𝔏𝔲𝔵𝔲𝔯𝔦𝔞

Both of these resistance groups are a response to Israel's violent occupation and invasions in the region. Hezbollah emerged in 1982 after Israel invaded Lebanon. Hamas was created after the first Intifada in 87.

alt forms under the cut, beware of potential spoilers

And when i notice one of them my eyes will always start to roll.

The diction's always slurry when they rush the complicated words, and adding many fricatives will turn it so cacophonous. The slanted rhymes are silly and they keep just making more and more, please someone stop the parodies of modern major general.

i think that this tweet is art. i do NOT mean that i think the picture itself is art - i mean the tweet. i'm sure many people (probably including the shitposter who posted this originally) will disagree with me but i'm going to give you a quick surface level explanation of why i feel this way.

first of all, we're greeted with this vapid little soundbite of a comment. i think the cultural awareness of the piece in question makes this hollow comment with plasticine emojis ring even more frictional with the original work. instantly, we're given a stock, throwaway "wholesome" twitter caption to lead us into the "finished" work. there's something very interesting to me about this contrast - typically, captions like this are intended to be uplifting but shallow. their purpose is to bring attention to a little bit of context, gear the audience to feel a certain way, and then bow out, forgotten. this caption instead raises multiple ideas (incorporation of generative AI, the concept of "finishing" a piece that was intentionally left unfinished by its deceased creator) that are guaranteed to draw aggression from a large number of people

the contrast, then, of this piece is informed by multiple factors beyond it itself. it assumes the audience will have not just a familiarity, but a predisposed reaction to this kind of post - a kind of absent-minded, agreeable reaction to stimuli. in my opinion, this works to call into question the immediate context of the tweet:

the piece is framed as a quote reply to this relatively standard engagement farm tweet. as we will briefly cover, the piece uses external conversations and contexts to call into question the relationship people, especially online on social media, have to art, its creation, its value, and its place in society. what i, personally, find poignant is the way this then goes on to prompt a discussion on the original tweet for which the piece is an addition to - is it vapid and disrespectful, or perhaps generating a conversation and teaching people about the poignancy of art? is this conclusion in any way changed by its structure and intent, that of a twitter reply chain aimed to generate algorithmic presence and attention? is it less offensive to use the work of somebody who died of AIDS to boost your twitter metrics than it is to force your way in to "fix" or "finish" it?

the piece makes its intention to call external biases and topics into question almost immediately - the concept of "finishing" Keith Haring's unfinished painting, the nature of our consumption of art, and the AI movement and frustrations that it is a spearhead of a wider reification and commodification of art. what is rough must become polished, what is abstract must become literal, what is unfinished must, then, be finished, even if its nature as an unfinished work has been subsumed into the wider conversation around it.

this is, frankly, inflammatory. the author is clearly aware that the character they are portraying here is one who many people - even those who may not otherwise have strong feelings on the topic of AI in art - will take issue to and challenge. it is an idea that generates strong animosity for a wide variety of reasons. it is in this animosity that i believe interesting discussions can be raised. what, if anything, would we consider a respectful way to build on this piece? for example, is the display of Keith Haring's unfinished painting in a way becoming a part of or extension to the art itself? after all, the mere act of deciding to exhibit an unfinished piece by a dead person is, in itself, a decision that contributes to the discussion and perception of the piece in its wider social context. are there pieces of art we wouldn't consider disrespectful to complete, and is that effected by the tools and techniques used, the people who do it, or the meaning they put into it?

finally - the image itself. the layout of twitter as a platform quite literally frames the "finished" artwork, thrusting it at the viewer as if to taunt them. it is a work that simultaneously completes the original piece while adding absolutely nothing. there is no new visual language, there are no new ideas. the author has left no personal touch on their attempt at an extension of the original work - neither any additional commentary nor some reflection of relative personal tastes or skill levels. this is no botched restoration of jesus. the generative algorithm used has, paradoxical to its flawless reflection of technique, made some clear stylistic errors - the pattern extends out to the borders, shapes are remniscient of Haring's work on the original piece yet lack any kind of grounding or believability, turning into an abstract jumble of distantly familiar shapes. it is, somehow, only evocative of the piece that it literally is. the image presented has nothing to say because it, by its nature, cannot say anything. and yet it has generated such a strong set of reactions to itself.

most notable to this abstraction of intent, in my mind, is the way that the algorithm has covered the original's running paint. the paint dripping from the borders of Haring's handiwork conveys a grim message - his signature bold, controlled brushstrokes are in stark contrast to the sharp, thin paint, evoking a similar discrepancy to that of Haring's inspired worldview to his cruel circumstances and tragic death. this is covered in the "finished" version. like a forest paved over, the poignant, challenging, and uncomfortable are replaced with the safe and standard.

this destruction of subtext is painfully remniscient of a time where it feels as though iconography refuses to die, constantly recycled by people who couldn't give a single shit about artistry or creativity unless it has the potential to be more exploitable than any alternative. in this environment, ground must be retread as much as possible. there is no prior character undeserving of a spotlight, no location undeserving of a setpiece, no event undeserving of retelling, no dead man undeserving of sparing his work the airbrush. it is a total stagnation - no corpse may be left to rest in peace if there is the potential that it may be continually exploited for gain.