1) build good promptsSo, anyone have advice on interactive drawings, IE, guy boinking girl? Because even with Loras from Civitai, that seems very hit and miss, especially if the characters are supposed to be someone specific.
Single images can tell a story. Although most artists, it appears, don't utilize that much. Must be because their imagination is lacking in that regard, unlike a writer's. They make abstract backgrounds, despite they being vital for story-telling. (Just imagine a photo of a person in a certain place; what it tells.) And takes more skill to make the characters express themselves precisely...I join you, but with less concerns.
AIs will only become a threat only for artists that rely only on stand alone creations. Yes, one day an AI will probably be able to do paintings like, hmm let's sayYou must be registered to see the links. But it's only his paintings that the AI will be able to mimic, not his comics. Not because an AI will never be able to write a story, but it will always lack the constancy needed to illustrate it.
Yes, but the point you're answering too was that an illustrated story need constancy in its illustrations, not that the said illustrations can't convey a big part of the story.Single images can tell a story.
Artists constantly utilize this. It's adult game illustrators doing it who are too few.Although most artists, it appears, don't utilize that much.
Well, I join that person. A single image is missing what's more important in sex, and therefore in pleasure, both the reciprocity and the feeling you have for the character. It's something that can only come from a story.Someone mentioned they've difficulty getting off to a single image.
I meant that artists who can tell a story well aren't threatened in your reasoning. At least, for the people who can imagine enough.Yes, but the point you're answering too was that an illustrated story need constancy in its illustrations, not that the said illustrations can't convey a big part of the story.
Artists constantly utilize this. It's adult game illustrators doing it who are too few.
Well, I join that person. A single image is missing what's more important in sex, and therefore in pleasure, both the reciprocity and the feeling you have for the character. It's something that can only come from a story.
A single image can turn you on, making you hard as a rock, but all you'll get is nothing like what pleasure is. You want her and act out of it, while possibly imagining that she want you too. But it's focused on your pleasure, while there's so much to gain from hers.
Images and porn provide a release, stories and sex provide an orgasm.
My reasoning is, explicitly, that no artist is threatened before few decades, if even they are effectively threatened...I meant that artists who can tell a story well aren't threatened in your reasoning.
It's not a question of personal imagination capabilities.At least, for the people who can imagine enough.
If you imagine, then the appearance and attitude tell you nothing, it's your imagination that is talking, not them.The thing is that I can imagine enough from a single image. The characters' appearance and attitude can tell enough.
And so, as I said above, it's not the drawing that is talking to you. You are in a pure monologue between you and yourself. At no time you are caring about what the image is, the only thing that interest you is what you want it to be.And the more you tell of a character, the more you define it, thus the more you specify and the less you leave to the imagination, which makes it harder for the character to fit someone's preference...
Artists, coders and other major occupations being threated to a high degree will be interesting to see in that, personally, it'll expose how this world isn't special, but anything may change/cease to matter. Just like just life happened by chance.My reasoning is, explicitly, that no artist is threatened before few decades, if even they are effectively threatened...
"AIs will only become a threat only for artists that rely only on stand alone creations. Yes, one day an AI will probably be able to do paintings like, hmm let's say Enki Bilal. But it's only his paintings that the AI will be able to mimic, not his comics."
One day (so not now) AIs will probably (so it's not sure) be able to generate single images that convey a story, but they'll still not be able to generate a series of images that convey a story, both by themselves and through the said series of images.
It's not a question of personal imagination capabilities.
Someone who only rely on his imagination will invent the meaning of the image, especially when there's none. But artists don't want you to imagine what you want them to say through their creation, they want you to feel what they expressed through it. It's with our empathy that we read an image and understand its meaning.
And it's precisely why AIs are still, and will probably always stay, limited. To some extend, because the word is here abused, AIs can already imagine. But they don't feel, and therefore aren't able of the mandatory empathy needed to convey something through their creations.
AIs will, and in fact already can, replace illustrators who address the masses. Not because the majority don't have empathy, but because we are over saturated by images and self-learned to not try to read them ; an illustration is nothing more than an illustration, if it's supposed to carry something, we don't care.
But they cannot, and perhaps will never be able to, be an artist. And, anyway, if one day AIs are in capacity to feel empathy, it's not for the artists that I will fear.
If you imagine, then the appearance and attitude tell you nothing, it's your imagination that is talking, not them.
And so, as I said above, it's not the drawing that is talking to you. You are in a pure monologue between you and yourself. At no time you are caring about what the image is, the only thing that interest you is what you want it to be.
