In his Truth and Method (1960), the German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer insisted affectingly that human understanding is an essentially historical process. The “meaning” of texts (novels, poems), the significance of past eras or events (WWII, the Renaissance) — none of this can ever be, somehow, “settled” or “put to rest”. On the contrary, because we are historical beings, because our consciousness is formed in and of time, understanding will always itself be a function of intersecting temporalities, what he called a “fusion of horizons”: the perspective from one moment must meet the perspective of another; the widening of view, the shift in what can be seen, this is the experience of coming to understand. There are no cheat codes. And it cannot be mechanized. It is the forever dialog of now with then, through which we become what we are (and the past does too). In the piece that follows, Eigil zu Tage-Ravn experiments with some digital-analog horizon-fusing, asking a GTP-3-driven AI system for help in the interpretation of a key scene in Moby-Dick (1851). Do androids dream of electric whales?
— D. Graham Burnett, Series Editor
Published
March 21, 2023
Detail from a whale chart by Matthew Fontaine Maury, 1851 — Source.
It is among the most memorable moments in American literature. At the start of Chapter Three of his masterwork, Moby-Dick (1851), Herman Melville has his protagonist, the existential castaway Ishmael, newly embarked on his fateful commitment to go a-whaling (is it a kind of suicide? a mere lark? both?), push open the door of a port-side rough-house for boozing mariners: the so-called “Spouter-Inn”. It is dark. It is dank. Savage weaponry from cannibal isles spikes the walls. And those who hunker at the bar are renegades and isolatoes, gruff men of the sea. In the half-light, Ishmael immediately discerns, in the entryway itself, like a warning over the threshold, “a very large oil-painting”.
Ishmael pauses. He puzzles. He peers. He even goes so far as to pry open a little window in the vestibule, to shed some light on a most inscrutable, a most intractable, a most maddening canvas: “Such unaccountable masses of shades and shadows, that at first you almost thought some ambitious young artist, in the time of the New England hags, had endeavored to delineate chaos bewitched.”
I take as my text, in this essay, the paragraph that follows, and reproduce it here in full:
But what most puzzled and confounded you was a long, limber, portentous, black mass of something hovering in the centre of the picture over three blue, dim, perpendicular lines floating in a nameless yeast. A boggy, soggy, squitchy picture truly, enough to drive a nervous man distracted. Yet was there a sort of indefinite, half-attained, unimaginable sublimity about it that fairly froze you to it, till you involuntarily took an oath with yourself to find out what that marvellous painting meant. Ever and anon a bright, but, alas, deceptive idea would dart you through.—It’s the Black Sea in a midnight gale.—It’s the unnatural combat of the four primal elements.—It’s a blasted heath.—It’s a Hyperborean winter scene.—It’s the breaking-up of the icebound stream of Time. But at last all these fancies yielded to that one portentous something in the picture’s midst. That once found out, and all the rest were plain. But stop; does it not bear a faint resemblance to a gigantic fish? even the great leviathan himself?
Few images of pure formlessness have attained to the canonicity of this darkly imagined canvas, which has been a touchstone for generations of Melville critics. The grizzled Robert H. Zoellner, for instance, writing in the early 1970s, discerned in Ishmael’s panic before the painting nothing less than “a glimpse of th[e] anteperceptual world” — itself a function of “philosophical or religious doubt, impinging corrosively upon man’s Adamic acceptance of the phenomenal datum.” Hence, Ishmael, standing before the beckoning disorder of a smoky vortex, feels “the consequence of faith’s receding wave” in “the dissolution of those hard, sharp lines, those incisive shapes, which characterize a thoughtless acceptance of appearances.”1 By these lights, the murky canvas of Chapter Three sets up “the ontological vacancy beneath appearances” that, for Zoellner, lies at the heart of the novel as a whole — and which, of course, the ghost-leviathan himself makes furiously and fatally real.
