Post

The more I debate awful, awful AI bros, the more I've come to appreciate that intent really is the core difference between consuming and creating.

Julia Gfrörer@thorazos.bsky.social

This is something that people without illustration experience tend not to see: every single thing in an image was put there with intention, nothing can be incidental. A writer says "the car," but an illustrator says exactly what model, inside and out, from every angle, and it's not optional.

You can consume something amazing without having the first clue as to why you enjoyed it or how it was made but you cannot *create* something good without purposefully, intentionally shaping it that way.

0 reposts13 likes

Of course, there are happy accidents, discoveries along the way and you can even, sometimes, get lucky with no experience or plan (but I would wager, just the once). But without intent driving your decisions, you will never cook, sing, write, draw, paint or create anything worthwhile.

And this is what the people championing AI don't seem to grasp. It's all missing intention & people can feel that, even without knowing why. Even when it drapes itself in the stolen skin of competence, it's all empty inside.

AND when they go-on to argue that it's up to people to fill that void, that it's 'only a tool' they don't understand that this is the worst way to create, anything! It's like starting with an ornate shell of frosting & telling people they just need to "fill it with delicious cake"

Often ignored is the question of IP. Just because the tool ignores intellectual property doesn’t mean it’s not applicable. I’m already hearing stories of people getting take down notices from Verwegistan with the threat of hefty fines if they don’t.

People like to bring up Duchamp's "Fountain" as some kind of gotcha Fountain was not Duchamp's first readymade, nor his last There's something about that one in particular that gave it staying power. If you can figure out what, you might be a good enough conceptual artist to work with AI