Futurism and 4chan
Apr. 18th, 2025 05:11 pmGod help me I'm going to hold forth on art history again. This is mainly instigated by a friend elsewhere, who challenged my statement that the aesthetics of AI are inherently fascist. I respect his challenge, and I want to respond with something other than "vibes" so I'm going to go off half-cocked and attempt to draw an historical parallel with the OG fascist movement.
I know more a little more than a normal amount about Italian art. I would argue that it peaked not in the Renaissance but in the Baroque era (source: vibes), but Italian artists have been chasing that high ever since, as has every other artist in the Western world. You can't really blame them.


Don't get me wrong, I stan my gay king Michelangelo. But I find Gentileschi a far more interesting artist. Sue me.
Italian art continued to muddle on until a huge break, in the early 20th century, with the Futurist movement. You know, my problematic faves. The guys who wanted to burn down all the museums, turn their back on history, and who declared, in F.T. Marinetti's words, "We affirm that the magnificence of the world has been enriched with a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its hood adorned with large snake-like tubes with explosive breath... a roaring automobile, which seems to run on machine gun fire, is more beautiful than the Nike of Samothrace."
Do I agree? No, the planet is on goddamn fire because of the roaring automobile, and the Futurists were all fascists. But I find them, and their art, really compelling. Check out Carlo Carrà here, when he was still cool:

Goddamn. I'm here for that. It has a vitality to it that's lacking in much of the art that preceded it. I don't have to hand it to the fascists, but they did have a point about avoiding stagnation in the arts. It's a not dissimilar point to that made by other art movements, like the Russian Constructivists and the Dadaists, whose politics are obviously massively more sympathetic.
Marinetti and Mussolini were good friends and Marinetti is, in fact, the co-author of the Fascist Manifesto. There are points in Mussolini's own history when he was on the left. You can see the ghosts of it there, in the call for the 8-hour day, universal suffrage, votes for women, and minimum wages. Fascism begins as a radical workers' movement, and many of the early fascists, like Marinetti and Carrà, were anarchists at one point or another.
A funny thing happens when fascists get into power, however, and that's that they do not believe any of the pro-worker rhetoric they spouted when they were trying to build a movement. In fact, they are very anti-worker. And Mussolini didn't like the art that Marinetti championed after all; he was fond of a more neoclassical, RETVRN TO TRADITION kind of vibe. And so, the surviving Futurists had to adapt or quit. The regime set guidelines on what constituted appropriate art.
The results are very strange, and I don't know much about it. It spawned two movements, Novecento Italiano and Strapaese, both of which were kind of modernist takes on classical Italian art. I don't hate it??? A similar kind of thing happened in Russia, when it turned out that Stalin didn't like the radical art that the Constructivists created and turned to socialist realism, and honestly, the Italians come out of it looking a little better. It's still an odd spot, though, neither hitting the technical glories or the Renaissance, the emotive power of the Baroque, or the innovation of the Futurists.
This, for example, is Carrà's later work:

I think it's a bit shite in comparison to his early stuff.
This is Achille Funi's The earth. Also not great? But not without merit:

On the other hand, Mario Sironi's over here doing something cool and interesting which feels de Chirico-adjacent (de Chirico is also associated with Novecento Italiano, though there were competing schools there, one anti-fascist, and I have no idea what his politics were like).

And I have to give at least some props to Ubaldo Oppi's Women Friends:

