It seems to be the journalist presenting it as such, but in any case, I don’t think the artists are suggesting it’s equivalent to what the guy made when he was alive. It’s an interesting artwork riffing off of the fact that the person whom the DNA belonged to was a musician. That also seems like a pretty disrespectful way to talk about people with Parkinson’s.
I know what you mean; I think it would be hurtful to people with Parkinson’s, but whatever, I luckily don’t have Parkinson’s so not much point arguing it.
Characterising involuntary but normal phenomenon as intentional or artistic is maybe a little less gross, but still asinine.
That seems like a very bizarre take. Isn’t that a very common artistic device, to find creative interpretations of natural phenomena, and to imagine intention where there is none? I mean, art is subjective so maybe that’s just your personal taste, but it seems like a strange thing to be offended by to me.
It’s about as close to composing as transcribing the twitches of someone with Parkinson’s.
About as respectful as well, if the researcher is the person characterising this process as composing.
It seems to be the journalist presenting it as such, but in any case, I don’t think the artists are suggesting it’s equivalent to what the guy made when he was alive. It’s an interesting artwork riffing off of the fact that the person whom the DNA belonged to was a musician. That also seems like a pretty disrespectful way to talk about people with Parkinson’s.
I’m referring to completely involuntary movements… Characterising any involuntary, debilitating phenomenon as intentional or artistic is gross.
Characterising involuntary but normal phenomenon as intentional or artistic is maybe a little less gross, but still asinine.
I understand why you think it’s offensive, that’s fine.
I know what you mean; I think it would be hurtful to people with Parkinson’s, but whatever, I luckily don’t have Parkinson’s so not much point arguing it.
That seems like a very bizarre take. Isn’t that a very common artistic device, to find creative interpretations of natural phenomena, and to imagine intention where there is none? I mean, art is subjective so maybe that’s just your personal taste, but it seems like a strange thing to be offended by to me.
Interpretations are intentional, transformative etc.
Automating that is not.
How is it not transformative and intentional to reinterpret neurological signals as music?
The researchers are doing the composing, not the organoid. The organoid is just existing.
Okay…? Your point?