[HN Gopher] FedEx shipping damage creates fractured artworks ___________________________________________________________________ FedEx shipping damage creates fractured artworks Author : talonx Score : 234 points Date : 2021-01-20 18:06 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (kottke.org) (TXT) w3m dump (kottke.org) | legerdemain wrote: | FedEx owns the box design and dimensions that these glass pieces | explicitly imitate. FedEx also significantly contributes to the | value of these pieces by applying unique and creative forms of | rough handling during shipment. | | Does FedEx own this art, and should the credited individual be | paying them a share of the money earned from its display? | chrisseaton wrote: | > FedEx owns the box design and dimensions that these glass | pieces explicitly imitate. | | The glasses pieces don't imitate the box dimensions - they go | _into_ the box dimensions. They 're smaller than the boxes. | Applejinx wrote: | That's another level of Duchampian right there. | | If a work like this actually sold for a significant value, I | would argue that the FedEx person who threw it about and broke | it SHOULD be compensated for their contribution to the work, | all the more since their unknowingness was absolutely part of | the nature of the artwork (it wouldn't be the artwork if just | the artist put the thing into a box and then dropped it). | EForEndeavour wrote: | > Does FedEx own this art | | Do the producers of brushes, paints, and canvases own any of | the art that their products make possible? Does the owner of an | art gallery own the photos I take during my paid visit? | legerdemain wrote: | > Does the owner of an art gallery own the photos I take | during my paid visit? | | Yes? Paying for a ticket does not grant you a license to | reproduce the art. | EForEndeavour wrote: | Does the act of paying for admission sign away my rights to | the photos I take while inside? | butt_hugger wrote: | Most often yes, but it depends on the gallery. The ones | that have the big "no photography" signs are a giveaway. | luisfmh wrote: | It would be so cool if they did not just shipping to art | galleries, but also mass produced it so you could get your own | fedex shipping box art at home. | comboy wrote: | That is a great idea. It has some appeal. Prepare it from some | thin sheet of glass but on something which will hold it | together, maybe add some fluids separated in a ways that are | easy to destroy with acceleration. You receive something that | nobody else saw before and completely unique. With interesting | enough design people would be posting pictures of these so you | have marketing covered. | | And then there are returned products: "My item was not damaged | at all" | dawnerd wrote: | Or just laminate the glass? | comboy wrote: | Yeah but I mean it would be nice if you could have some | kaleidoscopic effect. Or something like a Rorschach test. | Just broken glass won't go viral. | Blikkentrekker wrote: | Personally, I judge art purely on the final result by principle | and refuse to consider the artist itself, his stated intent, or | the process by which he made it, as well as the source material | whereupon it might be based: -- it must stand on it's own merit. | | In this particular case I find the cracks to not be terribly | unaesthetic but not spectacular either, and consider it largely | an inferior form of _Wabi-Sabi_ design. | | I do not like how much the art world is about the artist rather | than the art itself, and how a story must accommodate it such as | the novel production technique of shipping it as such. | | It is essentially a world of hero worship where one's name is | more important than one's productions. | tosser-8675309 wrote: | So sad to see this getting downvoted. I think it a very | reasonable assertion to make whether you consider yourself an | avid art consumer or casual passerby. | | Nothing about this statement compels you to come to the same | conclusion. I personally agree, and think a good metaphor is | telling a joke. If you have to explain the punchline... either | you've got the wrong audience or it's just not funny. | | And let's be honest: like it or not, some art (... "art"?) is | made for artists and they have no desire to appeal to non- | artists. | vaughnegut wrote: | In fairness, removing the context from art removes a lot its | value. This would be akin to reading Animal Farm and ignoring | its allegory about Communism and judging it purely on its merit | as a story about some animals staging a revolution. This is | also like reading Shakespeare in high school without one of | those copies that explain a lot of the jokes and references | that aren't obvious to the reading 500 years later. | | Context is what gives art a lot of its power, the downside is | that you need this context to understand it. I'm not a huge art | person so I view most art