It seems to be the journalist presenting it as such, but in any case, I don’t think the artists are suggesting it’s equivalent to what the guy made when he was alive. It’s an interesting artwork riffing off of the fact that the person whom the DNA belonged to was a musician. That also seems like a pretty disrespectful way to talk about people with Parkinson’s.
It’s about as close to composing as transcribing the twitches of someone with Parkinson’s.
About as respectful as well, if the researcher is the person characterising this process as composing.
It seems to be the journalist presenting it as such, but in any case, I don’t think the artists are suggesting it’s equivalent to what the guy made when he was alive. It’s an interesting artwork riffing off of the fact that the person whom the DNA belonged to was a musician. That also seems like a pretty disrespectful way to talk about people with Parkinson’s.
I’m referring to completely involuntary movements… Characterising any involuntary, debilitating phenomenon as intentional or artistic is gross.
Characterising involuntary but normal phenomenon as intentional or artistic is maybe a little less gross, but still asinine.
I understand why you think it’s offensive, that’s fine.