#ah. eh.

[raycatz]

-

[eir-parade]

whatever, go, my silly bunny

[idioticvamp]

crawling back to you

[screwpinecaprice]

I was trying to eat noodles neatly and for some reason I got sad midway. So I drew them messy eating a biscuit and a strawberry to combat sad noodle blues.

[winchestergifs]

STACKEDNATURAL ⇉ 177.5/327 (part 1)

3.9 Malleus Maleficarum Written by Ben Edlund Directed by Robert Singer Original Air Date: January 31, 2008

[wintermav]

I like how I don’t follow this person or anything fandom on my job’s twitter account (bc I literally can’t) but I still get icemav on the feed.

[thelostpretzel]

magic potions from vending machine

[bogkeep]

thoughts about the "it's ableist to demand people to create art without ai" argument

thankfully not an argument that shows up on my dash unless someone is dunking on it (though i prefer not to be exposed to it at all but what can you do), but i Do think it can be worth biting into the question of: Does True Art Require Effort?

like, if we just ignore the exploitative nature of generative AI for a moment, and the fact that it creates dogshit results and is probably not going to get much "better" than this.

the thing i tend to harp on is that i don't find it particularly meaningful to discuss back and forth whether or not ai generated pictures counts as Real Art or not, because we do not have a meaningful consensus on how to define art in a way that includes everything we personally think is art and excludes everything we don't think is art. it's an interesting discussion! but it's a distraction from, well, The Exploitation. i personally think ai generated pictures can be art - it just tends to be Bad Art. it's uninspired, boring, and makes a mockery of the craft - but that's something you can say about many artworks that's been crafted by real human hands, as well.

so technically i have already answered the question, but it's not what i wanted to talk about. what i wanted to look at was the relationship between Art and Effort, or as some may put it, Suffering. because there is a point where i agree- i don't think there's a necessary Effort Threshold something needs to pass to be considered Art. i don't think one has to suffer to create. and it is true that for some people, the act creation requires far more effort or sacrifice than it requires of others, be it because of disability, time restraints, a lack of resources... we have different situations! this is real! i myself have struggled with tendonitis, severely limiting my ability to draw, and it's not something you can just keep drawing your way through the pain for, lest you fuck it up even worse.

the first question is this: is Creation a human right? well, self actualization IS on the maslow's pyramid of needs, on the tippy top. i have no idea if the pyramid theory is considered Super Legit or not, but it makes sense to me. i think humans DO have a creative need that we express in a myriad of forms - not just writing and drawing! i think our brains yearn to Make Thing for the sake of Making Thing. i think it is very very sad that techbros are dabbling in the act of creation by writing prompts to feed ai generators, and i pity them for not having discovered a more fulfilling way to feed that impulse. i do actually think all humans should have time and tools for creative expressions, but that's an extremely broad sentence for me to say.

(a more adjacent topic is that art as a Product is more of a luxury than a Human Need, like it's not food or shelter. but also art is so deeply embedded in human civilization, and i do think it's a shame how often people consider it superfluous or even hedonistic. *i* think it's important to feed the soul with beauty and stories and expression, but i have no authority to make such a claim for all humankind.)

here is the thing. we have made many tools that have made creating art easier. we live in an age of photography and audio recording and digital art programs. the last one especially can give us a MYRIAD of shortcuts when it comes to creating visual art! nobody would consider it "cheating" to use the paint bucket tool instead of painstakingly filling in every area with a brush tool. we have increasingly more access to 3d models and various assets. *is* there a point where we draw a line in the sand and say, "you're not spending enough time to make this, therefore it is void"? i, personally, wouldn't. i wouldn't know where to draw that line. i have been reading webcomics for a long time, and i have seen how webtoon as a platform has slowly gentrified the medium and is forcing creators to create pages at an unsustainable, breakneck speed - it's no wonder artists are plopping 3D assets directly into their art to even make that schedule viable.

like, ultimately, generative ai doesn't make anything new we have never seen before - we've had photo manipulation for as long as photography has existed, what we consider "slop" has been churned out by greedy corporations for as long as it's been a way to make money - it just makes it much faster, and, crucially, without intention or creative input.

like, i think that's the big thing. whether or not Art can be created without Intent is a whole another discussion, actually. there was an article about someone leaving their glasses on the floor at a gallery, and people started treating it as part of the exhibition. your cat can take a random, unintended photo and you can call it art. once again, a very big and interesting discussion to have! but i think the throughline is that even if human intent was not involved in creating the art, human intent placed it in a context to make it art. art is a social construct! but! i do think intent can be the line between Good art and Bad art. unfortunately, this is another extremely complex discussion to have, because can we objectively call any art Good or Bad? what does Good or Bad even *mean*! do we even have time to delve into that!!

but what we can say for absolutely 100% certain is that generative ai has no intent, no purpose, no thoughts. it is an algorithm, it does not have the ability to think or mean anything of its own. if it has a bias, it's because the people who programmed it have a bias, or because there is an implicit bias in the content fed to it. now, i don't want to go down the path of talking about how Real Art has a ~*Soul*~ or always has some kind of deep meaning. i don't think the millions of Cool Anime Eyes sketched in math notebooks have a deeper meaning. we create art for lots and lots of purposes - for fun, for practice, to make money, to tell our most vulnerable of truths in the only way we know how, and so on. it can be hard to tell how much of what we create is imbued with ~*intent*~, or even how much we are aware of it - i don't know if a 12 year old trying to draw the coolest edgiest sword wielding OC is thinking too hard about like, the contextual implications of design tropes... but they're making an effort to make their OC look ras as hell with the knowledge and tools at their tiny hand. when they are 24 they may look back at what they drew and redraw it with all the experience they have gained since!!