So what does this have to do with AI and why I think, based on my vibes, that AI is fascist? It goes back to the pattern I suggested in both Italian Futurism and Russian Constructivism. An avant-garde art movement meets a nascent political movement, the former gleefully attaches to the latter, only to be betrayed when the latter comes to power in favour of more conservative aesthetics.
And this is what I witness happening in the visual iconography of modern-day fascism. Let's take a trip down the rabbit hole to, say, 2014-2016. What's the ascendent visual style of the alt-right? It's janky, ugly-on-purpose, constructed with the most basic tools available, edgy and debauched. It's creative—evil, yes, but it's doing something different and exciting, so much so that it escapes containment. In 2025, what is the visual style of fascism? Slick, corporate, but unnerving. Too perfect in that Uncanny Valley way. More beholden to Thomas Kinkade than to Matt Furie. It feels off, because its proponents want the symbolism of power without a particular deep interest in the structure and the foundations of the aesthetic. An arcade of Roman columns that, when you turn sideways, is nothing more than a Western movie film set facade, all plywood that whole time.
Fascists are simple creatures; they want art that they can understand, none of that high-falutin' Jew degenerate modernist stuff. The problem is that artists, left alive long enough, will tend to change and innovate. They'll fall in love with the art of other cultures. They'll create community. Fascists want art without artists; art that doesn't show the brushstrokes or enable bohemian lifestyles, art that is frictionless and vapid. It's fitting to me that one of the plagiarism machines is called DALL-E because Dalí would have genuinely approved. Mussolini would have wet his pants over AI's potential, at once forward-looking and reactionary, relying on regression to the mean in all things.
Just like the Futurists of yore, the unruly and radical propagandists of 4chan have been abandoned by the same forces they put in power. Their innovation is no longer necessary. They're not even worth subjecting to the Night of the Long Knives.
The ugliness of this aesthetic doesn't even breach the top three reasons to always oppose AI, obviously. That's the environmental holocaust that it unleashes, the use of the technology to target apartment buildings in Gaza or immigrants in the former USA, the mass unemployment it threatens to unleash, and the wholesale theft of creative work. But it's also ugly in the way that the art of totalitarian regimes tends towards ugliness, bereft of a culture of experimentation that makes for great art. And that's why I think it's fascist rather than simply boring.
I know more a little more than a normal amount about Italian art. I would argue that it peaked not in the Renaissance but in the Baroque era (source: vibes), but Italian artists have been chasing that high ever since, as has every other artist in the Western world. You can't really blame them.


Don't get me wrong, I stan my gay king Michelangelo. But I find Gentileschi a far more interesting artist. Sue me.
Italian art continued to muddle on until a huge break, in the early 20th century, with the Futurist movement. You know, my problematic faves. The guys who wanted to burn down all the museums, turn their back on history, and who declared, in F.T. Marinetti's words, "We affirm that the magnificence of the world has been enriched with a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its hood adorned with large snake-like tubes with explosive breath... a roaring automobile, which seems to run on machine gun fire, is more beautiful than the Nike of Samothrace."
Do I agree? No, the planet is on goddamn fire because of the roaring automobile, and the Futurists were all fascists. But I find them, and their art, really compelling. Check out Carlo Carrà here, when he was still cool:

Goddamn. I'm here for that. It has a vitality to it that's lacking in much of the art that preceded it. I don't have to hand it to the fascists, but they did have a point about avoiding stagnation in the arts. It's a not dissimilar point to that made by other art movements, like the Russian Constructivists and the Dadaists, whose politics are obviously massively more sympathetic.
Marinetti and Mussolini were good friends and Marinetti is, in fact, the co-author of the Fascist Manifesto. There are points in Mussolini's own history when he was on the left. You can see the ghosts of it there, in the call for the 8-hour day, universal suffrage, votes for women, and minimum wages. Fascism begins as a radical workers' movement, and many of the early fascists, like Marinetti and Carrà, were anarchists at one point or another.
A funny thing happens when fascists get into power, however, and that's that they do not believe any of the pro-worker rhetoric they spouted when they were trying to build a movement. In fact, they are very anti-worker. And Mussolini didn't like the art that Marinetti championed after all; he was fond of a more neoclassical, RETVRN TO TRADITION kind of vibe. And so, the surviving Futurists had to adapt or quit. The regime set guidelines on what constituted appropriate art.
The results are very strange, and I don't know much about it. It spawned two movements, Novecento Italiano and Strapaese, both of which were kind of modernist takes on classical Italian art. I don't hate it??? A similar kind of thing happened in Russia, when it turned out that Stalin didn't like the radical art that the Constructivists created and turned to socialist realism, and honestly, the Italians come out of it looking a little better. It's still an odd spot, though, neither hitting the technical glories or the Renaissance, the emotive power of the Baroque, or the innovation of the Futurists.
This, for example, is Carrà's later work:

I think it's a bit shite in comparison to his early stuff.
This is Achille Funi's The earth. Also not great? But not without merit:

On the other hand, Mario Sironi's over here doing something cool and interesting which feels de Chirico-adjacent (de Chirico is also associated with Novecento Italiano, though there were competing schools there, one anti-fascist, and I have no idea what his politics were like).

