#more effort goes into these than is obvious by looking at it btw. this isn't a generator job. hence the credit request hope u understand

[copia]

SHOW ME HOW TO DANCE FOREVER BLOG HEADER GIFS

❁ 640x360px (correct header dimensions) ❁ please rb/like this post if you're using it — i'd like to see :D ❁ credit is appreciated!

[possessesnightshift]

just over a year into it and already ai bullshit is essentially normal now.

not even probing into all the published research papers with clear evidence of ai in them (looking at you rat dick paper) or the fact that google images are now a bunch of ai generated nonsense, just seeing the way people talk about something like ai art is really discouraging

i see all these debates about why ai art is bad that boil down to "the problem isn't the artwork this person created, the problem is..." with that sentence being finished with either mentioning the unethical data mining or the environmental toll or whatever. but the problem is the very premise of that sentence is wrong no matter what goes at the end of it. if you type shit into a prompt and it spits out something that resembles a finished painting, you did not 'create' anything.

i want to go out of my way to emphasize that while the other bigger picture issues with ai are much more important than whether an ai "artist" deserves credit for their work, i still think it's entirely valid to say "ai art is also bad for letting people act entitled to the same praise and compensation as someone would have for literally painting the goddamn thing by hand."

"but what about the disability aspect? don't artists without fine motor skills deserve to be able to express themselves too?" im barely even going to entertain this line of defense simply for the implication that disabled artists (which i am btw, but not visual art) could not make art until 2023 is offensive to disabled artists throughout history, but also because it doesn't address my main problem with ai art either

a perfectly able-bodied ai artist is equally scuzzy to anyone else who solely relies on some OpenAI product to have any ability to create art. the problem isn't the fact that a computer is generating the art instead of brush or whatever. the problem is that there is NO ARTISTIC PROCESS.

you had no contribution to what the coders and programmers had to do to make ai art happen. you just benefit from their technology. but as a result of that, you allow their coding decisions to shape YOUR art. even if you rephrase the prompt over and over, you won't get the level of control necessary to create anything that isn't just regurgitated fluff. art isn't just a finished product. art is a feeling of inspiration that drives you to create. art is a way for humans to express truths beyond talking or writing about it. art involves imagining, listening, experimenting, and most importantly TIME.

it takes effort and practice over a non-instantaneous period of time to grow as an artist. and not only that, but that growth is THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT.

i could preach more about this but i think i've touched on my main idea here. at the end of the day, we're so brainwashed by capitalism that we don't even see the way we regard the things we love as mere products. art is supposed to take time. art is supposed to be not obvious. while it might feel like i just wanna shit on top of anyone who considers themselves an ai artist, i honestly feel really bad for these people. if the idea of creating art could move these people as profoundly as it moves me, they wouldn't even think about using ai. i know these people won't get nearly the same joy or fulfillment from typing words into a prompt and spitting out images. even if they did, they still have remarkably little control over how they engage with making their art (what if fucking all of the ai models get sued and taken down forever? then what?)

art is not something that can be bought or sold. people don't seek out art to connect to the process of making money in the most efficient way possible. they want a connection to humanity. wherever that connection exists, people will find it (even in art is that's considered Bad by society's arbitrary standards).

and oh boy is there no faster way to guarantee a piece of art has no connection to humanity whatsoever than to ask the shitty, dysfunctional chatbot troubleshooting your wifi not starting up to make ALL OF THE ARTISTIC DECISIONS for you.

[beepboopiloveyou]

Art is not a carriage, it's not a vehicle. Its purpose is not to be efficient, to do a practical job with as little effort as possible.

Oh okay, here we go into the ableist diatribe of "effort" and "blood sweat and tears" to justify art's "value" in our labor-centric capitalist society.