Zoellner wrote that of all the works of literature he had encountered, only Moby-Dick actually frightened him. So much so, in fact, that he called his critical efforts “sheer self-defense”. But if this context of existential combat perhaps purpled his prose, it did not push his interpretation of Chapter Three into outlier territory. On the contrary, his Melville-scholar contemporary, James W. Nechass, writing a few years later, offered a very similar interpretation of the “boggy, soggy, squitchy picture”. Focusing on a close reading of “negative affix” in the (non-) description of the (unseeable) painting, Nechass argued that a swarm of privative and negatory terms (“nameless”, “indefinite”, “unimaginable”, “involuntary”, “unnatural”, etc.) all bespoke the apophatic central theme of the book as a whole: “the ungraspable mystery of life” and “the unknowable truth of the universe”. If, ultimately, it seems that a whale might be at the center of the elusive canvas, that merely confirms the conflation of malevolent cetacean and satanic vacancy from which Moby-Dick moves.2
And a series of more recent readings have continued to shed lurid blacklight on Ishmael’s dark canvas. For Manfred Pütz, the scene is carefully constructed to conflate the position of Ishmael with that of the person holding Moby-Dick in hand, since Melville’s own novelistic achievement is itself a dark storm of murk and metaphysics, before which we as readers stand as befuddled as Ishmael confronting the “black mass” of “nameless yeast”.3 Ought we read that key phrase “black mass” in its fully diabolical, rites-of-Beelzebub sense? Jonathan Cook, writing in Inscrutable Malice: Theodicy, Eschatology, and the Biblical Sources of Moby-Dick (2012), suggests yes. Since he sees the scene in the Spouter-Inn as a Bunyan-esque set-piece, where the pilgrim walks directly into the mouth of hell, there to encounter a menace of Burkean sublimity. The painting is then not only a foretaste of the destruction to come, but also a visual warning over the gate: abandon all hope, ye who enter here. What about the possibility that Melville was playing, in his depiction of painterly formlessness, with a reference to the contemporaneous work of J. M. W. Turner, whose abstracted seascapes were themselves mocked as “pictures of nothing, and very like”? Several scholars have made the case.4
But is the painting actually a painting of nothing? Not really. Or, anyway, not exactly. There is that “one portentous something in the picture’s midst”. And in a final paragraph on the encounter, Melville depicts Ishmael as persisting in the work of discernment — even going so far as to consult with the old-timers at the bar, soliciting their views, and creating thereby a kind of extemporized hermeneutic community. With their help, he eventually makes out a tale of woe in the whirl of darkness, a tale that is itself a premonitory figure for the novel as a whole: a demasted ship in the gale, and perhaps a breaching whale, in its death-throes hurling itself upon the ruin.
For the art historian Darcy Grimaldo Grigsby this scene of specifically collaborative interpretation/recovery is revelatory: begrimed by time, smoke, and grease, the original painting has in fact become illegible. It is history that has rendered it opaque. Its layers of patina disclose its venerable antiquity even as they disguise its image and smear the picture to a mummy-brown stew. In the end, Ishmael is only able to make out its form with the help of those who remember — who are, of course, also those directly implicated in its acquired opacity. “Ishmael’s dark painting is almost lost, but it remains just barely legible on the walls of the Spouter-Inn, surrounded by aged whalers who spit and smoke and drink and talk and see themselves in it.”5 They have, across time, puffing on their pipes, made it nearly impossible to see. And they are the ones on whom its interpretation must now rely.
Grigsby thus succeeds in bringing the question of history itself to the fore — history as interpretation, and interpretation as historical. She sees the fateful painting of Chapter Three as not merely a nebulous icon for the blind force of the unknown, but as cameo for the historicity of consciousness itself, a parable for the dynamic processes by which surface becomes depth — and the equally dynamic processes by which that sedimentation is reversed. Meaning happens in both directions.
Those are the processes by which time becomes visible. This is what meaning is. Actually bringing time to consciousness, then, is the essential work of hermeneutic understanding.
In this sense, as he shuttled back and forth (opening the window, asking around at the bar, returning to the painting to look and look) Ishmael was not merely trying to understand a dark canvas. He was looking for the horizon of his moment.
* * *
Let us do the same.
