HEY THERE WEBSURFER
Welcome to heaven or whatever...
Hi! My name is Bee and this is my personal website. I'm going to put everything I like and everything I'm working on (art, design, textiles, music, writing) here so it's a pretty big project. Knowing that, please don't mind all the broken or incomplete pages... I'm a student currrently busy with my life...
I started coding just this year so I'm a beginner. I took it up after my friend showed me their neocities web and I got inspired by the movement away from social media so I decided to make a site for myself! Social media is suffocating creativity across the internet with every profile looking exactly like another. It's time we had more fun with it! KIDCLUB is the opposite of a "King's Court", where the elite decide what happens in the kingdom (the internet, does this metaphor make sense hahaha). Anyways, welcome to the club!
“Artificial Intelligence, Authentic Pain”: A Examination on AI-Generated Images of Violence, the Khmer Rouge Genocidal Regime in Cambodia, and Dinh Q. Le’s Hill of Poisonous Trees (2008)
To what ethical standards should we hold AI machines to, if at all? In this essay, I am not so much concerned with if AI-generated images can be considered art, original or unoriginal, or if AI can truly “learn” to make art, though I will touch upon its processes to provide some background information. Rather, I am primarily interested in AI as a tool that can generate harmful images or images of harm, and whether or not these products generate violence. My main image of interest is an AI-generated image I prompted on Stable Diffusion, with the keywords “Khmer Rouge, victims, photograph”. I wanted to see if AI could show me what my father had seen when his sister was taken to a re-education camp in Vietnam, or when he had to live on a boat for two years, or when they finally fled to Canada as refugees. However, the AI only produced melancholic walls of “people’s” faces. I will argue that while AI-generated images can be a powerful tool for “return engagements” as outlined in Viet Le’s monograph on contemporary art’s traumas in Saigon and Phnom Penh, the very nature of AI’s generation process produces a grotesque facsimile of the victims it’s prompted to depict, ultimately enacting representational violence on the subjects—even though these subjects are not “real people”...
The Doubling of Self: An Interview with Richard Siken
Peter Mishler: In your new collection of poems War of the Foxes there are lines that express concern about art’s ability to represent reality. This is your first collection in ten years. Do these questions of representation have anything to do with the significant length of time between books?
Richard Siken: Even before I could attempt to address my concerns about the problems of representation, I had to come to terms with the ramifications of having already made something. After Crush was published, many people accused me of contaminating their bookshelf or bedside table with my melancholy. You never make me happy, but you can always make me sad, they said. I hadn’t anticipated this response and I wondered about what kind of culpability I might have. I, personally, was being held responsible, rather than the work—which had the undertone of “poetry isn’t art” because they refused to, or were unable to, understand that I had made a thing. They didn’t see the thing, they only saw me.
Additionally, readers began to ask me if the poems were “true,” by which they meant, “Did they really happen?” which seemed both beside the point and also intrusive. I realized that if they thought poems were biographically accurate, then they could walk away, knowing I was just a sad little man. If, however, the poems were crafted and framed with intent, then they would be confronted with a piece of art. No longer able to simply pity me, these readers would have to take ownership of their feelings and reactions.