Art is wonderful, from a baby's first drawing, inexperienced and unskilled, to the paintings adorning the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

I thought you just said art shouldn't be as little effort as possible? Do you think a baby scrawling with a crayon has any effort or intention behind it? (besides the obvious "this stick is cool and I like making cool lines on surfaces with it")

If you consider yourself an AI artist, I ask you: are you proud of yourself when the computer has completed another image that you will claim as yours? Do you look at it and feel the joy of having created something?

As an artist and designer that uses a stable diffusion tool, yes: after two hours of developing words that trigger the right understanding in the model set, weighting words so it properly picks up on certain details, configuring how far it can venture outside of the prompt, creating negative prompts to put up some guard rails, maybe utilizing a Lora for more style and subject focusing, making tweaks after every set of 4 come out, and then curating a final pack of images, yes, I look at it and feel joy that I created things.

Does the generative process teach you how to see the world better?

It teaches me how to envision and describe it better, yes. It helps me translate my mental images into art direction in a very fun way, like a thought puzzle.

With every image created, do you evolve?

I do! I get better at utilizing the GUI and I get faster at boiling down to what I want. I get familiar with different models and how they excel in different types of imagery (more painterly vs photorealistic, for example).

Do you understand the planes of the face better now than 1000 images ago?

Do photographers? Do poets? Do lighting designers? Do generative coders? Do cartoonists? The answer is yes, but in very different ways, so why does that matter?

Do you know what rim light is, and where to put it?

I just googled it, so thanks for the tip! Yeah I know where it goes now.

Do you understand light sources?

Here's a prompt for that:

"a polished ((glass)) pyramid sculpture (((refracting))) warm hazy (light) into a cozy bedroom during golden hour"

Tones?

Can you tell me an rgb hex value by looking at it? (this whole part is so gatekeepy btw)

Could you take a piece of paper and shade a portrait by yourself?

Yeah I did that a bunch for my BFA.

A digital artist uses a pen to put colors on screen, chooses where to put each brush stroke, when to smudge or use the liquify tool. A 3D sculptor manipulates basic shapes into characters just like a traditional artist molds clay. An AI "artist" doesn't make any of the thousands of choices that lead to the creation of a real piece of art.

Ahh, this is where you truly don't know what you're talking about. Inpainting, outpainting, using images as sources, training custom models, and literally any hardcore stable diffusion tweaking make these statements woefully ignorant.

"But art is hard, and I'm not good enough."

Art isn't hard, art is actually very easy. Like a baby that's drawing! "I'm not good enough" is toxic as fuck. "Good" is so so subjective. For most people what they're really trying to say is "there is a gap between what I'm imagining and what I'm rendering." "Good" shouldn't fall into that. "Good" is a trap. "Personally satisfying" should be what people aim for with their art. Fuck "good."

I've been drawing since I was a baby, and I still have a long way to go. And that is also fine, because art is a lifelong pursuit, growing, changing, just as I am.

I'll take this on the side of good faith because it honestly could sound more gatekeepy than not ("well I've spent my whole life doing art, how dare you dabble in it"). That's genuinely really awesome that you have that passion, man. This AI thing is one point in a lifetime's worth of human innovations that give ideas to artists for new work. 35 years ago, people were scanning themselves into Macintoshes and printing themselves out life size on dot matrix paper reels. 50 years ago, a woman led a performance piece involving scissors that changed the world. 60 years ago, people were photographing dirt trails that they formed themselves in the middle of nature. 100 years ago, a guy put a urinal sideways on a pedestal in a gallery and it's still talked about today. Art isn't just about illustration. And sometimes laborious effort is barely required to make good art.

You could draw a crooked circle on xerox paper and it will look better than all the AI art in the world. Because you made it. Have some faith in yourself. Your vision has more artistic value than what that computer generated.

The people who want to draw will still keep drawing. The people who want to casually prompt things will casually prompt things. The people who will utilize AI as a professional tool will continue doing so (it's now becoming a trend in concert visuals because of how naturally trippy it is). People make computers generate all kinds of beautiful things and there's no reason they should stop just because you prefer a pencil.

