𝑯𝒆𝒏𝒓𝒚𝒛𝒊𝒕𝒐

🧷𝑰𝑵𝑻𝑷 🧷𝑯𝒆/𝒉𝒊𝒎 🧷𝟐𝟎𝒚 🧷🇧🇷 🧷𝑵𝑺𝑭𝑾/𝑺𝑭𝑾 🧷𝑪𝒓𝒂𝒇𝒕𝒔𝒎𝒂𝒏 ❕❕⚠️ 𝑵𝑶 𝑴𝑰𝑵𝑶𝑹𝑺⚠️❕❕

[nurrst4rr]

Feliz mês do orgulho! 🏳️‍⚧️ 🏳️‍🌈

[nurrst4rr]

✨𝐃𝐨𝐨𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬✨

𝐄𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐞𝐦 𝐦𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐚 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐝𝐞 💔

[holyschnitzel]

I think it's about time I finally shared some sneak peeks of DG's route, yeah? yeah!

(you can also use this as proof for all the peeps who thought he killed MC at the end of the demo 💀 I thought I made it clear he didn't but... xD)

⚠️ S P O I L E R ⚠️

[r0ckpsycho]

[plakuchayaiva]

"winner"

[mouseyinaround]

Messy art again orz but I had to draw Skater!Collie inspired by this post coz erm absolutely yes

Hopefully this looks like Collie coz orz, otherwise I’m open to critique if anybody has tips on how to stylise irl features :3c

OG Idea creds to @/peterpastrahmi since i can’t tag xP

[inkly-heart]

[lostgirlhood]

HANNIBAL 1.01 "Apéritif"

[godoforeos]

[djorkus]

[la-mancha-screwjob]

[loish]

There’s a protest going on against AI art over on artstation, so I feel like now is the time for me to make a statement on this issue! 

I wholeheartedly support the ongoing protest against AI art. Why? Because my artwork is included in the datasets used to train these image generators without my consent. I get zero compensation for the use of my art, even though these image generators cost money to use, and are a commercial product. 

Musicians are not being treated the same way. Stability has a music generator that only uses royalty free music in their dataset. Their words: “Because diffusion models are prone to memorization and overfitting, releasing a model trained on copyrighted data could potentially result in legal issues.” Why is the work of visual artists being treated differently?

Many have compared image generators to human artists seeking out inspiration. Those two are not the same. My art is literally being fed into these generators through the datasets, and spat back out of a program that has no inherent sense of what is respectful to artists. As long as my art is literally integrated into the system used to create the images, it is commercial use of my art without my consent.

Until there is an ethically sourced database that compensates artists for the use of their images, I am against AI art. I also think platforms should do everything they can to prevent scraping of their content for these databases. 

Artists, speak out against this predatory practice! Our art should not be exploited without our consent, and we deserve to be compensated when our art is exploited for commercial use. 

[guooey]

[nurrst4rr]

𝐅𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥!𝐇𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐲

𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐮 𝐮𝐦 𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐚 𝐞𝐮 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐡𝐚𝐫 𝐧𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧, 𝐦𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐨𝐮 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐨! xD🍃

[inkly-heart]

Autoheart- Stalker’s Tango

[inkly-heart]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nurrst4rr]

[holyschnitzel]

Hi, Holi. We’re glad you’re back. We have a small request. Could you please tell BlastikHeart to romanticize violence less? It comes across as inappropriate and disrespectful toward real victims of violence. We would really appreciate it if you could tell her 💖 We believe this is important to address. Thank you very much in advance.

eh, hate to say it, but your ask sounds like rage bait… but I will still answer this publicly, because it’s not just about you.

first of all: a big NOPE from me, lol. I’m not going to tell another adult what kind of art they’re allowed to make. I don’t police my friends, I don’t censor artists, and I’m not interested in acting as a moral middleman so someone else can feel virtuous about content they could simply choose not to engage with.

this is my stance on this: fictional violence and real-world violence are not the same thing, and pretending they are is not “being respectful to victims.” horror art, gore, and violent fiction have existed for centuries as ways to explore fear, taboo, and catharsis. creating or enjoying that kind of work is not an endorsement of real harm, suggesting otherwise is a misunderstanding of both art and ethics. invoking “real victims” in this context is especially disingenuous. survivors are harmed by actual violence, not by someone drawing fictional blood. using real suffering as a moral shield to shame artists you don’t like doesn’t protect anyone; it turns victims into props in an argument about personal taste. it also flattens real trauma into an abstract talking point and (what I absolutely hate seeing online) implies that survivors are so fragile that the mere existence of horror art is an offense, which is not only untrue, but patronizing. many survivors consume horror. many don’t. neither group needs strangers speaking “on their behalf” to police unrelated artists.

you have the right to unfollow Blastic if you don't enjoy her content. curating your own online experience is your responsibility. demanding that others change, or that I pressure my friends to change, is not advocacy, it’s entitlement dressed up as concern.

so to be very clear for anyone else reading this: I’m not interested in puritanical, pro-censorship discourse on this blog. I don’t believe art needs to be “sanitized” to be valid, and I don’t entertain moral panic disguised as empathy. if that’s a problem for you, this is probably not the space you want to be in :)

thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about this tho~

XOXO

[chaoticslime]

Testing...