superficially, but always enjoy when | I get an opportunity to learn more. | Blikkentrekker wrote: | > _In fairness, removing the context from art removes a lot | its value._ | | It removes the value for the unobjective man who cannot free | himself of such biases and judge matters on their own merit. | | > _This would be akin to reading Animal Farm and ignoring its | allegory about Communism and judging it purely on its merit | as a story about some animals staging a revolution._ | | No, it would be akin to reading animal farm without knowing | anything about the auctor, or the conditions and process by | which it was written. | | Art providing a commentary on an external event, and being | judged upon how well it does so is an entirely different | matter. | | Of course, the artist can also be considered if what the art | attempt to do is to provide some kind of commentary on it's | own artist. | | The argument you raise here is tantamount to that refusing to | consider the auctor of a physics paper as well as how the | research came to be in judging it's merit, is tantamount to | not considering how well the physical results in it model the | physical realities they attempt to describe. | | > _This is also like reading Shakespeare in high school | without one of those copies that explain a lot of the jokes | and references that aren 't obvious to the reading 500 years | later._ | | And this is exactly why I believe judging Shakespeare by | modern readers is praetentious. | | A modern reader can never truly have _Sprachgefuhl_ for 1500s | English. He may be able to read it, but it 's hard for him to | truly be capable of assessing whether language truly sounds | beautiful. | | > _Context is what gives art a lot of its power, the downside | is that you need this context to understand it. I 'm not a | huge art person so I view most art superficially, but always | enjoy when I get an opportunity to learn more._ | | It is what gives art power to the unobjective, biased man who | cannot compartimentalize and judge matters on their own | merit. | | This does not limit itself to art. You will find that the | same same man who judges art by the artist, will also easily | be convinced that the exact same dish tastes better, if he be | told it was more expensive. | depaya wrote: | _> This does not limit itself to art. You will find that | the same same man who judges art by the artist, will also | easily be convinced that the exact same dish tastes better, | if he be told it was more expensive._ | | If someone perceives the exact same dish as tasting better | because it was more expensive (and/or in a fancier setting, | with fancy table linens and silverware, a live quartet | playing classical music, etc) then to that person it IS | better. Perceiving something as being better is literally | all that matters. | | To look at it another way, removing one's sense of smell | will make the same dish _taste_ worse. Smell is a factor in | one 's perception of taste, as are other environmental | factors. | Blikkentrekker wrote: | > _If someone perceives the exact same dish as tasting | better because it was more expensive (and /or in a | fancier setting, with fancy table linens and silverware, | a live quartet playing classical music, etc) then to that | person it IS better. Perceiving something as being better | is literally all that matters._ | | Perhaps it does, but it also makes him a poor food | critic, which was the relevant issue here. | kuter wrote: | Reminds me of the Japanese art Kintsugi/kintsukuroi which is the | name for repairing broken pottery with lacquer and gold silver or | platinum powder. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kintsugi | metalliqaz wrote: | I think it's the opposite of that. | danparsonson wrote: | The opposite of something can still evoke the thing it | opposes :-) | aketchum wrote: | The thing I love about modern art is that initial instinctive | reaction of "Anyone could do this!". I have absolutely zero | training in art so this might be a infantile opinion, but I am | delighted by the pieces that makes me realize "Anyone could do | this, but no-one did until now." | | All that to say, I really like this series of works. | teawrecks wrote: | Yeah, but for a lot of modern art, I think the claim many | people are making is both that "anyone could do it" and "people | already have and just didn't make a big deal of it". Ex. When | people say "my kid could paint that" they mean "something very | similar to that is already hanging on my refrigerator". | jweir wrote: | Some modern art does not stand on its own. It requires the | expert explanation to transform it from garbage to art. For | myself this is "clever art" and has little cultural value. | | Damien Hirst once had a work on display and a janitor threw | it out - because he truly thought it was garbage. My toddler | daughter once "ruined" a Mathew Barney