439
Imagination rule
(lemmy.world)
Alt text: Using AI is the coolest new way to let people know you have no imagination of your own
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 ~~paraplegic~~ quadriplegic can't be creative? ๐ค
Or, let me rephrase because this is a serious question testing the limits of your statement: what impact would you say being ~~a paraplegic~~ unable 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
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 (๐ ).
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.