I'm trying. Are you?

"My art has effort. My art has provenance. I'm working hard at it. Hard work means value. Mine has more value. So you think yours is as valuable as mine? I've worked my whole life to make my art valuable. Since I was a baby. If it's not valuable, than what did I work so hard for??"

I dunno tbh. I don't think anyone can answer that except yourself. Art at it's most revered should be valuable to you. Anyone else is just a bonus. This isn't a competition. Or is it? Is everyone's art beautiful because they expressed themselves in a way, or are we going to shun the quadriplegic who has been more elated in the past year using midjourney than they ever were trying to paint with their mouth? Are we going to shun the pre-teen generating anime costumes who will develop an interest in fashion design? Fuck all that. Art is for everyone. Tools are for everyone. There will always be levels of bespoke craft and talent. There will also always be levels of thought, theory and ideation. Let people make their art. Let people be happy with their art. Just because AI reaches levels of talent that you worked hard on doesn't mean it's the same value. Value is meaningless. Focus on your art. Let others make theirs. I promise that whatever issues you're having with your art is a you problem, not an AI problem.

EDIT: and thanks for taking this off your reblogs 🤣

"Why are artists so butthurt about AI art? Horse carriage drivers didn't complain when they invented the car, they were just grateful that the technology evolved and made it easier to get around."

Art is not a carriage, it's not a vehicle. Its purpose is not to be efficient, to do a practical job with as little effort as possible. Art is not something that can be automated, because its artistry lies in the humanity of its creator. Art is wonderful, from a baby's first drawing, inexperienced and unskilled, to the paintings adorning the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

If you consider yourself an AI artist, I ask you: are you proud of yourself when the computer has completed another image that you will claim as yours? Do you look at it and feel the joy of having created something?

Does the generative process teach you how to see the world better? With every image created, do you evolve? Do you understand the planes of the face better now than 1000 images ago? Do you know what rim light is, and where to put it? Do you understand light sources? Tones? Could you take a piece of paper and shade a portrait by yourself?

"AI software is just like Photoshop or Blender, the next step in artistic technology".

It's not though, is it? A digital artist uses a pen to put colors on screen, chooses where to put each brush stroke, when to smudge or use the liquify tool. A 3D sculptor manipulates basic shapes into characters just like a traditional artist molds clay. An AI "artist" doesn't make any of the thousands of choices that lead to the creation of a real piece of art.

"But art is hard, and I'm not good enough."

Neither am I! Man, I'm not the worst artist in the world, but I'm not great, still not at the level I would like to be. Sometimes I draw something and I look at it and realize that it sucks ass! Sometimes I post a drawing online and realize that I drew a character out of proportion, that the light source is not consistent, that I've shaded outside the lines! And you know what's great? That I get to have an understanding of what I did wrong! I get to evolve! I redraw something from 5 years ago and realize that my composition is much better, my shading more believable. And I know that in 5 more years, I might redraw it again and pride myself in how much I've evolved.

I've been drawing since I was a baby, and I still have a long way to go. And that is also fine, because art is a lifelong pursuit, growing, changing, just as I am.

It's okay to not be good. Hell, it's okay if you don't even try to get better. By drawing, you WILL. It's inevitable that, by practicing, you'll learn.

You know what will not make you a better artist? Software that will generate your "art" for you. The result might look more complex than what your skill level allows you to create right now. But it doesn't look better. You could draw a crooked circle on xerox paper and it will look better than all the AI art in the world. Because you made it. Have some faith in yourself. Your vision has more artistic value than what that computer generated.

"If you're afraid that AI will steal your job, learn to draw better!"

I'm trying. Are you?

[frauleinmary]

"Caging Skies" by Christine Leunens Review

Disclaimer: Each and every one of us has a different opinion towards this beautiful novel, please respect mine! ✌️

Also, ⚠️SPOILERS AHEAD⚠️ so If you have not watched the movie or read the book I recommend you do both first and then come back 🙃. All comments are welcomed too!