work on a wall - it | was a smear of black jelly that she smeared some more. The | guard quickly looked the other way while motioning us to | leave. | | Working in the gallery world I would read the epic | descriptions of works for sale. A lot of ink went in to | creating and describing the value of art works that had no | apparent worth. It is fashion to be sold and adorn and tell | your friends about. | | Not all modern art is like this, some works can be | appreciated for its intrinsic properties. But this requires | more skill, and dedication, and is rather rare. | | I value art similar to the rule about food - if your | grandmother would recognize it as art then it probably is, if | not then maybe not. And all things art - it boils down to | opinion. This is mine. | eindiran wrote: | > My toddler daughter once "ruined" a Mathew Barney work on | a wall - it was a smear of black jelly that she smeared | some more. | | That's a great story and gave me a good laugh. But with a | lot of these pieces, there is a strong sense that the | object isn't _really_ the artwork, in the same way that a | program isn 't _really_ the exact bits on my machine. | | Recently SFMOMA put up a Sol LeWitt, one of his "Wall | Drawing" pieces, which involved some employee of the museum | carefully painting it on the wall. At the end of the | exhibit, the whole wall got painted back over. In my | opinion (and that of the curators of SFMOMA), they weren't | actually destroying a Sol LeWitt; the actual piece is | something more abstract, including but not limited to the | instructions used to paint it onto the wall. | | In the same way, most of the wall drawings of Matther | Barney are about the act of drawing, not really the | artifact that is the result: | https://d2jv9003bew7ag.cloudfront.net/uploads/Matthew- | Barney... | u678u wrote: | > Damien Hirst once had a work on display and a janitor | threw it out | | Actually I thought it was Tracey Emin, I searched for it | and it was both - and more other occurrences in other | countries. https://www.bing.com/search?q=cleaner+throws+awa | y+art&first=... | petre wrote: | Oh that's the woman with the messy bed. Stuckists would | like a word with YBA. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Nicholas_Serota_Makes | _an... | | No wonder the janitor thought it was trash and threw it | out. | teddyh wrote: | The same sentiment was also described here: | | http://absurdnotions.org/an20020724.gif | | http://absurdnotions.org/an20020731.gif | | http://absurdnotions.org/an20020814.gif | | (Images taken from (http://absurdnotions.org/page104.html) | and (http://absurdnotions.org/page105.html)) | petre wrote: | Art is also about communicating ideas, concepts. Most | abstract expressionists could paint photorealistic scenes in | detail, but they just found it boring and went on with soak | staining or squeezing tubes. | andmarios wrote: | I think they couldn't really. If you look into modern artists | they are extremelly talented and their unique style that | seems like _anyone could do it_ comes in later stages in | their life. | | It's a bit like coding, where simple and elegant solutions | only come to you after you reach a certain level. People | looking into your work might think that the solution is | simple enough that even a junior could do it, but it's not | the case. It takes another good engineer to spot one. :) | tshaddox wrote: | Coding seems like a bad example, at least for me. I'm a | professional coder with several years of experience, but I | routinely encounter code or software architectures that | very much impress me and make me think "not just any coder | could have come up with this, at least without a great deal | of thought and effort." | kansface wrote: | > I think they couldn't really. If you look into modern | artists they are extremelly talented and their unique style | that seems like _anyone could do it_ comes in later stages | in their life. | | This is incorrect (although I don't know anything about the | artist in question). Contemporary art degrees are heavily | moving away from teaching craft or even consider it a valid | aesthetic or criterion for judgement (along the lines of | rejecting the notion of good/bad/better/worse). Was there | any identifiable craft involved in this piece? Did the | artists remove from circulation the boxes that weren't | broken in just the right way? Is the art more interesting | to look about than to talk about? Marginally... I find the | pile of boxes sorta aesthetically pleasing, but its not | clear to me that was even done by the artist (and not the | gallery). | | What part of this piece are you proposing that a total | outsider/complete amateur couldn't create on a first pass? | The form of the glass looks to be haphazard, (ie, | unimportant the artist). The boxes are off the shelf. What | else is left? | cwmartin wrote: | > Is the art more