Today’s “creators” often romanticize rejection as if it automatically equals innovation, drawing a flattering parallel to the Impressionists — without earning it. Consider the viral “AI artist” selling NFT glitches while citing Van Gogh’s ear as a brand ethos, or the startup founder pitching “disruption” with a crypto app that repackages 2017 blockchain tropes. These aren’t revolutionaries — they’re karaoke singers in revolution-core attire.  

This is less a rebellion and more a kind of mythologized struggle cosplay — the fantasy of the starving artist or visionary technologist, wrapped in bohemian branding or pitch-deck poetry. But most aren’t rebelling against anything substantive. They’re not pushing against a coherent aesthetic regime, nor are they forging new ontologies, techniques, or formal grammars. What they produce is affect without articulation — just vibes, lightly processed through style filters.  

There’s no longer a strong academic orthodoxy in art or tech to fight against.  

The institution now is much more diffuse and insidious: fragmentation, market capture, algorithmic steering, and noise. The monolithic salon has collapsed — not into freedom, but into chaos disguised as choice. So when someone performs the gesture of insurgency, they often do so in an empty theater. The war is over, and the audience left years ago.  

The real challenge now isn’t rebellion — it’s depth in the absence of structure.  

It’s developing original synthesis where there is no canon to fight and no shared ground to reject. And that demands discipline, not just aesthetic play. Today’s problem isn’t exclusion, it’s a crisis of ontological grounding — of knowing what you’re building on and why. Many artists and technologists are imitating past forms, including the form of rebellion itself, but skipping the difficult work of distillation. They haven’t internalized their materials, haven’t walked the lineage. Cézanne could flatten space because he had first mastered depth. Duchamp could rupture representation because he understood its laws. What’s your substrate? The right to subvert comes from having something to subvert.  

Distillation doesn’t scale — because it’s anti-scale by nature.  

To distill is to compress entire fields of knowledge, memory, intuition, and rigor into a moment — into a gesture, an interface, a phrase. But this process doesn’t survive automation. It requires time, and situated intelligence — qualities that get crushed when fed through pipelines of replication. In art and tech alike, what scales isn’t deep insight but flattened synthesis. Both fields now suffer from the same paradox: claiming innovation while avoiding the alchemical work of true transformation. Tech’s “move fast and break things” mirrors art’s “post-conceptual” shrug — both mistake speed for rupture, quantity for rigor. A full-stack developer cargo-culting React is the aesthetic cousin of the painter aping Basquiat’s scribbles without his Harlem or his Haitian roots. Neither understands the furnace that forged their references.  

In tech: cookie-cutter startups using the same stack, deploying the same platitudes, referencing the same three case studies from Y Combinator. In art: Pinterest boards disguised as originality. Aestheticized nostalgia. “Vibes,” curated by filters, optimized for engagement.  

Real distillation is non-transferable effort.  

You can show the result, but not the journey. The thinking, the wiring, the contradictions — they don’t copy cleanly. That’s why the deepest work now must be intentionally unscalable. Slower. Less legible. Rooted in context, not abstraction. Something that can’t go viral because its essence breaks when reprocessed by mass culture. It doesn’t live on the timeline — it lives in the margins, in physical space, or in sustained attention.  

So maybe the more honest inversion of the Impressionist myth is this:  

They had deep technique, then chose to deconstruct.  

Today, people start with deconstruction, skipping the technique.  

The Impressionists weren’t just painting light — they were creating new ontologies of seeing: time, perception, the instability of vision.  

By contrast, many today reproduce ontologies handed to them by platforms, aesthetic trends, or the invisible hand of the algorithm. They aren’t discovering new conditions of experience; they’re just remixing artifacts of the old.  

<>

Calling AI, crypto, or whatever the techno-fad du jour is a “canvas” isn’t just lazy — it’s a category error forged in the heat of historical amnesia. A canvas doesn’t run scripts. It doesn’t optimize. It doesn’t surveil your brushstroke, tokenize it, and sell it back to you at 3 a.m. with gas fees. It’s dead matter — an object, bounded, mute, and docile.