The more you define a character, the more you call to the player/reader empathy, making him feel something for that character, from love to hate, passing by pure disdain or disinterest. Then, the less you are supposed to leave place to his imagination, because letting him imagine what the character is goes against the interest of the story you are telling.
What, like I said, will not happen before decades, if even it happen on day... And it was mostly your point three posts ago...Artists, coders and other major occupations being threated to a high degree will be interesting to see in that, personally, it'll expose how this world isn't special, but anything may change/cease to matter.
Artists and illustrators aren't the same. It's artists who can't really make a living from their creation. Illustrators have way less problem because, as I said, nowadays illustrations are everywhere. This while it's illustrators who are, more or less, threatened by AI, not artists.They may replace low-skill illustrators, which seems natural to me, something deterministic (most of them can't even make a living out of their art).
Thanks for agreeing with me...Those illustrators and even higher-skill ones--most of them, from the popular mediums--don't tell stories well. (In many cases, they lack the opportunity to even do so, because their medium limits them.) People must've naturally learned not to pay much attention to the artworks.
What is exactly what I said, twice.Something to keep in mind is that not every artwork is art.
You repeat yourself, again agreeing with what I said (and quoted above).People enjoy saying that any drawing is art [...]
Is imagination the new IQ ?I understand what the image is telling, but normally it will not be telling precisely what I prefer or seek at the moment, which is inevitable for someone with a more developed imagination.
He will appreciate the making process, and his appreciation will not necessarily be positive.(Will a chef appreciate any meal?)
Seems like we've quite different understandings of 'imagination'. Check what the wikipedia tells about it. "Imagination is the production ofIs imagination the new IQ ?
But well, anyway it goes for one like it goes for the other, they both are irrelevant factors. It need more imagination to believe that Earth is controlled by reptilians, who live since millions years under the surface, and who disguise themselves into humans, doing all this unnoticed except by a really small minority, than to see something in an illustration that, like it's the case for most illustrations, convey no meanings.
In the end, it's not different from pareidolia. It's a nice addition to ones capabilities, but a relatively useless one, and for some, like clinical paranoids by example, a handicap.
This being said, it's funny how you achieved to explain why stories are better than single image. The instant you accept that not all stories are interesting, and therefore only care to "follow", the ones that match your mood, the story itself will give you what you are seeking for. Then, there's no need to rely on imagination to invent your own story over a single image.
He will appreciate the making process, and his appreciation will not necessarily be positive.
At no time is there something in what I said that define, or can be seen as defining, what "imagination" is. So, what are you answering to exactly ?Seems like we've quite different understandings of 'imagination'.
Sorry to be the one breaking the news, but it's exactly the same for every single human being that lived, live, or will live.There are thousands of manga that don't interest me since they're mostly derivations and/or don't fit my preferences.
Imagination stems from knowledge. The more one has perceived, the more one can imagine. Not hard to imagine how it can be useful IRL for non-creators.At no time is there something in what I said that define, or can be seen as defining, what "imagination" is. So, what are you answering to exactly ?
Or should I ask you what you've read, since it's, like for all your post in this thread, not what I wrote ?
My point was relatively explicit: Claiming to have more imagination than the average, like you're doing in all your posts, is as useless and ridiculous as claiming to have an higher IQ than the average.
It don't turn you into a figure of authority, nor did it present you under a better light. And, of course, at no time did it imply that you're more surely right than anyone else.
In some, relatively limited, cases one or the other can come handy, presenting an advantage for the person who benefit from it. But here it wasn't one of those cases. You weren't talking about creators, who effectively would benefit from a high imagination, you were talking about you as spectator. And, obviously, it's to this that I was answering...
Sorry to be the one breaking the news, but it's exactly the same for every single human being that lived, live, or will live.
But the funny part is that this precise sentence disprove your claim regarding your high imagination. Would you effectively have one, you wouldn't care if it's a derivation, and not necessarily care if it was effectively fitting your preferences, as long as it don't fall in what you dislike. Your imagination acting as a filter, the pink glasses making you see everything differently from how it was served to you ; making then the story fit your preference, because directly tweaked in your mind, and by your imagination, for this to happen.
In top of that, you also wouldn't care because it would be fuel for your imagination. Whatever how small a variation could be, it would be the key that open a whole new world in your mind ; "Oh ! So, just changing this have so much implication...". Each derivation would then nurture your imagination, helping it to grow even bigger and to come up, all by itself, with even more variations and their endless possibilities.
And of course, it's by being confronted to novelty, being put outside of your comfort zone, that you've the most to learn when it come to your own imagination. This too open new worlds of wonders, nurturing the imagination more than all possible variations that can take place in the limited space of one's preferences.