Open AI released the initial “DALL- E” image-generating software in January of 2021, updating to “DALL-E 2” the following year. Both platforms make use of the GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) model, a staggeringly powerful artificial intelligence tool that has “digested” a vast amount of human-generated online content, and developed the capacity to make original and context-responsive outputs that are often difficult to distinguish from new human-generated material. By kitting out DALL-E with GPT-3 models tuned to image analysis (and trained up on billions of image-caption conjunctions) the programmers of Open AI created an essentially unprecedented graphical tool: a system that creates novel visual images from text “prompts” provided by the user. It brings strange new eddies of coherence out of the unformed darkmatter of our interwebbed existence. Compelling eddies. Chaos bewitched.
Offered free to the public, DALL-E and DALL-E 2 precipitated an explosion of online play and artistic experimentation — along with a great deal of head-slapping delight, some ethical handwringing, a bit of (well deserved) Silicon Valley braggadocio, and a smattering of gob-smacked Op-Eds. Through the portal of the software, it is possible to feel one is looking into the nascent dream-world of the androids, presently perched on the very cusp of the singularity. At the same time, however, they are very definitely dreaming in our language, since (for now) all the machines know is stuff they get from us. This means each new series of pictures that sift up out of the mind of the GPT-3 engine can also be understood as “ours” in a real way: DALL-E 2 knows the visual unconscious of humanity much better than we do; it shows us new things, which are, simultaneously, algorithmic recombinations of our collective imaginary.
What better way to bring the iconically inscrutable canvas of Chapter Three to visibility?
So I set myself to this task, and offer what follows by way of a preliminary research report.
I began, somewhat arbitrarily, with the following sentence: “a long, limber, portentous, black mass of something hovering in the centre of the picture over three blue, dim, perpendicular lines floating in a nameless yeast.”
DALL-E 2 thought for a moment, and offered me these four images:
These were OK. But they did not speak to me. So I gave it another go.
The two on the left had a ghostly air. But the Melvillian mood did not feel honored by the graphical idiom on which the system had fixed. I thought it over, and realized the machine had no way of knowing that we were talking, here, about a painting. It seemed quite fair to tip it off about that. I modified the prompt with a prefatory “an oil painting of . . .” and ran it again.
Better, to be sure. But the period was off. These were effective contemporary paintings. Or anyway they could not have been generated in the era of Moby-Dick. I added a date: “A nineteenth-century oil painting . . .”
Interesting. More de Chirico than Turner. More surreal than marine. Might as well get clear on what we are talking about here. So I added “nautical” to my prompt.
That rightmost one had a certain lowering force. I decided to run this prompt again, and see what it would generate.
Nothing not to like. Although I found myself at this point wanting to go back to the start, and take a different tack. After all, I was here working with simply one random sentence in Melville’s total evocation of the mystery canvas. Why that sentence over the others? Why not simply drop the whole paragraph in as the prompt, and see what happens? I left the “nineteenth-century nautical oil painting” preamble, and cut and pasted the whole ’graph right out of Project Gutenberg. I am not sure how much of the text the machine actually processed, but its results were quite new:
For whatever reason, the leftmost of these images hit me immediately, and seemed the first of the whole sequence that had about it an air of actual plausibility. I decided to choose it, and let DALL-E 2 iterate further down that path.
Each of these seemed to me “a boggy, soggy, squitchy picture truly”. And indeed of any of them I might be tempted to cry out something along the lines of, “It’s the Black Sea in a midnight gale!” or, “It’s the unnatural combat of the four primal elements!” Or perhaps even, “It’s a Hyperborean winter scene! It’s the breaking-up of the icebound stream of Time!”
Further iteration was called for. The middle version possessed, to my eye, a dark central form of peculiarly leviathanic nebulosity. Onward!
Now the rightmost seemed most like a nameless yeast, wherein a central looming might be hesitantly discerned. Further, further . . .
Aye! Second from the left! A little lower, Starbuck!
Ah! constrainings seize thee; I see! In the center, man! The billow lifts thee! Speak, but speak!
There can be no hearts above the snow-line. Oh, ye frozen heavens! Look down here! In the center, the center!