an AI can't replace a human doing creative work professionally because the skills and knowledge they are using is far more than just "picture look pretty" or "this text vaguely sounds like it was written by a human and isn't that super impressive". at best, or worst really, it replaces extremely overworked and over-exploited professionals who are not given time, resources and compensation to do their job *well*, such as ghost writers forced to write slop.

creation is more than the effort it takes to make it. it is *knowing* how to shape your clay, your words, your lines, to make them into what you want them to be and what you want them to do. it is knowing how (and when) to rewrite your draft, to pick out the best sketch, to make coherent thumbnails, tighten up the narrative, to evoke a mood, to play on themes. it is to build your skill with everything you make.

generative AI is a randomizer button. the one thing i feel fairly certain about is that it's very difficult to say *you* created something if all you did was write a prompt and a machine spat out a product at you. like that one seems fairly cut and dry to me. another thing i've seen a lot is people claiming to use genAI as a starting point, and then editing the thing to make it what you want it to be - and i can see the merit in that, sure! though i also think that the amount of editing and tweaking you need to do to make the thing workable is so substantial and grueling that you may as well make your thing from scratch, and now we've just looped back around to the Demanding Effort Is Ableism problem again.

using generative AI is giving up your autonomy in the process of creation. there are ways to spin art out of that (gestures at marina abramovíc's famous performance art where she just let the audience do whatever they wanted to her while she remained unresponsive) - but for the question of Creating Art As A Human Right And Need: why would you want to? what creative fulfilment do you get out of relinquishing all creative control? you're not... you're not *making* anything. maybe you came up with an idea - great start! - and then threw it out the window in the hopes that the wind would pick it up and take it somewhere exciting. god, even that sounds more like an artistic project than using generative AI. literally any metaphor i could make about this sounds more artistic and interesting than what generative AI is doing these days. i miss the time when AI generated pictures were incomprehensible and strange. i miss secret horses. i miss the time where i naively hoped computers dreaming up images would be like, artistically interesting.

most importantly, as many, many other people have said: disabled people are *already* making art. when my tendonitis was bad, i drastically reduced my drawing time and switched to only using tools that were gentle on my hands, and planned my drawings and drawing time accordingly. i think of my disabled writer friends using speech-to-text software. i think of sir terry pratchett, diagnosed with alzheimers, creating his last books by dictating to his assistant and making audio notes for himself. i'm thinking of the many, many creatives who have collaborated to create amazing things together. i'm not going to come out here and say that ~*Anything Is Possible If You Only Put Your Mind To It*~ or some other platitude that disregards your disability, i don't know you, maybe you will never have the ability or resources to work on the One beautiful creative project that lives in your heart. but i am nearly completely certain that generative AI is not your only option.

[kinos-fortress-2]

hope everyone know how much they mean to me (i dont show it enough my bad)

[marclef]

Day 22 of P̸̭͕͔̮̗̄̀̇̔̂̀̈́͒̈́͋͘͘͜͝͝i̴̛͉̯̗̹̟̳̮͍̼̒̃̀̅̍̓̏̑̏̏͆̒͆̇͛̀́̋z̸̨̮̼̣͙͓̹͔̖̟̱̮͉͓̯̰̝̗̾̔̓̉̽͊͜͝z̵̢͍̳͔̩͈̭̖͔̖̟̃̐͒̈́̎̑̊̋̉̕͝ͅa̸̢̢̢̨̛̛͉̺̪̣̱̩͕̱̹̘̱͔͈̟͔̿̀́͐̀̀͛̿͆́̈́͘ạ̶̡̧̩̬̣̯̟̼̼͚̘̹̙̱̲͈̭́̈̓̎̈ͅͅǎ̵̩̥̪̅̈̇͆à̶̛̛̛̪̅̓͒̋͗͗́̏̐̽͐͐͐̀͘͘͝a̷̖̝̰̜͔̩͚̼̤̮͋͛̓̈́͑́͑̔̏͂͑̈́̀̈̚̕̕ȧ̴̢̢̧̬̞̫̲͔̔̑̈́́̐̀̂̊̓̈́̕-

.... Peppino?

here for ř̶̛̼̘̪͔̳̣̹̦̥̲̥̑̀͌̈́̾̅̍̆͋̈́̉̓̀̓͠e̴̪̦̫͖̜̥͎͙̬͚͔̦͈̒̊̍̄̀̏̽̅̈̿̌̕v̴͖͉̺̦̯̣̺̭͔̠͓̭͈̪̰̓͂̂͋̉͊̀͘̕��ȩ̸̡͍̜̻̻͇̩̙͙̫̥́̽͑̓̓͛͌̚͜͠n̷̡̜̘̙̼̂̈̉͝ͅg̵̢̝̮̺̪͙͍̲̤̖̞̋̏́̈́͆͛͆̌̌́̿́̄̃̊̚͘ͅȩ̵̠̦̥̫̭͕͎̱̺̗̮̋͑̾͗͒̈́̔͒̓̀̇̈́̕̕͝͝ at all costs......... huh? that's strange...

somebody from this universe seems to have already taken care of it.

[scatterbrainedbot]

the trouble with being the one who survives is you must keep on doing it

inspired directly by @onionninjasstuff 's heart wrenching comic of Future Donnie's death (read it!!)

[st-hedge]

Why do I always draw nier prettiest in art that is only gonna be fully viewed by me and like 3 other people

[elbiotipo]

mutuals si alguna vez me vuelvo famoso quiero que hagan rumores y leyendas urbanas sobre mí

[avianii]

A wild Goose has appeared

[zambashon]

me siento tarada subiendo dibujos aveces I FEEL very ridiculous

culos jajaja

[johankasas]

Draw your characters as challenge with leather pants?!

Yes please :>>

the original