interesting to look about than to talk | about? | | That is an interesting perspective. I have always judged | art by its aesthetics and its ability to elicit thought / | conversation equally. | | In my view art becomes shallow when it is purely visually | appealing with no conceptual backing or purely conceptual | with uninteresting visual components. | jsw97 wrote: | As it happens, this has been done before: | https://skrekkogle.com/projects/postpost/ | | Not that this incarnation isn't clever as well. | forgotmypw17 wrote: | Sure, anyone could do this, just come up with a meaningful | idea, learn how to make large glass objects, procure glass | panes of exactly the right size, attach them together, test the | rigidity of the structure, probably some test shipments, make | arrangements with museums to receive and display them, place | them in the boxes, ship them, receive them, unpack them, take | some photos, publish a website, done! | renewiltord wrote: | It also sometimes matters who it is: (apart from the | straightforward joke) | | _A novice was trying to fix a broken Lisp machine by turning | the power off and on. | | Knight, seeing what the student was doing, spoke sternly: "You | cannot fix a machine by just power-cycling it with no | understanding of what is going wrong." | | Knight turned the machine off and on. | | The machine worked._ | btilly wrote: | This is based on a true story. And the required understanding | was that the power had to be gone for long enough that it | actually shut down completely. | renewiltord wrote: | A problem I have never really found a satisfactory answer | to. On some computers in some places, I have found that | occasionally one has to disconnect them from mains to get | them to power up occasionally. Some people have said I | needed to discharge some capacitors but that never felt | satisfactory. Very heisenbuggy. | | Like Tom Knight, I was able to fix a broken machine by | slowly power-cycling it :) | AndrewKemendo wrote: | "It's obvious in retrospect" | | True of all good design - Art and Software included | Blikkentrekker wrote: | You do not know whether no one else did. | | Art is showbusiness, and success is largely the result of | flukes and many of the great names of history would easily have | been unremarkable if it hadn't been for several fluke events. | | It's entirely possible that many did such things before, but | never became famous with it, and one did, and largely became so | as a fluke simply because, say, an influential critic came | across it by chance, and decided to write a positive piece, | after which the ball was set in motion. | tshaddox wrote: | Isn't it more like "no one thought to do it before who isn't | sufficiently famous, well-connected, or lucky to get noticed | for it"? | lanewinfield wrote: | I am reminded of the work in equation form by Craig Damrauer: | | Modern art = I could do that x Yeah, but you didn't | | https://design-milk.com/images/2010/11/modern-art-craig-damr... | renewiltord wrote: | Ha! You turned sum into product and have now produced a novel | derivative work. | Guest19023892 wrote: | It reminds me of logo design. Anyone could draw the Apple, | Pepsi, or Microsoft logo in a minute. However, if any of these | brands approached you, would you have been able to deliver a | logo that's as iconic? It's unlikely. You might get lucky once, | but you wouldn't be able to do it day after day as a career | unless you're incredibly talented. | tshaddox wrote: | When people say "anyone could do that" in reference to art, | they're usually not just saying that anyone could _copy_ that | after having seen it. Of course most people could take a | famous novel and type out all the same words. They're saying | (regardless of whether they're correct) that the actual | conception of the new work doesn't seem like it required | significant creative effort. | SilasX wrote: | Okay, but then none of the actual artists are making iconic | logos day after day either, and when they make any at all, | it's not from some artistic genius that us philistines could | never understand, it's because they make a ton of variants | and then a whole crew of marketers refines and A/B tests it | before settling on "the" icon. | Waterluvian wrote: | This might be your whole point, but what your comment inspired | in me was the excitement that art is accessible to anyone. That | we're not out of "easy ideas" with only "hard ideas" left. | | Which touches on one of the disenchanting things about | technology (that is probably not actually true, but how I | feel): it feels like we've only got "hard ideas" left, most | accessible to the experts, those with resources, those with a | lot of time. | beamatronic wrote: | There are layers of meaning here - truly a reflection of modern | times. | ableal wrote: | This may be the starting point: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) | oehpr