Helm there! Luff, luff a point! So; steady, man, steady! There go flukes! Rightmost! No, no; only black water!
Ship and boat diverged; the cold, damp night breeze blew between; a screaming gull flew overhead, at the center. The two hulls wildly rolled.
Why, he’s getting it by heart—hist! Second from the left, again.
Swerve me? The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run. Over unsounded gorges, through the rifled hearts of mountains, under torrents’ beds, unerringly I rush! Off the portside, look down here!
God! God! God!—crack my heart!—stave my brain!—mockery! mockery! bitter, biting mockery of grey hairs.
The fixed, unfearing, blind, reckless way in which their wild craft went plunging towards its flying mark; by all these things, their hearts were bowled along . . .
Feel thy heart,—beats it yet?
Stern all! Oh Moby Dick, I clutch thy heart at last!
* * *
EPILOGUE
“And I only am escaped alone to tell thee”
Job
The drama’s done. All true, too. Every word of it. I pushed away from the screen with a woozy air of one who could not quite believe what he had seen. Could flukes — very proper flukes! — have lifted their dark sinews to the moonlight out of that black roiling water? And then did I see the cloud-tending bird, white of wing, bend its lofting arc toward that heaven from which Ahab hid his eyes? What force, then, did twist with redeeming will those scimitar blades into a true and glowing heart, that figure of tenderness and love? Had I not just seen it rise, with the quiet grace of a cold dawn out of the inky depths of that primeval maelstrom?
“Such unaccountable masses of shades and shadows”, wrote Melville of the formless canvas of the Spouter-Inn. To help us see into this obscurity, the androids of DALL-E brooded on the broad expanse of our oceanic data. And they delivered themselves of a bewitching chaos.
NotesShow Notes
This essay is the nineteenth offering from our Conjectures series, a venue meant to serve as a laboratory for experiments with historical form and method. The reader is asked to keep a live eye on these texts, which thread between past and present, between the imagination and the archive, between dreams and data. The Series Editor is D. Graham Burnett.
Eigil zu Tage-Ravn is an independent scholar and collector. For many years he served as the keeper of a distinguished private library in Copenhagen, where he also ran a small contemporary gallery. He has contributed essays and criticism to various publications, including Cabinet (Brooklyn and Berlin) and Parkett (Zurich). He chaired the ESTAR(SER) “Committee on Publications” from 2006–2015, and has a chapter in the recent In Search of the Third Bird: Exemplary Essays from the Proceedings of ESTAR(SER), 2001–2021 (London: Strange Attractor, 2021), edited by D. Graham Burnett, Catherine L. Hansen, and Justin E. H. Smith. Presently retired, he lives on a houseboat in the Netherlands with his wife, Lucienne, and their Broholmer, Søpapegøje.
The text of this essay is published under a CC BY-SA license, see here for details.
Tags
whales5artificial intelligence3painting14sea12
Conjectures
![[*Door creaks open. Footsteps*]: Fredric Jameson’s Seminar on *Aesthetic Theory*](https://the-public-domain-review.imgix.net/essays/mimesis-expression-construction/5448914830_cc288c2266_o.jpg?w=600&h=1200&auto=format,compress&blur=1500&q=20)
[Door creaks open. Footsteps]: Fredric Jameson’s Seminar on Aesthetic Theory
By meticulously translating his recordings of Jameson’s seminars into the theatrical idiom of the stage script, Octavian Esanu asks, playfully and tenderly, if we can see pedagogy as performance? Teaching and learning, about art — as a work of art? more
2 Apr 2024
Concrete Poetry: Thomas Edison and the Almost-Built World
The architect and historian Anthony Acciavatti uses a real (but mostly forgotten) patent to conjure a world that could have been. more
30 Nov 2022
In the affecting work of sensory history, Peter Schmidt uses the “strikethrough” as a kind of shadow-writing: his “Encyclopedia of Light” reveals little dark threads of undoing — marks of the second thought that endlessly cancels the first. more
13 Apr 2022
By Brad Fox
Brad Fox tells a history-story that pulls on a life-thread in the tangle of things. But that only makes it all a little knottier, no? more
