this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
166 points (74.9% liked)
Technology
69156 readers
3676 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's a pretty misleading headline. The news article is about a cool art installation, in which an artist has used a deceased composer's DNA to produce electrical signals that are interpreted as music. Still cool, but it's not "composing music" in the same sense as the alive musician was composing music.
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?