wrote: | One thing to keep in mind is the context you're observing this | in. | | Imagine instead, someone makes a post on | https://www.reddit.com/r/DIY/ about how they connected some | glass panels together and shipped them in fedex boxes. Then put | them in their living room on top of the boxes they shipped in | as an art piece. | | The next place that post would end up is DIWHY. The reason | anyone thinks its a truly inspired meaningful commentary on | modern times is simply that it's being presented as such. It's | on a clean floor, with professional photography, with a news | article about it. The context, the author, and the opinions of | the people around you, all work to subconsciously influence | your opinion. | dash2 wrote: | If you did it as DIY, yes, but not all modern - really, | contemporary - art is done by Important People who get | magazine interviews. A colleague of mine at a web design shop | had done his degree in fine art. He was into minimalism and | Arte Povera, and his main work was a large ball of grey paint | which he had kept with him for years. He would grind down | stuff from his daily life and mix his own paint (which he | named after himself) to add to this ball. It just kept | growing and growing.... Weird, but fun. | mFixman wrote: | The reason why /r/DIWhy exists at all is because people find | weird objects interesting. | | I could totally see the top post in the subreddit with the | carpet-pedal bike as part of a season exhibition in the Tate | Modern. | stretchcat wrote: | Often I think anybody could make it, but only a privileged few | have the elite social connections to make a career out of it. | theklub wrote: | Well this is hacker news and I'd consider this an art hack. | rootsudo wrote: | It seems fantastic, I love the idea and goes to show how out of | touch something can become by involving multiple people/workflow, | etc. | mmastrac wrote: | This seems unlikely - you can register an exact dimension? | | > As for the corporate dimension, I was aware that standard FedEx | boxes are SSCC coded (serial shipping container code), a code | that is held by FedEx and excludes other shippers from | registering a box with the same dimensions. In other words, the | size of an official FedEx box, not just its design, is | proprietary; it is a volume of space which is a property | exclusive to FedEx. | conradev wrote: | Yeah, I'm confused as to what is meant by that. I bought a | 20x20x12 box from a FedEx store last Wednesday, but I could | just have easily bought a bunch from ULINE? | | https://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-4210/Corrugated-Boxes... | jt2190 wrote: | Hmm... I'm not sure the article is correct. It seems like the | Standard _Serialized Container_ Code (emphasis mine) is meant | to track an individual box or palette, not a "type" of box. [1] | | It seems to be useful for processes that require an item to be | FedEx'd from place to place _in the same box_. | | [1] https://www.morovia.com/kb/Serial-Shipping-Container-Code- | SS... | | (Edit: I'm not sure about my statement of reusing the | container. The specifications are at | https://www.gs1.org/standards/id-keys/sscc if you want to take | a crack at answering that one.) | dementik wrote: | As SSCC is managed by GS1 and their standard for SSCC does not | include sizes the quote probably is at least inaccurate. | | You can buy prefix for your own SSCC codes and then you can | form your own serial numbers - based on size or whatever | parameter you want. | dfox wrote: | In fact SSCC is simply and unique identifier for particular | logistics unit (ie. the one indivisible thing that you send | from point A to point B) and does not in any way describe | some kind of class of things sharing the same geometry. In | the global logistics context GS1 managed SSCC namespace tends | to be used only for "large" items (ie. pallets and LTL | outsize boxes) while typical package services use either | completely proprietary labeling or something that vaguely | follows UPU rules for labeling of registered mail. IIRC the | Code-128 barcode on FedEx packages contains GS1-128 | datastructure that purpotedly encodes SSCC, but I'm not | exactly sure that it in fact is correctly formatted SSCC and | not just some kind of fedex-proprietary number. | ortusdux wrote: | I took an experimental art course during my undergrad and | this exact issue drove me insane. We went though dozens and | dozens of examples of experimental/digital/interactive art, | and each time the piece would really engaged me up until the | point where I read the artists rambling justifications for | their work. They just couldn't shut up and let the works | stand on their own. | sparky_z wrote: | Yeah, that jumped out at me too. What could possibly be the | reason for that? Who would enforce it? | rgovostes wrote: | The USPS gives out flat-rate boxes for free. The