rubenbcastillo

[rubenbcastillo]

[rubenbcastillo]

David Hammons Body Print, 1974 - 1975

Pigment on paper 29 1/8 x 22 in. (73.98 x 55.88 cm)

[rubenbcastillo]

Curtain #4   -   Arjan van Helmond, 2010.

Dutch,b.1971 -

Gouache and acrylic on paper,160 x 113 cm.

[rubenbcastillo]

2025’s Banned Word is “Immersive”

Hello everyone! Hank here, founder and president of hankeatspaint and executive chairperson for the annual banned word selection committee. Before I explain the jury and committee’s rationale for 2025’s ban, I’d like to reflect on 2024’s, “Discourse.” As always, the objective of our bans is not to fully eradicate, but to create pause for users before they choose one word or another. We believe 2024’s ban was a great success: misuse decreased dramatically, most crucially, the use of “discourse” as a generalizing term when pointing at ideas or their creation broadly, definitionally. Banned words are often words that have been hollowed out by collective misuse, NOT overuse. “Discourse” was a prime candidate and we are proud of the results we’ve seen with steering “discourse” back into its proper niche.

“Immersive” may not seem like an obvious choice. One early argument against “immersive” on our jury was that it felt distinctly “pre-pandemic” and that whatever “immersive” is reflective of is surely the seepage of some greater, deeper fault. Early favorites this year were “performative,” “pornographic/pornography,” “absurd,” “queer,” and serious consideration was made for a first ever re-ban of a word, 2023’s “space” (and yes this was before the Wicked press tour.) “Camp” and “Theater” were also late stage additions. And though it would have been an ideological pivot for our banning protocols “unalive(d)” survived many mid and late stage rounds. All the while “immersive” lingered. As our jury and committee debated and tried to create connections between the map of words in contention, what emerged was a broader problem that we all felt could be started on a path towards correction with the correct ban. This problem is somewhat banal but also dire: media literacy. Particularly, the effects new technologies like AI will have on spaces that function because of a presumed agreement of artifice and illusion - the theater, the cinema, television, politics, literature, and so on. There is something, we believe, terribly dangerous in allegorical spaces that aspire to make us forget that what we see or what we read is construction. A culture that does not want to recognize what is reality and what was built for the purposes of storytelling or art because it is more pleasant to forget sometimes, to lose yourself, is a culture in grave peril. Immersion, the “immersive” became central to this ongoing discussion during our selection. How do you retrain to take in information intended to teach you a lesson - allegory - and find the seams in its construction that assure you that you can wake from the dream, rather than get lost in what is so uncanny and so fast moving you cannot or will not distinguish it as apart from reality? This notion of “immersion” and being “immersed” felt to our jury and committee like a fertile territory for provocation via a ban. Less a condemnation than a question.

In the past, bans have been accompanied by some instruction as how you as a user can correct yourself in the coming year ie instead of saying “camp” say “it makes the everyday seem disgusting.” Specificity has always been important here. This year, we do not offer alternatives to “immersive” but instead ask you to consider deeply when you find yourself “immersed.” When you leave the theater and feel tempted to call the experience “immersive” be reminded that this realization is possible only because you’ve left the theater. The story or TikTok or book ended and you rejoined the world. Be “immersed” in your thoughts and your dreams and your ideas and the art you make and experience and do so eagerly but remember that what makes those experiences most valuable is when you step out of them to make something with others. This year’s ban represents a call to scrutinize not just the words you choose, but the entire apparatus with which you interpret and to do so generously and compassionately.

As always, all of us at hankeatspaint are grateful for your dedication to the annual ban and your patience during our (always prolonged) selection. It’s hard to say what 2025 will bring. We are all in a moment of terrible and utterly mystifying uncertainty. But crucially we are in it together. And with some determination, we will awake each morning into the tomorrow that the past has always dreamed of.

Wishing everyone a happy and restful holiday season, with love, Hank <3

[rubenbcastillo]

John Singer Sargent (1856 - 1924) : Sleeper, Watercolor

[rubenbcastillo]

Robert Rauschenberg, Untitled (Hoarfrost), (solvent transfer on fabric with newsprint and paper bags), 1974 [© Robert Rauschenberg Foundation, New York, NY]

[rubenbcastillo]

Robert Rauschenberg, Untitled, (solvent transfer, fabric, paper bags, acrylic, and graphite on fabric-laminated paper), 1974 [© Robert Rauschenberg Foundation, New York, NY]

[rubenbcastillo]

Robert Rauschenberg, Sulphur Bank (Hoarfrost), (solvent transfer, fabric, cardboard, and paper bags on fabric), 1975 [© Robert Rauschenberg Foundation, New York, NY]

[rubenbcastillo]

On Friendship.

