In my experience the longer it sits in the pile, the more evenly it decays (both pigment and material), meaning the shirt falls apart vs being able to be worn. BUT… you should try anyway and see????
Wow! This is so cool! I would wear one of the shirts! Or would love to experiment with other clothing types (denim!!!) or fabric that I could sew into clothes. SO COOL!
While these are super cool... I'd def buy one if I saw it, but I can't help but notice some parallels with this and people's opinion on using AI (in art/music specifically)..
"Part of the joy of the shirts is their essential mystery. I never know how they’re going to come out, or whether they will at all."
You're essentially describing the process of using generative AI... except with the shirts, it seems people are OK with the "artist's" non-authorship of the finished piece — which is the main criticism of art made using generative AI.
Not 100% what my point was, just writing this down to keep it in my head (because it applies to something I'm currently only pretending to work on)
Things can be linked by mystery and still be fundamentally different. I also would posit that there are quantifiable reasons why people are more hostile toward LLMs than ecology, primarily who makes and controls the machines (sociopathic, cruel, already powerful billionaires) and what incentives structure how the machines operate (they exist to make money from you, at the end of the day, and risk consolidating extraordinary amounts of power to their makers). You can see how ecology would feel like a more blameless collaborator to many people in comparison. Of course, many people can and do argue that using AI as a co-creator for their art is entirely valid - that it’s just another tool. (The musician Holly Herndon has some thoughts on this.) Their arguments have merits. It’s not really AI vs no AI to me, ever. It really comes down to what somebody’s practice is. But above that, and above all, is the looming question (again) of who owns the systems. For me, AI is a non-starter while it’s synonymous with corporate control.
OK, but... you do understand that "Art" is not the process, it's the finished product. The only reason people think the process matters is because that's part of what is used to sell the product (the big secret of the art world is that 99% of the meaning of any piece is made up after the fact.. one of the most import skills in *selling* art is being able to intellectualize it in a way that makes people want to trade money for it — romanticizing the process is one of the ways it's done).
"For me, AI is a non-starter while it’s synonymous with corporate control."
There are AIs that you can run locally. AI as a subscription service is what needs the data centers.
Also: [don't take this personally, but this idea does need to be interrogated] Did you make the shirts you're using? No? Did you make the designs? No? Did you at least encourage the direction of the design? No? OK.. so what exactly was your role in this? Seems there is actually far less involvement of the artist doing this than using generative AI to make a piece of art [but again, that says nothing about the finished product].
The only real difference is that one relying on a natural process and that other relies on AI. But here's the thing: Are bird's nests, or honeycombs not considered "natural"? Why is it only the things humans make that are considered unnatural? Humans are just as much a part of "nature" as birds or bees. From the outside looking in, AI is just as natural as a bird's nest.
I guarantee you that, with the right sales pitch, I could get you to hate a piece of art made by a human and love one made with AI.
I think this is both a very cynical view of art, and also an accurate one in terms of how the “art world” operates in 2026, haha. What art is, how it is defined, whether it’s process or outcome… these are all pretty subjective areas and also questions that have been the subject of wide and ranging debate for like… centuries, probably. I get your perspective, and it’s yours to have! But it’s a perspective, not facts.
Edit: Oops, I see the entirety of your comment now (It got cut off for me when I attempted to apply initially).
Also, I'm not arguing that I am an artist for this and I have made art here. I have made no definitive claims like that! All I've said is that this process is excellent for visualizing microscopic processes without a microscope, haha. You are welcome to have any perspective on that that you want.
I also want to reiterate that I never said I had an issue with AI or that AI "isn't" art. (I’ve heard people talk about how they use AI to make art and it very much seems reasonable to me. The musician I cited above being an example.) I merely responded to your provocation as to why people (generally) might be bothered by it. To me, it really does come down to who controls the systems and what the systems are incentivized to exist for. Nature vs LLMs have clear and quantifiable differences between them, in this respect, and people are responding to those. It makes sense to me, even if it can also be messy and illogical. Again, this is just me observing people's reactions. These are not MY reactions.
I personally would not want to use AI to make work, at the moment. This is my personal choice. It’s not an indictment of somebody else’s choice - or an invalidation of their work.
"I also want to reiterate that I never said I had an issue with AI or that AI "isn't" art."
Forgot to reply to this part... I get that, if my tone makes it seem like I'm accusing you of anything it's probably because the last few comments I've replied to DID specifically say they hate AI art/don't respect people who use it [even though they can't define or even reliably detect "AI Art"].. so I'm kinda in that mode lol
This is extremely cool! One more way to integrate yourself into your garden , or maybe your garden into yourself?
haha, it's definitely symbiotic/mutual <3
Art that may go viral…
😂
I would love to experiment with this and have a compost bin in my yard! Any tips for my first attempt?
Don’t use a shirt you love! Haha. Find a couple you don’t mind experimenting with or potentially losing.
Girl if you don’t open a mf Etsy! Kidding — such a cool process and such a cool outcome
Hahah they take time to make and are so unpredictable, would be so fun to figure out a way to regularly sell em but it’s tricky 🥰
omg trying this immediately! I don't know if my compost pile gets hot enough, would leaving my shirt in there for a bit longer do the trick?
In my experience the longer it sits in the pile, the more evenly it decays (both pigment and material), meaning the shirt falls apart vs being able to be worn. BUT… you should try anyway and see????
