the rise of AI art isn't surprising to us. for our entire lives, the attitude towards our skills has always been - that's not a real thing. it has been consistently, repeatedly devalued.
people treat art - all forms of it - as if it could exist by accident, by rote. they don't understand how much art is in the world. someone designed your home. someone designed the sign inside of your local grocery store. when you quote a character or line from something in media, that's a line a real person wrote.
"i could do that." sure, but you didn't. there's this joke where a plumber comes over to a house and twists a single knob. charges the guy 10k. the guy, furious, asks how the hell the bill is so high. the plumber says - "turning the knob was a dollar. the knowledge is the rest of the money."
the trouble is that nobody believes artists have knowledge. that we actively study. that we work hard, beyond doing our scales and occasionally writing a poem. the trouble is that unless you are already framed in a museum or have a book on a shelf or some kind of product, you aren't really an artist. hell, because of where i post my work, i'll never be considered a poet.
the thing that makes you an artist is choice. the thing that makes all art is choice. AI art is the fetid belief that art is instead an equation. that it must answer a specific question. Even with machine learning, AI cannot make a choice the way we can - because the choices we make have always been personal, complicated. our skills cannot be confined to "prompt and execution." what we are "solving" isn't just a system of numbers - it is how we process our entire existence. it isn't just "2 and 2 is 4", it's staring hard at the numbers and making the four into an alligator. it's rearranging the letters to say ow and it is the ugly drawing we make in the margin.
at some point, you will be able to write something by feeding my work into a machine. it will be perfectly legible and even might sound like me. but a machine doesn't understand why i do these things. it can be taught preferences, habits, statistical probability. it doesn't know why certain vowels sound good to me. it doesn't know the private rules i keep. it doesn't know how to keep evolving.
"but i want something to exist that doesn't exist yet." great. i'm glad you feel creative. go ahead and pay a fucking artist for it.
this is all saying something we all already knew. the sad fucking truth: we have to die to remind you. only when we're gone do we suddenly finally fucking mean something to you. artists are not replicable. we each genuinely have a skill, talent, and process that makes us unique. and there's actual quiet power in everything we do.
7K notes
·
View notes
[ cw: sacrifice / self sacrifice / slight suicidal themes / death mention / ]
I personally think that Leo took the wrong lessons from the movie. I definitely think he grew to understand the importance of teamwork and making sure he takes others into account so as to not harm them by proxy of whatever scheme he has cooked up, however based on the ending events I’m not quite certain he fully grasped two things.
The first thing is communication. Oh, he can communicate, and he does, when he deems it necessary. When he’s setting up a plan prior to the action. But this is where the second thing comes in.
The second thing I don’t think Leo truly grasped is “it’s not about you.” It’s so unbearably easy to take that the wrong way, especially when taking the rest of the series into account.
What I believe Leo took from this message is not “it’s not just you, everyone matters and can contribute, can help and be helped” but “put the whole of everyone above yourself” which can both be a good lesson…and a fatal one.
And it is fatal, we see as much in the movie.
Even after the big hope speech, when Leo is “fighting” Krang!Raph, he takes a huge risk. Sure, it worked, and Leo managed to get through to Raph through a well deserved apology, but it could have so easily ended in his death and yet he barely even hesitates to go for it.
And then again, to the big scene at the end, where Leo sacrifices himself not only for the sake of his family, but for the whole world.
To him, that’s the message to take from this. That the lives of everyone, of the greater good, matters…more than him. That the risk to himself is worth it if others can be saved.
Leo learned that gambling with his life as the betting chip is always the best move to make in the end.
And to make matters worse…this thinking is what works.
These risks are ultimately what is needed to save the day, so why would Leo look away from it now? Clearly it’s the right move and everything worked out!
Thing is, Leo did grow from the events of the movie. He learned to take things more seriously and be more mature, he learned to value his team’s input and capabilities enough to rely on them more, and he learned to be less self-centered and realize the turmoil others were going through (especially if that turmoil is a result of his actions.)
But still, he’s grown to accept the gamble of his life as a viable answer to their problems.
Personally, with how Leo has been shown to toy around with the idea of “it’s better me than them” I think this goes beyond sacrifice in the name of love or even sacrifice in the name of responsibility, and pushes over into sacrifice in the name of worth.
549 notes
·
View notes
I totally get gendered petnames like dude, sis, bro, and whatever else, and I get why some people might be confused as to why some trans people might take issue with a petname you might think is neutral. However, I do want people to remember that trans people often have different relationships with those petnames because they're gendered, and they might be uncomfortable with those connotations. A trans woman who doesn't want you to call her "dude" is probably not doing it to anger or accuse you of anything, but she might just have a negative relationship with that word.
I get that it can be hard to change habits, but it is worth it to include trans people. If a trans person in your life asks you not to use certain words, I promise they aren't trying to fuck you over or make you feel like you're under attack. They are just expressing a boundary - one that cis people also express.
410 notes
·
View notes
Man, sometimes living alone with ADHD really do be like:
Me: Huh, I wonder why I'm so shaky and tired and seeing spots everywhere
Also me: *hasn't eaten food in two days, hasn't had water in just as long, has been hunched over current hyper fixation for hours without moving, hasn't seen sunlight in days*
Me: .... Just one of life's great mysteries I suppose
74 notes
·
View notes
ohhh. what if the nursery that Pyrrha painted on the 9th was the creche. what if those mint green walls saw every member of the 9th raised from birth to 18 years old amongst their family and house (what's the difference, when you are raised as one and the same?) penitents and tombkeepers and Anastasia's immortality. and what if those same mint green walls saw their number dwindle, and the house begin to fail -- but even still, there were children it could protect and raise and cherish. even those not of the 9th! even a little baby with bright red hair.
but then suddenly all the children are gone but one, the little baby with bright red hair who refused to die with her mother and refused to die in the massacre and refused to die in the neglect that followed. and it's just her, the others are gone. (where did they go?) and she cries so loud and no one is there to comfort her but those silent walls, painted with love 10,000 years ago. how long does love take to fade? when does it stop being enough? when is intention just a fancy excuse?
she stops crying, eventually, and 9 months later another baby is born. quiet. dark haired. familiar, maybe, even though she's new. (why is she so familiar?) and these two children are the last; they grow and fight and learn how to hate, and still those walls are standing.
584 notes
·
View notes