[rubenbcastillo]

The fragmented ordinariness continues and fills the empty space - Teija Lehto , 2024.

Finnish, b. 1965 -

Woodcut, 48 x 68 cm.

[rubenbcastillo]

Island house, early morning - Dozier Bell , 2022.

American , b. 1957 -

Watercolour on paper , 13 x 10.75 in. framed

[rubenbcastillo]

this is your periodic reminder that for all the artifacts and errors and "tells" one could possibly list, the only reliable way to actually determine if an image is ai generated is to investigate the source. it is becoming increasingly common for "fake classical paintings" to circulate around curative aesthetic blogs, and everyone should be using this as an opportunity to not only exercise their investigative skills but also appreciate art more in general. you're all checking out the artists you reblog, right? 🫣

so what are some signs to look for? let's use this very good example.

what a lovely late-impressionist piece blended with evocative leyendecker-esque themes! why haven't you ever heard of this artist before? surely tumblr would be all over an artist like this. who is justin brown?

your two options from here are to do a search for the name, or a reverse image search. i prefer reverse image searching, particularly when it comes to a common name like "justin brown". so what does that net?

Immediately, without looking at any text, something is wrong: it barely exists. an actual historical piece would turn up numerous results from websites individually discussing the piece, but no such discussions are taking place. Looking at the text, though, does show the source-- and at least in this case, the creator was honest about their medium.

But let's also look at the "exact matches", in case a source doesn't make itself apparent in the initial sidebar results like this.

This section will often tell you post dates of images, and here it can be seen that the very first iteration of the image was posted 15 days ago. It did not exist online prior to that.

Seeing how long an unsourced image has been floating around is a skill applicable to more than just generative images! See a cool image of an artifact or other intriguing item with a vivid caption? Reverse search it! If all the results are paired with that caption and only go back a few months, you might just have viral facebook spam.

Sometimes generative creators are dishonest about their medium and do not tag it like in the example, so that's when establishing "jpeg provenance" becomes important. While it can be a little trickier to determine if someone is using generative images and not admitting to it if they aren't trying to pass it off as a classic, something to consider is the age of their account and the frequency with which they post. Here are some account red flags:

-Did they only start posting art after 2022, or if they did before, did their style/skill level WILDLY change? Not gradual improvement-- I'm talking amateur graphite portraits straight into complex digital renders. Everyone starts somewhere, newness is not a red flag alone; it's newness combined with existing in a vacuum away from any community.

-Do they post fully-finished paintings several times a week? -Do many of these paintings seem iterative of a similar theme or subject matter ("three well-dressed young men face each other under shade and dappled sunlight")?

-Does their style change in inconsistent ways? An artist that can swap between painting like Drew Struzan and Hokusai should be pretty well known, right? Why is no one hyping this guy?!

-Do they have social media besides the source instagram? If so, what are they posting about? Are there any WIPs? Doodles? Interactions with other artists? Gallery dates? 3am self-doubt posts? Or is it all self-promo? Crypto? Seemingly nothing art-related at all for someone pushing out 3 weekly paintings?

Basically, if it's important to you to omit this stuff when you curate, please don't just smash reblog if the source doesn't seem to be the OP themselves. Seeking out sources was important even before this became an issue, now it is more than ever.

peace n love

[rubenbcastillo]

Queer representation isn’t enough I need satellites to drop out of the sky on to the houses of billionaires.

[rubenbcastillo]

[rubenbcastillo]

"Absolutely no one comes to save us but us."

Ismatu Gwendolyn, "you've been traumatized into hating reading (and it makes you easier to oppress)", from Threadings, on Substack [ID'd]

[rubenbcastillo]

HUANG Mei-Yun（黃美雲 Taiwanese）

暖冬  Warm Winter  2013  Gouche on silk    via   also here

[rubenbcastillo]

Ted Starkowski, Chuck Howard, Photo by PaJaMa, c. 1945