Sloppiness means that it'll take MUCH longer until it can be established with absolute certainty that an article/book exists and isn't the result of hallucinations by a certain program some ((redacted)) of the academic world choose to use.
Standards of academic practice must have been eroding in the dark the whole time when a new technology is enough to make someone feel he can talk about things he knows little to nothing about on a podium.
The quoted post is part of a shocking thread:
Singer Sargent's "Reapers" can only inspire daydreams of calm and quiet because I'm sitting at a desk and not on a field after a day's hard work:
JOHN SINGER SARGENT
(1856–1925, born in Florence, died in London)
Reapers Resting in a Wheat Field, 1885
Viola Tricolor
The growing sloppiness of bibliographies/sources in books comes at a really inconvenient moment: I couldn't locate a monography and I admitted defeat searching the page numbers of an article.
These standards aren't superfluous! They are part of the backbone of serious research. I could scream.
Again, the perspective of someone who was born in Florence and died in London:
"This fluidly painted landscape conveys the pleasures of his rural idyll."
Image and quote:
Viola Tricolor
Viola Tricolor
There has been a sense of recusal from many of my colleagues in art history, a naïveté, about how we, like people who work in a variety of academic fields and industry, are cooperating in legitimizing the infiltration of AI into all areas of civic life.
"It has always been a radical act for a Black woman in America to dare to dream. Sometimes it is even dangerous."
- Dr. A.S. Reniqua Allen-Lamphere
