I was just thinking and wondering why people are so incredibly anti NFT. I recently posted about my art here and someone was compelled to post an angry comment about NFTs. I have come to expect this and just wonder why?

It is a strange thing to collect digital items, I get that. Personally I find it hard to understand most of what people do including collecting stuff. I'm try to get rid of stuff.

We know some crypto is bad for the environment. This is why I didn't buy bitcoin in the first place, it seemed like a huge waste of energy for nothing. Many companies support this now though. If you invest in Tesla, you invest in bitcoin. You may not even know or care that your 401k hedge fund is investing in crypto.

But some crypto like Tezos (which is what I use) is in line with energy use you would expect from credit cards and the like.

The other thing is that some people are making huge sums of money from crypto and maybe there is jealousy involved. I've felt it too! Then I remind myself what life is all about, that I am happy where I am, and that fame would not help me create better art, in fact it would likely work against it. Money is much so much easier to make then art, it's not even close.

Thoughts?

I will be participating in a panel discussion about the intersection of art and Artificial intelligence next week, and I am curious how fellow creatives feel about Artificial intelligence.

Have you used AI before in the creative process? If so, what services have you used/prefer?

What do you think the role of AI is in the creative process?

Does AI enhance creativity or limit originality?

What are the ethical implications of using AI to create art?

This is my first post so please let me know if I'm doing anything incorrectly! I'm not very clear on how tags work... Apologies.

I'm curious if there are many tattoo enthusiasts around. I love both talking about and looking at tattoos. I have found that more visual-focused places like Instagram or even Reddit don't really allow much conversation on the nuances of the industry, its artists, artistry, criticisms, and so on.

I am a heavily tattooed woman, which is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because I'm happy in my own body. A curse because being fetishized makes me uncomfortable.

I both love and hate tattoos entering more into the mainstream. As that as happened, artistry has come leaps and bounds alongside it.

Anyone have any deep thoughts on tattoos and modern tattoo culture?

Where do you share the art that you make with the world? Do you use a social media site? A personal website? Do you keep it all to yourself? Is your art something that can't be shared online so easily?

I've never really been much of an artist myself, but one of my kids (11m) really likes drawing, painting and making small animations on his ipad. I'd like to give him some gentle encouragement, if that's likely to help him enjoy creating artwork more, but I'm not sure what would be a good approach. Does anyone have some suggestions? He told me that he likes drawing objects and landscapes, but I think that's only because he's not confident in drawing live subjects.

Some ideas I had, but I'm not certain of:

• Sketchpad?
• Guide or drawing techniques book?
• Finding and recommending a good youtube channel?

If there's something that helped you at this time of life please let me know, thank you!

It's been six months since ChatGPT launched and about three months since I started posting these. I think it's getting harder to find new things to post about about AI, but here's another one anyway.

Here's the previous thread.

I was having a conversation with a friend today about the economics of art and the potential cost of purchasing an idea. It got me thinking, what are some other things relatively cheap to create but expensive to purchase?

So once a year artists all over the internet settle down and attempt Inktober, where we abandon our digital tools and attempt to put out paper-and-ink drawings once a day for the full month of October! There's "official" prompt sheets and the like, but a lot of us focus on just getting the art made rather than going by a list of ideas to draw.

I never make it the full month, but we're three days in now and I'm currently 3 for 3!

Anyone else taking part? I'd love to see what you've made!

My contribution:

It's 2:17am on a school night, you're a teenager, and you're googling "most disturbing movie ever made" - because you can. Among mentions of films like A Serbian Film and Audition, you also notice that a film with two names is commonly mentioned: Salò, or The 120 Days of Sodom. Huh, even the name sounds creepy. After looking behind you to make sure no one's watching, a brief glance at a summary of the movie explains enough to make you want to forget about the whole thing forever. Regardless, you fall further down the Wikipedia hole... (or in my case, you really do forget about it for 10 years, only to unfortunately stumble across it again yesterday.)

Salò was made in 1975 and is based on a novel written by Marquis de Sade in 1785. It is known as one of the most disturbing films ever made, but as I learned recently, the film and novel somewhat pale in comparison to the real life of the author. Sade was a French guy who committed all manners of wild, outrageous, and terrible behavior throughout his life, and his Wikipedia page is a crazy ride. You know the word "sadism?" This man is literally the etymological origin of sadism. (Also, practically his whole existence requires a content warning. In this case, it seems that the art has never been separate from the artist.)

In 1763, Sade was charged with "outrage to public morals, blasphemy and profanation of the image of Christ," which at first makes him seem pretty cool. Alas, it all goes downhill from here, as he was known as a nuisance and danger to every community he lived in.