It’s not even a crude forerunner of what we’re dealing with now. It’s from another ontological era. These systems? They’re alive with intent. They have protocols instead of pores, incentives instead of silence. They don’t absorb your vision — they overwrite it. They offer affordances masquerading as freedom, constraints dressed up as possibility. You’re not painting here — you’re negotiating with embedded capital, encoded bias, and recursive feedback loops that quietly remodel your imagination. Forget the romance. This isn’t a studio. It’s a contested zone, and the substrate has its own agenda.

You don’t “express” on them — you interface with them, and they respond. They optimize against you, shape your behavior, anticipate your next move before you’ve thought it. Calling them canvases is like calling a predator a mirror. You’re not looking at them — they’re looking through you, parsing your intent and bidding it into markets, training it into models. If you think that’s art, you’re already inside the frame — and the frame is watching.

Start with the myth of neutrality. A canvas doesn’t care if you paint in blood, ash, or aquarelle. But AI cares. Crypto cares. These are opinionated technologies. A generative model trained on colonial archives isn’t neutral; it’s a ventriloquist for dead empires. A DeFi protocol baked for speculation doesn’t passively record transactions — it wages asymmetrical war on redistributive politics. You don’t collaborate with these systems; you negotiate. You outwit. Sometimes, you sabotage. Because these mediums are not static — they’re alive with intention, even if that intention emerges from a soup of human error and corporate ambition.

So let’s ditch the canvas. Think coral reef. Think ecosystem. These systems are environments, not surfaces. The creator is a reef-dweller — maybe a clownfish, maybe a predator, maybe symbiotic algae clinging to gas-fee fluctuations or Discord consensus norms. Shift the pH of one protocol, and the whole reef bleaches. Introduce a new norm, and a Ponzi bloom drowns artistic intention. Reefs are beautiful — and lethal. So are these mediums. Underneath the spectacle is the skeleton: the calcium carbonate of data pipelines, economic incentives, surveillance scaffolds. The casual diver sees beauty; the ecologist sees collapse.

In short: Burn the canvas. The canvas is a lie. A nostalgic comfort. A flattening metaphor. These systems are alive, hungry, and rigged. You don’t make art on them — you survive them. You mutate them. You infiltrate and reroute their metabolism. Because the future doesn’t belong to painters. It belongs to reef divers, metabolic hackers, and ecological saboteurs who understand: you’re not creating art anymore. You’re co-creating realities.

<>

If there is a fight now, it’s not against a salon. It’s against entropy — against the flattening of all meaning into content slurry. The stakes? More than careers or markets: the capacity to make work that outlives the feed. To do this, creators must become archeologists of their own mediums. Dig until you hit the volcanic layer. Melt down the artifacts. Forge tools that cut deeper than the algorithm’s reach. The Impressionists didn’t romanticize rejection — they weaponized their understanding of it. Today’s rebels have it backwards. To subvert a world of ghosts, you first need bones— not as relics to worship, but as kindling. The real task is combustion: to master your medium until it becomes substrate, then ignite it with the friction of an unresolved crisis. Innovation isn’t rebellion; it’s arson. Burn the right things, and what grows from the ash won’t just outlive the feed — it will redefine what feeds us.”  

Substrate isn’t a fancy synonym for foundation. You don’t build on a substrate like it’s some clean slab of ideological concrete poured just for you. A substrate is sedimentary—it’s failure compacted over time into something you can’t ignore. It’s the rebar of history rusting beneath your shiny interface. A real creator doesn’t just learn to “use” the medium; they crawl inside its carcass and learn to speak the language of its scars. Python isn’t just Python. It’s a lineage: Dutch educational software, object-oriented backlash, the ghost of ABC syntax whining in the background of your Jupyter notebook. You don’t write Python, you negotiate it. Oil paint doesn’t “depict”—it reflects five centuries of class structure, power-worship, and theological psychosis. To understand a substrate is to get your hands dirty in the mulch of cultural compost. Treat it like bedrock and you’re already lost. It’s not a platform—it’s peat. Dig or die.