And I have to give at least some props to Ubaldo Oppi's Women Friends:

So what does this have to do with AI and why I think, based on my vibes, that AI is fascist? It goes back to the pattern I suggested in both Italian Futurism and Russian Constructivism. An avant-garde art movement meets a nascent political movement, the former gleefully attaches to the latter, only to be betrayed when the latter comes to power in favour of more conservative aesthetics.
And this is what I witness happening in the visual iconography of modern-day fascism. Let's take a trip down the rabbit hole to, say, 2014-2016. What's the ascendent visual style of the alt-right? It's janky, ugly-on-purpose, constructed with the most basic tools available, edgy and debauched. It's creative—evil, yes, but it's doing something different and exciting, so much so that it escapes containment. In 2025, what is the visual style of fascism? Slick, corporate, but unnerving. Too perfect in that Uncanny Valley way. More beholden to Thomas Kinkade than to Matt Furie. It feels off, because its proponents want the symbolism of power without a particular deep interest in the structure and the foundations of the aesthetic. An arcade of Roman columns that, when you turn sideways, is nothing more than a Western movie film set facade, all plywood that whole time.
Fascists are simple creatures; they want art that they can understand, none of that high-falutin' Jew degenerate modernist stuff. The problem is that artists, left alive long enough, will tend to change and innovate. They'll fall in love with the art of other cultures. They'll create community. Fascists want art without artists; art that doesn't show the brushstrokes or enable bohemian lifestyles, art that is frictionless and vapid. It's fitting to me that one of the plagiarism machines is called DALL-E because Dalí would have genuinely approved. Mussolini would have wet his pants over AI's potential, at once forward-looking and reactionary, relying on regression to the mean in all things.
Just like the Futurists of yore, the unruly and radical propagandists of 4chan have been abandoned by the same forces they put in power. Their innovation is no longer necessary. They're not even worth subjecting to the Night of the Long Knives.
The ugliness of this aesthetic doesn't even breach the top three reasons to always oppose AI, obviously. That's the environmental holocaust that it unleashes, the use of the technology to target apartment buildings in Gaza or immigrants in the former USA, the mass unemployment it threatens to unleash, and the wholesale theft of creative work. But it's also ugly in the way that the art of totalitarian regimes tends towards ugliness, bereft of a culture of experimentation that makes for great art. And that's why I think it's fascist rather than simply boring.
no subject
Date: 2025-04-18 11:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 12:04 am (UTC)No judgment; those are good styles to like.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 12:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 12:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 01:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 01:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 01:28 am (UTC)I like this angle a lot. It feels like you're saying that at the beginning of movements, when the ideas are fresh (?) (thinking of the Russian constructivist again) , the art tends to be more creative, innovative or at least experimental – and later, power breeds bad art, because power wants control.
So the art that power likes is more easily controlled. The visual aesthetic is simpler, the emotions are easier to take in, there are no secrets or mysteries or paradoxes, while of course one of the purposes of modern art in particular is to create dissonance, self-difference, in the perceiver.
So AI artist is fascist both in aesthetic and in means of production, because even if there are mysteries in an image (why does that dog have three tails?), they are empty mysteries. They have no meaning -- and this is what the anxious viewer always accuses complex art of -- being pretentious, empty, just making it up, being difficult on purpose – with AI you can know for sure that it's empty because you know for sure there's no mind behind it. So it's fascist both in its means of production and in its form.
Am I reading that more or less right?
no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 01:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 02:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 12:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 03:06 am (UTC)It's a terrific portrait of Margot Kidder
no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 12:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 12:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 04:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 12:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 05:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 12:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 10:37 am (UTC)I mean, to me, art is vibes, and that's all I really need.
I love my history, but art: style and history?
I feel like I know more about the atmospheric conditions on Uranus.
Gentileschi? Not familiar with that name at all!