Ok, thanks for the tip! File under things NOT to do before leaving for vacation lol
😂😂
Wow! This is so cool! I would wear one of the shirts! Or would love to experiment with other clothing types (denim!!!) or fabric that I could sew into clothes. SO COOL!
Yessss you should totally experiment!!! Let’s experiment!’
Omg I will totally send you things to put in the compost!!
This is incredible!
OMG THIS RULES. gonna do this with my students.
keep me posted on results!
love it, gonna try, will let you know!
This is fascinating! I love that each one tells a different nature story.
Omg yes totally!
Aaaaah this is so cool!!!
Cass! I am obsessed!!
🥰🥰🥰🙏
While these are super cool... I'd def buy one if I saw it, but I can't help but notice some parallels with this and people's opinion on using AI (in art/music specifically)..
"Part of the joy of the shirts is their essential mystery. I never know how they’re going to come out, or whether they will at all."
You're essentially describing the process of using generative AI... except with the shirts, it seems people are OK with the "artist's" non-authorship of the finished piece — which is the main criticism of art made using generative AI.
Not 100% what my point was, just writing this down to keep it in my head (because it applies to something I'm currently only pretending to work on)
Things can be linked by mystery and still be fundamentally different. I also would posit that there are quantifiable reasons why people are more hostile toward LLMs than ecology, primarily who makes and controls the machines (sociopathic, cruel, already powerful billionaires) and what incentives structure how the machines operate (they exist to make money from you, at the end of the day, and risk consolidating extraordinary amounts of power to their makers). You can see how ecology would feel like a more blameless collaborator to many people in comparison. Of course, many people can and do argue that using AI as a co-creator for their art is entirely valid - that it’s just another tool. (The musician Holly Herndon has some thoughts on this.) Their arguments have merits. It’s not really AI vs no AI to me, ever. It really comes down to what somebody’s practice is. But above that, and above all, is the looming question (again) of who owns the systems. For me, AI is a non-starter while it’s synonymous with corporate control.
OK, but... you do understand that "Art" is not the process, it's the finished product. The only reason people think the process matters is because that's part of what is used to sell the product (the big secret of the art world is that 99% of the meaning of any piece is made up after the fact.. one of the most import skills in *selling* art is being able to intellectualize it in a way that makes people want to trade money for it — romanticizing the process is one of the ways it's done).
"For me, AI is a non-starter while it’s synonymous with corporate control."
There are AIs that you can run locally. AI as a subscription service is what needs the data centers.
Also: [don't take this personally, but this idea does need to be interrogated] Did you make the shirts you're using? No? Did you make the designs? No? Did you at least encourage the direction of the design? No? OK.. so what exactly was your role in this? Seems there is actually far less involvement of the artist doing this than using generative AI to make a piece of art [but again, that says nothing about the finished product].
The only real difference is that one relying on a natural process and that other relies on AI. But here's the thing: Are bird's nests, or honeycombs not considered "natural"? Why is it only the things humans make that are considered unnatural? Humans are just as much a part of "nature" as birds or bees. From the outside looking in, AI is just as natural as a bird's nest.
I guarantee you that, with the right sales pitch, I could get you to hate a piece of art made by a human and love one made with AI.
I think this is both a very cynical view of art, and also an accurate one in terms of how the “art world” operates in 2026, haha. What art is, how it is defined, whether it’s process or outcome… these are all pretty subjective areas and also questions that have been the subject of wide and ranging debate for like… centuries, probably. I get your perspective, and it’s yours to have! But it’s a perspective, not facts.
Edit: Oops, I see the entirety of your comment now (It got cut off for me when I attempted to apply initially).
Also, I'm not arguing that I am an artist for this and I have made art here. I have made no definitive claims like that! All I've said is that this process is excellent for visualizing microscopic processes without a microscope, haha. You are welcome to have any perspective on that that you want.
I also want to reiterate that I never said I had an issue with AI or that AI "isn't" art. (I’ve heard people talk about how they use AI to make art and it very much seems reasonable to me. The musician I cited above being an example.) I merely responded to your provocation as to why people (generally) might be bothered by it. To me, it really does come down to who controls the systems and what the systems are incentivized to exist for. Nature vs LLMs have clear and quantifiable differences between them, in this respect, and people are responding to those. It makes sense to me, even if it can also be messy and illogical. Again, this is just me observing people's reactions. These are not MY reactions.
I personally would not want to use AI to make work, at the moment. This is my personal choice. It’s not an indictment of somebody else’s choice - or an invalidation of their work.
"I also want to reiterate that I never said I had an issue with AI or that AI "isn't" art."
Forgot to reply to this part... I get that, if my tone makes it seem like I'm accusing you of anything it's probably because the last few comments I've replied to DID specifically say they hate AI art/don't respect people who use it [even though they can't define or even reliably detect "AI Art"].. so I'm kinda in that mode lol
"I think this is both a very cynical view of art, and also an accurate one in terms of how the “art world” operates in 2026"
LOL... in 2026? Oh, sweet summer child ;)
sub “how the art world operates, period” and my point still stands.
“so what exactly was your role in this?” Have you ever maintained a compost pile?
So amazing!! it looks like you use both white and black shirts?
I’ve used all kinds of colors! The shirt in the pics are black, white, and purple
Oh wow! I was wondering how you got those purple colors, figuring it was from something in the compost pile! That’s amazing!