assumption | is of course that they'll recuperate the cost when you buy | postage. But I have wondered if FedEx would accept a USPS | box, and this "proprietary box size" thing makes me think no. | dawnerd wrote: | I've had an eBay order arrive via Fedex in a flat rate box. | I doubt anyone at Fedex cares as long as the label scans. | I've also seen USPS labels printed on the free "UPS USE | ONLY" thermal labels. | Alupis wrote: | The USPS flat rate packaging actually says "Property of | United States Postal Service. Misuse of this packaging is | unlawful", or something to that end. | wyldfire wrote: | While that might cause the USPS dismay, the question was | whether FedEx would accept/ship the package. Would FedEx | reject the package for fear of frustrating USPS? | jeromegv wrote: | Canadian perspective, I have used those boxes within the | Canadian system with Canada Post. This law is not | applicable in Canada so once those USPS box make it all | the way here, there's nothing they can do to prevent it | from being used. | rascul wrote: | Exact wording: | | This packaging is the property of the U.S. Postal | Service(r) and is provided solely for use in sending | Priority Mail(r) shipments. Misuse may be a violation of | federal law. This packaging is not for resale. | asadlionpk wrote: | > Misuse may be a violation of federal law. | | Why does it say "may". Is it or is it not? I guess | depends on the misuse? | TeMPOraL wrote: | I understand it to mean: "out of likely misuses, some are | actual violations of US federal law - so think twice | before you decide to do something clever with this box". | gmiller123456 wrote: | A guy actually used a bunch of FedEx boxes to furnish his | house. FedEx was not amused. I kinda remember even the | Simpsons had and episode with something similar (they built | a fort from UPS boxes). | | https://www.wired.com/2005/08/furniture-causes-fedex-fits/ | tyingq wrote: | _" As for the corporate dimension, I was aware that standard | FedEx boxes are SSCC coded (serial shipping container code), a | code that is held by FedEx and excludes other shippers from | registering a box with the same dimensions"_ | | Surely that's not right? What value is brought by only allowing | one entity to register a 10"x2"x8" box, for example? | parsimo2010 wrote: | "Rather than thinking in terms of the Duchampian readymade, which | is most often understood as operating iconically..." | | I got a real kick out of this line. At first I thought it was | pure nonsense. After a bit of searching I found out that Marcel | Duchamp was an artist that made some art called "readymades." | Then I realized that what I thought was just pure nonsense was | actually someone talking normally, but it was about a field | totally alien to me. | dhritzkiv wrote: | That's quite interesting as I would consider Duchamp as modern | art history 101 and his readymades are the prototypical | examples of subversive art / anti-art. | rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: | Duchamp's art also (arguably) marks the beginning of the | transition from modernism to postmodernism - our current era. | It's definitely modern, but it has little hints of | postmodernism in it. | | I've never taken an art history class, but I do know of | Duchamp, and I do think his name is known by anyone with even | a passing curiosity with the world of art. | | The fact that he's relatively unknown here says a lot about | the users of this site: highly knowledgeable folks, whose | knowledge is probably much more specialized that they | realize. | bobthepanda wrote: | Given the state of arts funding at least in the US, and | depending on how old you are, people tend to forget these | things. | | The last art history class I took was my sophmore year of | high school. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to | forget particulars if it's that long ago. | woodruffw wrote: | > Then I realized that what I thought was just pure nonsense | was actually someone talking normally, but it was about a field | totally alien to me. | | I want to thank you for commenting on this. It's been said | before, but: technologists have a tendency to attempt and | derive every other field from their own first principles and, | when they fail to do so, discount fields as "pure nonsense." | | We all (non-technologists included) benefit from not falling | into that mode of thought. | Chris2048 wrote: | Do you have any evidence of this tendency outside of SV? | stemlord wrote: | https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=STEMlord | chaboud wrote: | There are technologists outside of SV? | | (Kidding) | | Having worked in technology in the Midwest, the Pacific | Northwest, and SV as well as working regularly with (and | at) teams on the East coast, in the south, Japan, Taiwan, | China, India, Europe, the UK (it ain't Europe now!), I've | found this tendency