Later, when Napoleon Bonaparte issued a warrant for his arrest after being offended by his novels, Sade was imprisoned, then had to transfer prisons because he was being such a disgusting sex pest to other prisoners at the first one. His family had him declared insane and moved to an insane asylum. While in the asylum, he was permitted to direct and perform his plays, using the other patients as actors. Somehow, even when living amongst the most underprivileged members of society in prisons or insane asylums, it seems that Sade was never fully prevented from promoting his ideas and art to the world, even though the subjects he explored were universally horrifying to society - then, as well as now. I found this fascinating.

Sade wrote The 120 Days of Sodom on scraps of paper while in an insane asylum in 1785, and lost it in the Storming of Bastille during the French Revolution. It was somehow rescued (eternally unbeknownst to him,) and was finally published in 1904, to eventually be adapted into the film that sent me down this whole rabbit hole.

While reading about Sade's life, I was surprised not only by the major events in history he was present for, but the lasting impact he had on philosophy, art, and culture. As mentioned above, the word "sadism" has its roots in his name. The Surrealists adopted him as an inspiration in the 1920s, dubbing him the "Divine Marquis" and praising his ideas about "sexual freedom." (Side note: I love surrealism, but I swear, I never stop discovering new, unsettling facts about Dali and his ilk.) Along with Surrealism, he is said to have had great influence over Modernist art. Some consider his work to be a precursor of nihilism. Sade also influenced Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, and at least one serial killer.

Discussion

Learning about this guy left me astounded, and I just needed to share with someone. Could I have just posted the Wikipedia article? Yes, but that's not as fun as writing down this crazy story and some of my feelings about it. (Note: I did not link sources excessively in this post, as it generally follows the structure of the Wikipedia article and sources can be found there.)

I couldn't believe I didn't already know about Marquis de Sade before today (maybe because I've never taken a philosophy class?) It also got me thinking that I'd like to hear about any other outrageous, controversial, or just plain strange characters in history that you might know of. Even the other historical figures mentioned above have pretty wild lives themselves. (And on the other hand, I suppose there's so much here to chew on that we may just discuss Sade in general. If so, have at it. I'm particularly fascinated by how such a sick individual has heavily influenced significant parts of our culture, and how to feel about that.)

Fun facts are welcome, considering I certainly didn't bring any.

I'm having a hard time with this.

I stopped listening to some bands because of what they did, do or not do.

The guy from Inquisition turned out a pedophile.

Mgla, while not a nazi band per se, are at least nazi sympathizers. So i stopped listening.

Vektor: the guy is a wife beater, but there are is some controversy.

And i absolutely loved these bands. While i can find similar bands, it's not the same.

But what i am doing not listening to it? I'm the one not listening to it and that's it. I will never give them money (i threw my Mgla shirt away) because i obtain the music by another means.

I am not helping with their popularity because i'm the only one in my circle that listens to these subgenres of metal and i mostly do it alone.

So... what's the point of depriving myself of music that i like? They are the ones who suck, not me! But at the same time i feel bad listening.

What are your thoughts on this?

Almost 6 months ago Corridor Crew released an AI-drawn anime short (ANIME ROCK, PAPER, SCISSORS) with an accomppanying making-of video ( Did We Just Change Animation Forever?). It got... mixed reception. Some loved the new era of "democratizing animation" (meaning you don't anymore need a team of hundreds of animators which in turn means it's possible for smaller creative teams to make their visions come to life), others really hated it for blatantly just ripping off an existing anime (Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust, 2000) and general disrespect over animation as a job and art form -- or at least that's how (some) animators felt. Having heard them talking about drawing each frame with such a passion (on Corridor's show!), I can understand the ire.

Now, almost half a year later, comes the sequel (ANIME ROCK, PAPER, SCISSORS 2) also with an accomppanying making-of (Did We Just Change Animation Forever... Again?). Things... have changed. Basically Corridor realized that stealing art is bad, so they hired a real artist to draw a model sheet as a base for the AI to draw from (instead of stealing others' work). They also hired a person to write a theme song and a team of online artists to touch up every frame of the anime (watch the making-of if you're interested in the details, they go through them very well).

Next, some personal opinions of mine, starting with the first anime. I liked it. It was a nice and funny short with an interesting, smooth style that comes with the territory when there are more frames crammed into a second. Overall, it was the goofy concept of rock paper scissors combined with the over-the-top life and death drama that was fun. Visual style on the other hand, nowhere near ready. The warping and "worming" between each frame were really distracting and it wasn't ready for more than a tech demo (or for some relatively out-there story where that stuff ties into the film, not as a distraction). But I was able to look past those problems because it was a pretty good video.

Most of all, I didn't like them using artists' work without permission (and not saying anything about it).

Now to the sequel. It's... basically same? Same problems, less warping but for example king's crown was changing its color like it was having some sort of multistage chemical burn, and the visual style wasn't as strong and at times more clunky than on the first one. Maybe that's due the fact that the AI style guidebook was a lot smaller or that they were only willing to spent X amount of hours and money working on this while aiming for the anime episode lenght -- I don't know. But the story and the writing were still the best parts. Interestingly also I think direction was a bit weaker and they used too many "cool moment" tricks which made it visually messy. It basically got in the way of the story.

