February Edition
It All Came Crashing Down
By: Ilakiya PB
Edited by: Deepshikha Banerjee
Illustrated by: Ritanjana Chaudhury & Shalini Bansal
The years post-2020 have been a grim reminder of how fragile our carefully constructed world is. It all began with the pandemic—a silent, invisible force that swept across the globe, exposing the weaknesses in even the most advanced societies. What followed was not merely a series of unfortunate events but a cascade of disasters, each more troubling than the last. From global wars over territories and resources to the unchecked destruction wrought by our own technological advancements, it feels as though the world has been caught in a perpetual state of freefall.
​
This isn't just about natural disasters or geopolitical conflicts; this is about the profound impact of concrete grievances. These grievances, borne out of unmet expectations, unmet needs, or the refusal to compromise, have fueled violent actions and societal breakdowns. Look closely, and you'll see the roots of destruction in the disappointment of a generation that feels let down by systems that promised stability, prosperity, and progress.
​
Take a moment to think about the sheer number of crises we’ve endured: the Russian invasion of Ukraine that reignited the specter of war in Europe, the worsening climate catastrophes that continue to displace millions, and the exploitation of technology that has spiraled beyond our control—data breaches, cyberwars, and the erosion of privacy. Yet, perhaps the most unsettling disaster is the destruction that we have inflicted upon ourselves in the name of progress.
​
The younger generation, in their relentless pursuit of a fast-moving world, has inadvertently contributed to this collapse. Tradition, culture, and practices that have stood the test of time are being dismissed as relics of an outdated past. It’s as though tearing down the old is the only way to build the new. But in doing so, are we losing sight of what grounds us as individuals and societies?
Yes, self-interest is important in this era of hyper-competition. In fact, it is necessary to survive and thrive in a world that rewards speed, innovation, and adaptation. But self-interest does not have to mean selfishness. It does not have to mean destroying the old to make way for the new. We forget that many of the old practices—rituals, customs, and ways of thinking—are not shackles but anchors. They remind us of where we come from, offering stability amidst chaos.
​
For instance, the rise of automation and AI has led to a cultural shift where human labor and craftsmanship are devalued. The wisdom of the hands, the patience of artisanship, and the slow but deliberate way of life have all been sacrificed at the altar of efficiency. But does progress truly require us to bulldoze everything in our path? Or can we find a way to integrate the old with the new?
The disasters of the past five years aren’t just about viruses or wars—they are about losing touch with the essence of being human. They are about forgetting that in our race to modernize, we must also preserve. Progress isn’t linear; it’s a delicate balance between holding on to the past and reaching for the future.
​
So, as we move forward, let us remember that self-interest, while necessary, must be tempered with collective responsibility. Let us embrace innovation without forsaking tradition. And most importantly, let us ensure that in our pursuit of the fast-moving world, we do not let everything we value come crashing down.
The Progressing disaster in the future of Art
By: Sunaina Lala
Edited by: Aditri Ghosh
Illustrated by: Deepshikha Banerjee
“I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes.” - Joanna Maciejewska
With the current spread of AI, there have been many benefits it has brought to the table, from helping in surgeries to helping teach in schools. However, one type of AI has been brought to the table, which spells further doom for the art created in digital spaces, whether text-based or actual art pieces. Generative AI is based on art pieces or written pieces (such as fanfiction, online pieces of written text, etc) submitted to AI, wherein it will come up with pieces of "its own generated" content where in the colouring, the concept of the writing style and the idea is all stolen from the originally stolen pieces of artwork submitted earlier.
This, I believe, is a disaster in its own right. Generative AI has already started flooding the internet, leading to “AI artists” starting to copy other original artists’ work such as just submitting the original artist’s work to generative AI bots which change up some of the work and pass it off as theirs. However, this is dangerous. On one hand, it culls the original artists’ efforts to outright plagiarism, in a way cutting their original idea to something else. Without the human will or spirit, the newly created media is sometimes devoid of what the original idea wanted to portray, even if it bears the same mark.
Another issue is how it gets the original content. Spaces like c.ai or sites where the user can “interact” with their favourite characters for free and in the way they want to are ethically stealing, since the source material of where the AI gets the way of speech, might come from copyrighted materials.
There is another side to how this is ethically harmful to the users, and that side is that unlike actual written pieces, where the creator is valued for what they’ve created out of their mind and words, there is a devaluation of them, and a growing preference in simply using AI to write their work or what someone wants to read instantly. This goes for artworks as well. People who use commissions to provide for themselves have a greater chance of not having any customers because the customer would get it instantly and for free thanks to AI.
Depending on how the AI is instructed, some of the written work or generated content can have biases and misinformation pushed, which is a disaster for someone who has no clue. Especially if the original content had something else portrayed entirely.
Big-time firms who usually would commission or pay artists, or writers to make films or to make ads or scripts or just general writing for sections of their websites now have an easy way out, wherein they need not pay as much and hence don’t call on these people who have historically and would be happy to do the work for the pay they are entitled to. This harms not only the artists and writers but also their spirits and the job prospects of those who wish to make these their jobs or their main source of income.
There is a danger of students also just using generative AI to write or create for them in schools and colleges, thus making it a bigger danger for their future as well and it seems to be an easy way out of doing the hard work and not practicing or learning for themselves.
It even poses a danger to cultural artists. Someone who feeds an original, culturally created version may receive a generated creation that doesn’t bear the same marks as the cultural methods that went into creating it in the first place, endangering the cultural history and methods of creation that are historically vital for the people of said culture.
All AI is not bad, as mentioned above. However, the types that pose a danger, either need strict rules to control them or need to be cut entirely. AI, as an idea, was loved since the idea proposed it would help us in tasks that we despised. Generative AI culls and attacks the joy of creating one’s own art, removing the human creativity that is creating something with a piece of ourselves embedded in it.