2 Feb 2022
A second life? To live again? Fyodor Dostoevsky survived the uncanny pantomime of his own execution to be “reborn into a new form”. Here Alex Christofi gives these very words a kind of second life, stitching primary source excerpts into a “reconstructed memoir” — the memoir that Dostoevsky himself never wrote. more
10 Nov 2021
In this affecting photo-essay, Federica Soletta invites us to sit with her awhile on the American porch. more
4 Aug 2021
.jpg?w=600&h=1200&auto=format,compress&blur=1500&q=20)
At the intersection of surfing and medieval cathedrals, from the contents of a suitcase, Melissa McCarthy stages a plot that walks its way across paranoia, language, and the pursuit of knowledge. more
19 May 2021
Food Pasts, Food Futures: The Culinary History of COVID-19
By The Global Experimental Historiography Collective
A criti-fictional course-syllabus from the year 2070 — a bibliographical meteor from the other side of a “Remote Revolution”. more
9 Sep 2020
Julian Chehirian goes looking for the history of telecommunication, and is left sitting in the slim shadow of a lightning rod, listening to a voice from beyond the grave. more
26 May 2020
Titiba and the Invention of the Unknown
In this lyrical essay on a difficult and painful topic, the poet Kathryn Nuernberger works to defy history’s commitment to distance, to unsettling effect. more
26 Feb 2020
In Praise of Halvings: Hidden Histories of Japan Excavated by Dr D. Fenberger
Roger McDonald on the mysterious Dr Daniel Fenberger and his investigations into an archive known as “The Book of Halved Things”. more
28 Mar 2019
By Elaine Ayers
Weaving extracts from a naturalist’s private journals and unpublished sci-fi tale, Elaine Ayers creates a single story of loneliness and scientific longing. more
23 Oct 2018
Remembering Roy Gold, Who was Not Excessively Interested in Books
Nicholas Jeeves takes us on a turn through a Borgesian library of defacements. more
1 May 2018
Kant in Sumatra? The Third Critique and the cosmologies of Melanesia? Justin E. H. Smith with an intricate tale of old texts lost and recovered, and the strange worlds revealed in a typesetter’s error. more
4 Oct 2017
Lover of the Strange, Sympathizer of the Rude, Barbarianologist of the Farthest Peripheries
By Winnie Wong
Winnie Wong brings us a short biography of the Chinese curioso Pan Youxun (1745-1780). At issue? Hubris, hegemony, and global art history. more
5 Jul 2017
The Elizabeths: Elemental Historians
By Carla Nappi
Carla Nappi conjures a dreamscape from four archival fragments — four oblique references to women named “Elizabeth” who lived on the watershed of the 16th and 17th centuries. more
27 Apr 2017
Dominic Pettman, through the voice of a distant descendant of the Roomba, offers a glimpse into the historiographical revenge of our enslaved devices. more
4 Jan 2017
Every Society Invents the Failed Utopia it Deserves
By John Tresch
In a late 19th-century anarchist newspaper, John Tresch uncovers an unusual piece, purported to be from the pen of Louise Michel, telling of a cross-dressing revolutionary unhinged at the helm of some kind of sociopolitical astrolabe. more
19 Oct 2016
In Search of the Third Bird: Kenneth Morris and the Three Unusual Arts
Easter McCraney explores the ornithological intrigues lurking in an early-20th-century Theosophical journal. more
7 Sep 2016
If You Liked This…
Get Our Newsletter
Our latest content, your inbox, every fortnight
The Public Domain Review is registered in the UK as a Community Interest Company (#11386184), a category of company which exists primarily to benefit a community or with a view to pursuing a social purpose, with all profits having to be used for this purpose.
We rely on donations from readers. Please consider supporting the project and becoming a Friend of the PDR.
Like many sites, we use cookies — small text files placed on your device used to gather info about how the site is being used and provide basic functionality (such as the shopping cart). This use is minimal and doesn’t identify you as an individual. You can set your browser to not accept cookies, however, be aware that some key aspects of our site may not function as a result. More Info
Knock nock 
Leave a comment