Futurist? I know the name, but Marinetti?
And yet "A racing automobile with its hood adorned with large snake-like tubes with explosive breath... a roaring automobile, which seems to run on machine gun fire," screams Big Daddy Roth to me.
6. What's the ascendent visual style of the alt-right? It's janky, ugly-on-purpose, constructed with the most basic tools available, edgy and debauched
I didn't even know (I may seen it) there was a style for that.
But if you say AI is fash rather than a tool to unleash the proles from slaving down the paint mines and learning a craft, and being, say, grist for the meat grinder or as biofuel, I have no reason to doubt you.
Society is leaning fascist.
I really can't add much to your debate, sadly. That didn't stop me from pontificating.
And now we get to my point: my friend sent me a half-dozen images of her "house dragon character". Why does she have a house dragon? No idea. her husband plays D&D, she doesn't.
But, like the recent Mikazifiaction of shit, I recognised the vibe and style of a lot of the dragons she sent me, generated with AI prompts. Elmore et el were all in there.
(she got annoyed when the AI gave one icon boobs too).
I guess, going back to the beginning, if our society has been leaning authoritarian for a decade or more, and AI can't create, and it will bland it out, fascism is the end result, especially in a world where, for example, a clean YouTube instance, gets fashy fast.
(I am SO out of my depth talking about art)
no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 12:47 pm (UTC)F.T. Marinetti was a Futurist poet and graphic designer, the guy who wrote the Futurist Manifesto as well as the Fascist one. He started out an anarchist like most of them and then became buds with Mussolini and went to the other side. He was another one of the "ban pasta" guys—he might have originated it, actually, as it seems like too original a thought for Mussolini to have come up with on his own, and one of several guys to theorize the idea of a robot.
Anyway, his poetry and graphic design is rad as hell. It's a pity about his politics.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 01:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 01:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2025-04-19 10:08 pm (UTC)I am delighted by this post because right before we left the house for our double feature yesterday,
(de Chirico is also associated with Novecento Italiano, though there were competing schools there, one anti-fascist, and I have no idea what his politics were like).
I don't know a ton about it because he seems to have been one of these deliberately self-obfuscating people, but Giorgio de Chirico does seem to have tried to align himself with fascism to whatever ambivalent and semi-successful ends. By the late 1920's, he was already being attacked in the press as a rootless cosmopolitan, his art branded anti-Italian and explicitly Jewish, which he himself was not, of course, but ideologically the canard stuck. He got himself a Party card in 1930 and actually wrote personally to Mussolini on more than one occasion during the decade, appealing for protection against his critical lambasting which carried more than professional threat. (Say hi to Misha, Giorgio, he's on the same bench.) He took the racial laws seriously enough to clear out of the country for the sake of his partner and eventual second wife, but nonetheless in 1942 received a commission to paint both Edda Mussolini and Galeazzo Ciano, which he fulfilled and the results are weird as hell to look at. I am not sure that he was ever a critical darling of Fascism, but someone must have afforded him protection because he and Isabella Pakszwer Far returned to Italy before the end of the war and she outlived him by decades. tl;dr I don't know what he believed and his later art is confusing, but he looks to me as though he was in a similar boat to the Futurists.
An arcade of Roman columns that, when you turn sideways, is nothing more than a Western movie film set facade, all plywood that whole time.
At the risk of being the person who always agrees with your art posts by linking their own, high-gloss nostalgia sounds absolutely right to me and depersonalizing it is the obvious next step: the grossest and the least interesting. I hope this response has gone over convincingly with the person who called it out.
no subject
Date: 2025-04-20 12:46 pm (UTC)I'll never complain about people linking me to more reading material, their own or otherwise!
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2025-04-20 02:00 am (UTC)But, what immediately came to mind when I read this:
"We affirm that the magnificence of the world has been enriched with a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its hood adorned with large snake-like tubes with explosive breath... a roaring automobile, which seems to run on machine gun fire, is more beautiful than the Nike of Samothrace."
was
'Or, as Mr. Toad put it, "Poop, poop!"'
no subject
Date: 2025-04-20 12:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-04-21 02:02 am (UTC)If you ever decide to put up some videos of art images overlaid on podcast-style art history lesson audio, I would pay to see that. I miss that part of college so much. 😿
no subject
Date: 2025-04-21 03:59 pm (UTC)