of those in technology, and especially | software, to discount the complexity and systematization of | other fields, disproportionately common. | | I was well and truly familiar with the classic "why don't | you just..." way of speaking before I'd ever even visited | the bay. Similarly, I'd witnessed (and participated in) | mocking of domain-specific jargon when I was younger, and I | see it still today. | | It's not data, but my experience in the space strongly | supports the suggestion that a dismissive, reductive, and | aloof posture is quite common in tech. It's one reason that | I regularly tell team members that engineers should be | professional pessimists, especially about themselves and | their ignorance. | [deleted] | TeMPOraL wrote: | I have a natural inclination to do that every now and then. | I live in the EU. I present myself as evidence. | moralestapia wrote: | Sure, your own comment. | xboxnolifes wrote: | On nearly any comment section on this website that gains | any meaningful traction about a field outside of tech. | woodruffw wrote: | I don't have any hard evidence, sorry. I've also never | spent any significant amount of time in SV or engaging with | SV culture (besides this website). | | What I have is anecdotes and idle thoughts: most of my STEM | peers were laser focused on their majors and avoided the | humanities (and even other STEM topics) like the plague. | The university I went to enabled and even encouraged this, | since it makes their alumni statistics look great and kept | the four-year-graduation-to-tech-job machine well-oiled. | | I have a difficult time assigning immediate blameworthiness | when talking about this: it's frustrating to hear tech | people disregard things just because they fail to adapt | them, but it strikes me as a failure of education rather | than a solely personal failure. | cozzyd wrote: | ever met a physicist? :) | snakeboy wrote: | What exactly are you expecting OP to provide as | satisfactory evidence here? Anything anyone says is gonna | be anecdotal. | | Personally, probably a solid third of the guys I knew in a | college CS program were insufferably close-minded and | reductionist about non-"hard stem" fields of study. | notJim wrote: | I studied aerospace engineering and the same was true. I | suspect it's the case in many engineering and science | fields. | deeeeplearning wrote: | Replication crisis is real. It's at least somewhat likely | that large chunks of the research output in those non- | stem fields is just the result of p-hacking. Go ahead and | try to replicate studies in Psychology. Good luck. | AndrewKemendo wrote: | >What exactly are you expecting OP to provide as | satisfactory evidence here? | | I like how this is phrased. It's a more pithy question | than the one I generally use with people who have loosely | defined interrogatives or claims, which is: | | "What proof would you need to make you believe otherwise" | thanhhaimai wrote: | To be fair, a lot of people I know who are outside of | stem also don't view non-stem fields in a shiny light. | It's not a phenomenal inside CS. We as a society value | stem fields higher and pay them more on average. | manigandham wrote: | That's how any field would be if you don't know the jargon, | history and technicalities. Is it the fact that it's art that | led your first thought to consider it "pure nonsense"? | sharkweek wrote: | If I listen to my psychologist friend talk with their other | psychologist friends about the DSM it's total gibberish to | me. | | Same goes for anytime I need any work done on my car other | than an oil change. | grenoire wrote: | Sometimes I read expert-written blog posts or articles, | targeted at a demographic the author is familiar in | communicating with. | | My brain will literally just turn off and I will go into a | reading trance where I don't _understand_ the text because my | brain simply says 'yeah this is nonsense, don't get it.' | | Very interesting phenomenon. | abathur wrote: | When I was working on my MFA thesis, I came to a realization | that feels like it might overlap with what you're describing. | | It's a little hard to put a bow on the idea (and why it isn't | trite...) at this length, but basically: I felt a connection | between the experience of trying to parse some intentionally | difficult/impenetrable ~modernist texts, and the experience | of trying to parse older texts where the phrasing is dated. | | They're too unfamiliar to parse with _fluent_ ease, and the | experience of fluent reading is just fundamentally different. | In one case, the text is like a Rubik 's cube, and in the | other it's hard to even realize it exists _separately_ from | your instantaneous understanding of it. | ashtonkem wrote: | It's also important to understand the context of any artistic | movement. Dadaism was a response to futurism and other pro- | industrial artistic movements