> Linguistic indirection is something of a hallmark of the cultural heritage sector and while it may sometimes be necessary for financial or budgetary reasons it is, in most cases, profoundly harmful or at least a counter-productive distraction and a waste of time.

If linguistic indirection is a term of art, I'm not familiar with it, but it seems like a great way to describe this:

> Digital transformation is the manifestation through commercialization — which is to say financial means and industrial availability — of tools and processes whose introduction shines a light on issues and challenges which were always present but otherwise able to remain unseen.

I may eventually get to the wall label part but this is tough.

Hah, touché.

Cooper Hewitt also happens to be inside Andrew Carnegie’s 19th century mansion on the Upper East Side, E 91st St. It reopens later this week with new exhibitions alongside the amazing house itself, the first floor of which is free entry while installation works are ongoing.

Hearst Castle but with an OG blue-candy iMac in it looking over the Jackie O reservoir instead of the Pacific.

I would say no. Authenticity is always in question. If the artist pasted LLM output wholesale, that was the choice they made to represent their work. Maybe they felt they expressed themselves in the prompt. What if they used a thesaurus, or a ghostwriter, or plagiarized something, or overheard someone say something they liked? It's up to the viewer to decide whether they find it meaningful or resonant.

That's the beauty of art. Intent matters, in that it can affect the interpretation, but ultimately any interpretation is valid.