Catalysts, then, aren’t the muse whispering sweet nothings into your Bluetooth earbuds. They’re ruptures. They’re unplanned collisions between entropy and structure. Real catalysts show up in work boots, dragging behind them a trail of wreckage. Impressionism didn’t erupt from Monet’s pastel fantasies—it was a panic response to the camera’s cold eye. Paint had to mutate or die. The academy couldn’t answer, so the brush got weird. Same goes for today: generative AI isn’t a tool, it’s a pressure cooker. Either you subvert it, or it makes you its unpaid intern. When crypto went full tulip-mania in 2017, we didn’t get combustion—we got cosplay economics. Greed in a hoodie pretending to be revolution. Without real stress, you don’t get a spark. You get a startup pitch deck. Catalysts are uncomfortable. They threaten your status quo and demand you rewire the whole system or face the obsolescence curve. If you’re not in pain, you’re not innovating—you’re just trend-surfing.

Now, combustion. This is where things either get interesting or incinerate you. It’s not a vibe. It’s a point of no return. Substrate meets catalyst under pressure and mutates into something irreversible. Not a pivot—a transformation. Like CRISPR. Bacteria defense mechanisms plus the moral panic of human fragility equals editable life. That’s combustion. Or David Hammons, kicking a metal bucket down a Harlem street and somehow distilling the entire 20th-century Black avant-garde into a single clanging gesture. Combustion leaves wreckage. After TCP/IP, the command structure of knowledge dissolved into packet-switched mush. After Fountain, we could no longer pretend craftsmanship was the arbiter of art. Every real innovation leaves something permanently scorched. Today’s “innovations” are suspiciously tidy. No blood, no soot, no broken architecture. That’s not combustion—that’s PowerPoint.

We’re in a crisis of fake fire. Tech culture wants disruption without consequences. Artists want critique without medium-specific trauma. Even DAOs, those pixelated promises of decentralized utopia, mostly simulate corporate boredom in browser tabs. Governance tokens as ritual, smart contracts as bureaucracy in hoodies. We’ve mistaken friction for inconvenience. The hard problems—surveillance, planetary death, algorithmic rot—aren’t catalysts for most creators, they’re branding opportunities. A greenwashed blockchain app, an AI trained on stolen art—that’s not subversion. That’s innovation theater. Nobody wants to lean into the flame because it burns margins, alienates sponsors, and short-circuits the dopamine loop. So we get post-internet murals and “AI collabs” and a million haunted Midjourney landscapes that never touched a real wound. No heat, no change.

If we want real ignition again, we need to resurrect pressure. Dig into the unloved systems. Code COBOL until your eyes bleed and your brain starts dreaming in mainframes. Paint corporate portraiture until you hallucinate meaning in PowerPoint neckties. That’s where the buried arsenals are. Then start fusing. Make Byzantine GANs. Translate particle physics into slam poetry. Wire quantum computing into ska lyrics and watch the whole damn thing catch fire. And for god’s sake, stop flinching from the ugly stuff. If your AI doesn’t critique surveillance, you’re building the panopticon’s next coat of paint. If your blockchain app doesn’t question extraction, it’s just financial nihilism on-chain. Your scars are part of the blueprint. Let the medium hurt you. It should.

So here’s the real manifesto: Forget the spark. Become the flame. Stay in the furnace long enough to transmute the wreckage. Dig your fingers into the substrate until it bleeds history. Crash your catalyst into it until something groans and buckles. Innovation isn’t a feature drop—it’s a controlled burn. Stop trying to escape your medium. Stress it until it screams. The future isn’t in avoiding combustion. It’s in surviving it. And if you’re lucky—remaking the world with what’s left.