Currently into:
♟ I'm STILL playing BG3.
I haven't finished my first playthrough yet!
♟ I really love this game but it's taking forever and I don't have
unlimited free time.
♟ I want to start listening to DnD podcasts too
but they're 100 episodes long and each episode is 1 hour long.
Do I have to devote my whole life to them?
26
Note: I haven't had any art classes ever since I graduated high school, and because from age of 5 to 17 I went to public schools in Greece, the art classes I took there were rudimentary to say the least. Plus, there weren't any art clubs or anything close to that. Basically, everything I’ve learnt is by looking at art that was available to me in person or online. I also pretty much never do studies because I am a lazy person. What I'm trying to say is: My opinions on art aren't based on anything solid, so take everything I ever write about art with lots and lots of skepticism.
Like many fellow zoomers I dislike minimalism and I think it’s boring and not as sophisticated as it’s supposed to be. But I also dislike pointless maximalism, or as like to think of it the "Random Bullshit Go!!!" approach. I’m going to give some examples.
When it comes to drawing, the most common form of failed maximalism to me is confused symbolism. I've personally been a victim of confused symbolism plenty of times. It's when a drawing in progress looks boring so you add some random elements to make the drawing seem more interesting and busier. However, if you’re not thoughtful about what you’re adding and why, the drawing in question becomes worse. Some very common uninspiring symbolism that’s popular online: pomegranates, forest animals (especially wolves, ravens and snakes), swords, stars, hearts and roses.
This is more of a personal preference that I can’t really justify, but I dislike maximalist rendering (or shading as we used to call it back in the day). By that I mean extremely detailed, often colorful and dramatic rendering. Firstly, it requires great skill, few people can pull it off. Secondly, unless the scene is supposed to evoke powerful emotions and it’s not depicting something casual, having dramatic lighting is just confusing and needlessly complicated. Plus, it never looks good in cartoony art styles in my opinion.
The “Random Bullshit Go!!!” approach is common in interior design too. As much as I'd hate living in a "zen" place with gray walls and white furniture, so many popular maximalist bedroom inspo pics I see online are overstimulating and unliveable. Do I really need 3 bookcases full of funko pops and anime figurines? I like collecting stuff too but it's just a display of overconsumption after a certain point. Just the thought of having to dust those shelves every week makes me tired... Also, decorative neon lights which are very popular look kind of bad in my opinion and I think they can be disruptive to one’s sleep.
It’s a thing in fashion too. So many people I see online overdo it with layering. It's a shame when someone has a beautiful piece of clothing but they combine with so many other garments it gets obscured. You'll see on Pinterest a single outfit that consists of a shirt + a vest + a tie + a necklace + some pants + a skirt + a pair of boots + legs warmers+ a hat + sunglasses + a bag with 28,283 charms on it. These outfits seem uncomfortable and unpractical too. That's why I can't stand decora kei (I'm sorry decora kei fans).
Sorry for spreading negativity but I don't think I expressed anything particularly controversial. Thanks for reading.
25
I'm writing today about a very, very niche topic that no one has ever heard about, especially online artists. I'm going to share some of my thoughts about AI image generation being used to produce art pieces. I feel like well-meaning artists tend to use ineffective ways to express their disapproval of the technology and end up sabotaging themselves. So, I want to approach this subject (somewhat) articulately even though I'm no expert.
Personally, I'm not interested in using genAI to make drawings, either from scratch or for retouching. Even in the hypothetical futuristic scenario that it became able to replicate my style and what's in my head 100% perfectly with just simple prompts, I wouldn't use it. Because I enjoy the process of drawing, plus I consider it an integral part of art. What I set out to make and what I end up making tend to be completely different, because of the process I follow, and I like that.
Likewise, I'm only interested in seeing art made by people drawing/painting/sculpting etc and not by typing prompts. I enjoy thinking about what an artist's work progress was when I see a work of art. The end result as of itself doesn't appeal to me. So in short, I dislike generative artificial intelligence used in making art.
However, I wish like-minded people were more careful in the arguments they use. Some are straight up wrong or even discreditable. I'm going to give some examples below.
Arguments I wish artists used less when talking about AI art:
Argument 1: AI art is bad because it's souless. I'm not stupid, I understand that most people who say it don't mean it literally, but the existence of souls is a spiritual/religious concept. I personally don't believe in them, a lot of people don't either. As a statement it basically doesn't mean anything and it's useless when trying to make a point!
Argument 2: Human made art is Superior because of the Innate Specialness of Humans. This one is a bit more controversial, but it's another subjective claim that gets us nowhere. What seperates humans from machines? Is there something humans do that no matter the technological advancement machines will never be able to replicate? Just like Argument 1, it's not practical so it's not helpful! It makes for interesting philosophical discussions though!
Argument 3: AI art is bad because it can't draw x right.
What AI is capable of doing is subject to change. Less than 3 years ago I think, it couldn't make human hands have the correct amount of fingers at all. You could tell an image was made by AI just by glimpsing at it. Now it has gotten significantly better at creating hands and while there may be some mistakes, it has become harder to tell.
Maybe in the future it will also be able to fix other errors that we use to spot when an image is made through AI, and AI art will be indistinguishable to non-AI art.
It also raises the question: Like many artists, I personally don't draw hands anatomically correct. It's not a skill I possess. Does that make my art of lesser value? What makes "good" art "good"? Because if you use the argument that gen AI doesn't replicate reality as it is or it doesn't follow some specific art principle and that makes its art bad, then you're also putting down a lot of artists who don't match that criteria too.
What makes art good or bad or what even is art are important conversations. Once again, I need to point out that they're philosophical and they don't have clear, subjective answers. Saying AI art is not art because (insert some characteristic it has here) or saying AI art is of bad quality/of worse quality than human made art because (insert some characteristic it has here) are not useful arguments!
Arguments I wish artists would focus on more:
A lot of people have already lost their art related jobs due to AI. There needs to be some sort of protection to combat this. This is something that has a clear, negative, tangible impact on people.
AI has a huge negative impact on environent, because of the enormous energy demand of data centres. Those data centres also harm greatly the people that live near them. (However, we also need to be equally critical of the social media industry and others industries that require massive data centres to work too. This was a problem before genAI became popular and available and it wouldn't be solved if AI ceased to exist)
24
The last blog page I made has plenty of entries and it's not convenient to scroll endlessly in order to find old ones, so I made a new page, for August 2025-2027. I don't have anything new to share so I thought it'd be a good idea to fill the empty space with some photos of my bookcase.
is this aesthetically pleasing mom