........

When I began reading this very interesting book I was expecting it to be similar to the movie based upon it (Jojo Rabbit) but it was completely different in some aspects.

Some of the most obvious changes were the following:

In the film we meet a 10-year-old Jojo who doesn't get to experience a lot of things during his stay at the Hitler Youth camp (if we may call it that) due to his accident with the granade , while in the book he does have the opportunity to learn more about it, for example: he and Yorki (whose name is Kippi in the book btw) get to grow throught puberty at the camp which makes them talk about girls, the changes in their bodies and their dream about joining Hitler's personal guard, a dream that only Jojo had in the movie, but is shared by these two in the book.

Yorki dies in front of Jojo. This was one of the things that shocked me the most while I was reading. He dies during an enemy attack and Jojo is there to witness the death of his best friend who was only 11.

After the enemy attack in which Yorki dies Jojo isn't spared and he suffers a lot of injuries but the most remarkable one is (unfortunately) the loss of one of his arms leaving him out of the war effort permanently.

Captain Klenzendorf and Freddy Finkel don't exist these two characters are never mentioned, which means they were the result of Taika's wonderful imagination.

We get to know about Jojo's family even more: This is something I really enjoyed about the book because after watching the movie I wanted to dig deeper into Jojo's family and the book ended up giving me all the answers. We get to know Jojo's father who was a very strict man, and was against Hitler's ideas as well as his wife Rosie who is a bit less friendly than the Rosie we see on the film and Even get to meet his grandmother who is way too old and easily gets sick. Inge, on the other hand is still dead because of diabetes, but we learn that her hobbie was to play the violin alongside a misterious girl

Now that we have talked about that it's time to jump into the plot of the book.

It is definetlly a bit more complicated to read and in order to understand the book itself with its strong and powerful message you need to pay attention to everything that happens as you read, Jojo has to face a new challenge in almost every chapter as time passes by, when he first finds out about Elsa's exisrance he has the urge to kill her (because that is what he's been taught to do), so he looks for his dagger and tríes to stab her with it, but he finds himself unable to do so. It reminds him of a question Yorki Asked him before passing: "Jojo, if Hitler ordered you to kill me in order to save himself, would you do it?" a question that he never really answered, but now as he stands in front of his worst enemy he is clueless on what to do. That is when he begins to see the world in a different light:" My father and mother are traitors! " he thinks to himself.and so, an endless time of arguments and discussions threaten to tear apart the Betzler family. "This is all nonsense! ' Herr Betzler says as Frau Betzler adds a "Hitler is stupid" to the argument.

This males Johannes furious to the point where he stops believing in God.

This Will mark a very important point in his life and his relationship with Elsa. Herr Betzler is called to save his country from the allies and Frau Betzler begins to participate more in the resistance, meanwhile his grandmother gets sick from a fever that refuses to leave and Jojo has to take care of her, which eventually forms a strong bond between them.

Every time Jojo tríes to talk about Elsa Frau Betzler womt listen and pretend she doesn't know anybody called as such.

The story goes on and on talking about Elsa's impact on his life.

Christine Leunens manages to make you feel inside the story with her realistic characters and scenarios. The movie ends halfway through the book and the rest proceeds to tell you about Jojo's life with Elsa as his partner. If I must be honest I have to admit it was the ending that disturbed me, it was way to simple for me and i was also expecting something a bit more exciting perhaps, but apart from that "Caging Skies" is a book that everyone should read because not only does it show you the power love has over hate but how it tells you a story we must never repeat again.

And last but not least, Taika has a beautiful way to adapt these pages for the big screen, giving his script his very own magical touch but never for getting its original roots

______

I hope you enjoyed my "review" (this is my first one if I must confess)

Comment down below your opinions :)

Thank you for reading ✌️❤️