July 2024

Anonymous

 


Seminar on Street Art 3: Anonymous. Essential to the wonder of street art is anonymity. It is a given that no one but the artist and close associates, the crew, really knows. It’s they who made all these endless extravagances. The public and constabulary are in the dark, even in broad daylight, Broadmeadows daylight, though it is likely the constabulary possess files of names caught red-handed with a spray can, indelible markers. It is itself part of the mystery how so many artists go to infinitesimal detail writing their impossibly obscure signature upon doors, walls, back lanes, freeways simply to declare their honourable anonymity. It is anonymity, indeed, that gives freedom to the artists to express themselves as they wish. They are not bound by expectations a famous name means to the voracious and unthinking public. Fame is fleeting as a car careering past, a glimpse while out shopping, a billboard stripped back to tin by the morning. Their real name is invisible behind their immense contrived street names, signed in original lettering across the city’s length, breadth and don’t forget height. How did they get up there? This is a profound conundrum, painted over high density urban spaces: the sight of hundreds of ornate signatures that are not the artists’ real names. Who are these people? Their desire to lay claim to the impersonal landscape with their personal Pessoan heteronyms is uncontrollable, and done at risk to their physical safety and civil security. The law takes a dim view of their brightest autographs. The law would return to dust-grey their flowery embellishments, using a heavy-duty city council paint roller. The uniformity of conformity. Yet the law itself has provided street artists with the creative restriction rule that garners such populous proliferations of anonymous prolixity: Thou Shalt Not Sign the Work. Their viewership assigns medieval cognomens to their inscrutable pseudonyms: The Master of the Sunshine Industrial Zone, Pudgy Budgie Member of the School of Pam the Bird, Looping Illuminator of the Mernda Line. ‘Foo Was Here’ is the germ of this superabundance of dancing signoffs. But this is about more than scrawling a peekaboo in the wrong location. The results of street art imply a most complex artistic premeditation, an unswerving determination, a clubbish anonymity. They display gift and the painterly training of Renaissance frescoists, those men and women who knew they had only 15 minutes starting Now to complete their unacknowledged masterwork before the plaster set.

Sunday, 19 March 2023

Anonymous

 


Iso-mandala No. 33, July 2020

How would a student reference online forms of AI if allowed to use them? What is the citation format? This was never a question until this year because this year is the lift-off, the launch without champagne breaking on the bow, of the chatbot. The chatbot generates human-like text prompted, we believe, by actual humans. Poetry, which makes what is plain, mysterious and what’s mysterious plain, reads of this invention with the same mixture of consternation and curiosity as other fields of human enquiry. While cataloguers, those pre-eminent practitioners of citation, ask the very pre-2023 question, who is responsible for the work in hand? Anecdotal evidence in these early stages of launch suggest that AI-generated texts are, at best, co-authored; the two authors being human and machine. This simple equation breaks down as soon as we see that the machine contribution may be drawn from any number of unknown and unacknowledged authors who produced their own sentient sentences decades or even centuries before they were chatbottled. Is the catalogue record going to include all of them? Is the thesis bibliography about to list single citations as long as your arm? The solution in the launch period is to cite the link, but what happens when link goes clink? Authorship is sacrosanct, certainly now since it is being found that its sanctity is under attack. When I apply AI to the sermons of John Donne, it would take a Donne-like ego to claim they were my words, or his for that matter. The one responsible for the work in hand (or screen, perchance) is the mysterious third person, or in fact non-person, that convention calls Anonymous. Chatbots are generating more anonymous material in a short time than every town crier and pamphleteer recorded in state libraries worldwide. Respectability, or simple honesty, might like to attach Pseudonymous to its text-based productions, though pseudonyms are one of a cataloguer’s most time-consuming rabbit holes. It’s quite enough trying to deal with the Revd. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson’s never-ending mathematical games with words anyway, without having to work out when or if he’s Lewis Carroll as well. Pseudonyms will proliferate, each more difficult to trace than the last one, until libraries will be required to advertise for a Pseudonyms Cataloguer, or similar. Chatbots might be in the honeymoon period, but ask not for whom the bell tolls. The anonymous chatbot cannot speak for you, but can only generate what it has been told. For this reason it is not a human with a name and the gift of knowing past, present, and future. Once a sentient human has used the pseudonym Frumious Bandersnatch for their co-authored chatbot essay, can anyone else use Frumious Bandersnatch, or will that cause a clash of name authorities?