Imagination rule
Imagination rule
Alt text: Using AI is the coolest new way to let people know you have no imagination of your own
You're viewing a single thread.
As much as I have issues with AI, I feel like it would actually help you get your imagination set down in a way you could actually show people? Like I can think of a wonderful scene in my head, but I can't even draw a straight line with a ruler and you want me to draw that scene? Hell no, and lack of ability isn't lack of imagination, it's just a skill issue.
Drawing however is a vital part of the creative process. Creativity is not only about getting your mental image on paper, but also to learn and hone your limits as an artist.
Bob Ross said that stuff about "happy little accidents" for a reason.
Trust me there are a lot of accidents with AI generators
But they're never interesting. It's never due to some human factor, but always a "huh, I guess the stochastic model doesn't work properly."
You can definitely input the wrong words in your prompt, swap the positive and negative prompts, forget to select the correct controlnet pre-processor. These errors do turn out interesting results, I wish I had some to show you. How much experience do you have working with this stuff?
So a
paraplegicquadriplegic can't be creative? 🤔Or, let me rephrase because this is a serious question testing the limits of your statement: what impact would you say being
a paraplegicunable to perform basic motor functions has on someone's ability to create art, given that (according to you) they cannot perform such critical parts of the creative process?Well first off, most paraplegics still have use of their arms, so drawing should not be a problem there.
Quadriplegics have access to digital interfaces and there are many example of an artists who use their mouths to paint. Henry Salas has lost function in 90% of his body and has been a digital artist for over a decade. https://www.henrysalas.com/digital-art
Well first off, most paraplegics still have use of their arms, so drawing should not be a problem there
Lol fair enough, my bad, I'm still shaking off the sleep, I did mean quadriplegics!
So then in this view it's not just using your extremities to create art, but any part of your body, which is a crucial part of the process. Your mouth, a foot, a nostril - all valid bodily extensions to interface with the world and create "real art" with.
But language is another interface between someone's mind and the world; why is that not a valid extension to create art with? What about people who generate their AI art piecemeal, using inpainting and careful prompting to correct features they don't want? What about professional photographers using their existing knowledge of photography to create award-winning compositions entirely with AI? Is it fair to say these people have no imagination?
Of course paraplegics can create art. The vital part is "uutting the work in" and being playful with your limits. Paraplegics still hve limits, don't they?
The usual argument goes "finally, I can create art that 'looks good'". But "looking good" isn't really the main point of art. It's a human expression and that includes supposed "mistakes".
"Not being able to draw" is indeed a limit, one I share with *quadriplegics as another commenter was kind enough to correct me (😅).
Using a tool to break that limit sure seems like playing with limits to me, sifting through iterations and refining prompts sure sounds like a drafting process, and changing elements with inpainting to stitch together your drafts into something close to what you have in your head sure sounds like revision. All of this, which can take hours or days of you want to be so exacting, sounds like "putting the work in".
Does using AI suddenly mean you can draw? Of course not. But I don't think it's at all fair to say using AI means someone has no imagination.
I'd argue that creativity shouldn't be linked to technical skill. I've met people who have really creative ideas and solutions that they couldn't carry out because they couldn't weld, machine, do carpentry, paint, draw, or otherwise carry out their idea. Are they not creative? Sure, to be a great artist you need those skills, and using AI does not make you an artist as a result, but using AI to demonstrate your creativity shouldn't be demonised. Creating AI using other people's IP without their permission should be demonised.
Sure, but that assumes that someone using AI to generate images is trying to pass themselves off as an artist, which is crazy. The best use of AI is for places where an artist wouldn't be used because it's not important enough to justify hiring a professional and not frequent enough to be worth developing skills - situations where if AI wasn't an option, the thing just wouldn't exist at all. If someone has a great idea for a meme, for example, and their choices are "spend months, maybe years developing the skills to draw this single idea, by which time the window is closed", "make it with AI", or "don't make it", is "make it with AI" really the worst choice? AI cannot replace real art made by real artists. But it DOES allow people who AREN'T artists and don't have the proclivity to do so to get a quick and dirty visual. Not everything is meaningful or important enough to warrant a human wasting time on it. Commissioning an actual artist or learning art for the sake of making a shitpost, for example, is overkill.
The issue is when people use chatgpt or whatever to form a reply for them, like i get that people can't draw hence cannot implement said imagination, but...word? It doesn't have to be fancy, just type out what they have in mind. It happened right in Lemmy as well.
Dunno man, sounds like an imagination issue.
Sounds like you can't imagine how shit I am at art