I don’t like the author’s vibe. Ha.
‘Vibes’ is not a quantified adjective, it’s a slang term that’s meant to be vague. Art is about perspective, and each viewer’s is different. Colloquial language allows us to understand one another even without shared experience. The article even states so- viewers “build on it with even more connections and associations from their own experiences and to find their own feelings”. Of course, we can analyze and critique art of any form; to identify the artists intent and message, the impact on most viewers, the cultural significance or history.
However, the purpose of art is to connect. Without a shared experience, viewers will interpret the art in a way that resonates only with what impacts them. By keeping art ethereal- a collection of small moments or ideas rather than a straightforward message- artists allow a greater number of people to connect to the feeling rather than the message. Not everyone has been through a life-altering breakup, but most people understand the feelings associated with a messy house, feeling unwanted, and passively participating just to say you’re still there. So even those who have never been through what Frank Ocean’s song describes can, for a moment, understand the impact it had on him.
The author continues to say that AI are insufficient predictors because “the world is too dynamic, with too many exceptional cases, to be captured in such a static way.” If the world, which operates within defined scientific principles, is too varied to be categorized, why are we trying to limit an expression of intangible feelings? The author previously said ‘vibes’ were reductive, but described them as “a loose collection of ideas, concepts, things”. Then when comparing them with AI, vibes “carry no context or narrative”. I would argue that vibes rely entirely on context, and this author can’t seem to decide exactly what a vibe is(probably because the definition changes with the context).