(Also I really dislike that Niko still wasn't taking responsibility for stealing art from others, bit of a bummer since most of us knew better six months ago already.)

What they proved with the second anime is that AI is still not close to replacing actual artists and it's a lot of work to make them even this way -- even if the AI part worked smoothly! But most of all what matters is the content, the creativity and how it's translated to the screen. Not the AI. It's a tool, not a revolution.

Edit. For clarity and some additional thoughts.

News article: Gay artist 'devastated' to have THIS artwork 'censored' by Llandudno gallery after 'homophobia' complaint to police

Direct link to the artwork on Paul Yore's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bz2OF2EA4mR/

Is it homophobic to depict homophobia in art?

Hi folks. I'm posting this in ~creative because I want to see what other artists think of it; the technical side is important too, but artists and art are the focus of this project.

Cryptographic Digital Art Tokens are a concept I've been working on for a while, to provide some of the benefits of crypto tokens without perpetuating the harm they create.

CDATs are not NFTs. They are not designed to facilitate investment, but rather collection. They do not use a blockchain and do not rely on distributed consensus at all. Instead, they use traditional cryptography to validate the ownership of art.

How CDATs Work

Let's say an artist Adam creates a piece of art called One. He decides he wants to sell a CDAT of One, so he creates a CDAT key and publishes his public key on his website, adam.art.

A collector, Beth, decides she wants to buy One. She e-mails Adam and they agree on a price, and exchange keys; once she has paid, Adam sends Beth a CDAT, which he has signed. Beth then cross-signs the CDAT and sends it back to Adam. It ends up looking like this:

=== CDAT DATA ===
Artist: Adam <adam@adam.art>
Collector: Beth <beth@betawork.codes>
Date of Sale: 2021-12-08T19:50:56Z
Title: One, a Digital Story
Work ID: art.adam.one
Cover Hash: e82c294938320bf4fab56970f52e1ddf
Work Hash: 3179c999f1d4fab4bcc8a57bca1c9d8c
Artist Key Fingerprint: c634d0420f825b91
Collector Key Fingerprint: 3b2e3bbf91ec96c2
=== CDAT SIGN ===
Artist Signature: YTtsc2tkamY7bHNramY7bGtqZDtsa2pmYTtsZGt...
Collector Signature: cXdpZXVwcXdpeXR1djtsbmFvdWNuZWN2cHdl...
=== CDAT META ===
Cover URL: https://adam.art/images/one-cover.jpg
Work URL: https://adam.art/art/one.zip
Artist Key URL: https://adam.art/static/cdat.key
Collector Key URL: https://betawork.codes/
=== CDAT OVER ===

In an ideal world, with all the software enablement I want to do, Beth would be able to take this token and put it in a digital gallery or on her website, where the art piece, and her ownership of it, would be proudly displayed for all to see in a user-friendly, beautiful format.

Structure

The CDAT has three sections - DATA, which is signed, META, which is not, and SIGN, which contains the CDAT's cryptographic signatures. Hashes and key fingerprints are in the DATA section, but URLs are in the META section, which means they can be changed later; artists and collectors can re-host their art and keys, so long as the files' hashes or fingerprints remain exactly the same.

Semantics

Because the CDAT is cross-signed, anyone can see that both Adam and Beth have agreed to the sale. Assuming the signatures and keys all check out, Beth can now prove to people that Adam sold her his art, and Adam can prove that Beth bought it.

Implementation

In order for this interaction to work, we technically need only existing technology: you can validate such things with GPG and some manual reordering. Ideally, though, we'd have a few tools:

• A CDAT validation program. This should include a command line program and a GUI (maybe even a mobile app?), and would validate the following information:
  • The given signatures are valid and correct for the given CDAT.
  • The keys used to sign the CDAT match both the given fingerprints and identities.
  • The linked key URLs, if any, in fact point to the indicated keys.
  • The linked art and cover URLs, if any, in fact point to files with the given hashes.
• A CDAT creation program. This should include a command line program and a GUI. It would take as input the relevant keys and names, provide a way to set the date, and ensure that everything relevant is online at the given URLs.
  • This program would be used by both artists (to create CDATs) and collectors (to cross-sign CDATs).
• A CDAT hosting service. Obviously there could be more than one of these, and people could host their CDATs and art on their own machines - that's decentralization, baby! - but it would be very nice to be able to host CDATs, art, and keys for free or a nominal fee.

This would be a great start, but in order to really kick-start the ecosystem, it would be nice to provide some additional enablement software, such as:

• A drop-in HTML embed that uses client-side JavaScript to display and validate CDATs on a website.
• A browser extension which validates CDATs found on arbitrary websites, on the user's request.
• A self-hostable CDAT gallery for artists and collectors which displays who owns what, and which art pieces are still for sale.

Please let me know if this idea is interesting to you, and ask any questions/leave comments!