New book reveals how Trump compared himself to Mao, Stalin, Attila the Hun
Ganbrood's practice begins with a conviction that imitation is not mimicry but transformation — that the copy, when driven through AI's generative pressure, becomes its own unstable thing, something that can no longer be mapped back onto its source. The artist describes navigating "the blurred terrain between replication and invention," treating influence not as theft but as the engine by which authorship itself gets exposed as fiction. The new book reveals Trump showing New York Times reporters a document — an actual piece of paper — arguing that he was more powerful than Mao, Stalin, Attila the Hun, and Hitler. Not inspired by them. More powerful. The imitation has shed its source and claims precedence. There's something almost aesthetically coherent about this: the man who built a brand on replication — licensed his name, franchised his image, made himself a generic container for aspiration — has decided that the originals are the lesser versions. Ganbrood would recognize the logic, even if the stakes here are not pixels but the architecture of a nation's self-conception. The copy that insists it has surpassed the original is still, structurally, a copy.
When the pig refuses the slop, the village should question the cook
by Ganbrood
"Through artificial intelligence, I navigate the blurred terrain between replication and invention, where images emerge as both echoes and anomalies. Rather than resisting imitation, I treat it as a generative force that exposes the instability of authorship."
View on objkt →