that were very popular during the | lead up to WW1. Dadaists were part of an artistic recoiling | from the horrors of WW1 and anything that even smacked of the | sentiments that were felt to have lead up to such a | catastrophe. | | This far from WW1, the whole thing seems a bit silly because | we're not part of the time and mental place that made such | movements tick originally. | BenoitEssiambre wrote: | They kind of had to mention Duchamp since the artwork is | slightly derivative of one of Duchamp's famous artwork which | features glass panes broken during transport: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wuf_GHmjxLM | bobthepanda wrote: | For more context, Duchamp literally submitted a signed urinal | to an art exhibition. | [deleted] | StavrosK wrote: | To be fair, it is pretentious writing. Who uses "Duchampian" | instead of "Duchamp's"? That paragraph can be written much more | simply without losing any nuance. | nulbyte wrote: | I would imagine there is considerable intersection between | people who say Duchampian with people who say Orwellian, | Freudian, or Kafkaesque. It seems to me a fairly normal | English construction. | StavrosK wrote: | It depends on the context, you wouldn't say "I read an | Orwellian novel" when talking about 1984. | hamburglar wrote: | Of course you wouldn't, because being Orwell, it's | Orwellian by definition. But you could call another | author's book Orwellian. Just as the quote in question | was probably referring to things that are Duchamp-like, | as opposed to just Duchamp's. | datameta wrote: | One can imagine a context where the qualities referenced | aren't specific or limited to 1984. In such a case it | would be perfectly apt to reference Orwell's writing | style or body of ideas more globally. | [deleted] | tomjakubowski wrote: | Duchamp's readymade and Duchampian readymade don't mean the | same thing. A skilled imitator could create a Duchampian | readymade, but it wouldn't be Duchamp's work. | | https://www.perrotin.com/artists/Maurizio_Cattelan/2/another. | .. | StavrosK wrote: | How much skill is required to make a readymade? Isn't the | whole point (and the origin of the name) that you don't | alter it at all? | TeMPOraL wrote: | It's like with coining a joke or a funny meme. It's not | hard to string a few words together or slap a caption on | a picture; everyone can do that. The skill is in the | ability to string the _right_ words together or slap the | right caption on the right picture, and perhaps create an | extra ambiance around it. | biztos wrote: | As an artist, and one of the many who studied Duchamp in school, | I love these. But I wonder if they aren't potentially endangering | the FedEx workers who transport them. Is there not some danger of | getting a shard of glass sticking through the box? | | The obvious Duchamp reference here by the way is not to his | readymades but to his Large Glass: | | https://smarthistory.org/duchamp-largeglass/ | ansible wrote: | I was worried about something similar. | | I was wondering if the artist at least applied some tape or | something to the inside surfaces of the glass to prevent the | shards from separating. | BenFeldman1930 wrote: | I wonder if the works fall under copyright laws, when the result | does not depend on artist intervention. | kube-system wrote: | IANAL, but I would think the artist would have copyright as | normal for a couple of reasons --- the involvement FedEx did | was for hire --- and FedEx's actions were used as tool in | creating the work that they didn't even know was being created. | The artist still caused it to be created. | dougmwne wrote: | Interesting! It's not really about the glass cube, but about the | shipping process and what that shipping process does to the | things it ships. It highlights the brutality and scale well. It's | almost like a QA relic put on display. I wonder if there would be | other good examples. | lisper wrote: | It's also -- importantly IMHO -- about the fact that the | dimensions of Fedex shipping boxes are proprietary. (Assuming | that's actually true. I'm a little skeptical. But that's what | the article claims.) | musingsole wrote: | The project then seems to embody how FedEx treats its own | space. | | It'd be nice to find a megacorp that treats its tools with | love. | s1artibartfast wrote: | I'm not sure what you mean by space or tools. I think | someone could see this work as a dig at fedex package | handling, but personally think this is a pretty shallow | take. | | For me it is a window into the world of package | transportation that few are aware of. this is probably | biased by my background, having worked for a megacorp with | an entire department dedicated to packaging design and | validation. it even included glass fracture experts that | could write 100 pages on one of those boxes! ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-20 23:00 UTC)