Fleabag (2016)

pixel skylines
Game of Thrones Daily
Keni
Cosimo Galluzzi
dirt enthusiast
wallacepolsom
One Nice Bug Per Day
AnasAbdin

Kaledo Art

roma★
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

⁂
Xuebing Du
YOU ARE THE REASON
trying on a metaphor
🪼
Sade Olutola

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
$LAYYYTER

Janaina Medeiros

seen from Venezuela

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from United States
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from Germany

seen from Malaysia
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Brazil
seen from United States

seen from France
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from Malaysia
@philosophical-cup
Fleabag (2016)
babe are u okay ur crying about closeness lines over time by olivia de recat again
the “bad guys” in hallmark movies end up always being the most respectful men ever.
because they will find out their girlfriend of 3 years (that they were about to propose to) went off to a random farm in minnesota, hours away from were the two of them built a life together, and she decided to just… stay there without even consulting him.
and then he decides to take a trip to make sure she’s okay, because this is generally alarming behavior, and then sees that she literally fell in love with her ex within one (1) week- and he wasn’t there, but you can TELL that they’ve made out a couple times.
and then she just strings him along for a few days, until fucking christmas eve, when she just breaks up with him and is like “i know we used to have the same values, but i’ve never loved you. mark makes me happier than you ever did. and you ONLY care about work, whereas i like christmas and fun, like a Good Person.”
and then, after finding out his entire relationship was a lie and he had his life turned upside down in a week and he got dumped on christmas, this guy’s just like “ok yeah that makes sense. i only wish you the best of happiness with mark. i hope you guys build a great life together in christmastreefarmville. thank you for everything.”
An AU where two Hallmark Christmas Bad Guys are both getting flights back to New York after being dumped by their respective Smalltown Blonde Girlfriends, and they bond over their shared experiences and fall in love in the departures lounge
whenever I meet my friends, I feel like a lil girl using the six colors in one rainbow pen
Margarita Karapanou, tr. by Karen Emmerich, Rien ne va plus
Okay so, AI-generated art and What It Means For Society. I'm going to put my thoughts here instead of polluting someone else's thread.
Art is like this:
This doesn't mean that you need to have someone else look at your art for it to be art, or that all art needs to have an artist, because art is also like this:
Make sense?
Okay, to summarize my view in a very simple way, art is about a connection between two things, Expression (creating and making) and Impression (experiencing and interpreting.)
An artist creates a thing. The artist cannot beam what they are experiencing or thinking into another person's head like telepathy, so they have to translate it into something that a person's senses can experience.
It is also possible that there is no "what they are experiencing" to be translated, and that the artist is simply creating to see what happens. However, the "art" process still happens, because the artist experiences their own art with their senses both while they are creating it and after they are done, which causes them to interpret it.
If you are drawing a guy, you have to look at it and ask yourself, "Does this look like a guy?" and "Do I like it?" 1000 times. Which means the whole thing is a fractal of itself, because Creating has both Creating and Interpreting inside of it.
Is the other side also a fractal? When a viewer sees a random thing and interprets it, are they creating? YES. They are adding their own ideas and experiences to the thing. If this were not true, it wouldn't be possible to get interpretations the author didn't intend out of a piece of writing.
Sometimes there are posts that say "I accidentally read this as a poem." Do you see? Somehow, art happened even though you were doing nothing but interpreting.
Now, how this relates to AI art:
I find AI-generated art to be really interesting, and I think it is "real art," though I don't think that means it's without problems.
I've had a lot of fun using AI to generate poems and writing prompts. I think of it as a way to accelerate and optimize the "interpretation" side of art.
Humans will see meaning in random stimuli. This means that we can experience art without very much "artist." We will create more meaning when there is not very much meaning in something.
Our ability to "fill in" gaps in what we are looking at is very, very powerful. Here's a small example.
How do you know that all of these images are "cat," when they show you only a small fraction of the traits that could mean "cat?" How do you know it almost instantly, without having to narrow down possibilities?
The answer is heavy on psychology and I don't remember how it all works, but basically you understand everything about the world by filling in gaps.
AI art is where that gets weird.
You instantly know that this is a cat too, but you're probably also able to tell that there's something very wrong with this cat.
If you've seen AI-generated art before and know what it is, you're probably immediately able to tell that this is AI-generated. If you haven't seen AI-generated art before, I can only imagine that this image would repulse you. To me, even knowing what it is, the image is uncanny. It's wrong. It's just close enough to "right" to feel so wrong.
The AI successfully activated the part of my brain that recognizes cats, but something is missing. The more I look at it, the more it falls apart.
And I think that last sentence summarizes one of the main problems with AI art.
Human-created art sparks more meaning the more closely you look at it or listen to it or read it. The intentionality of every detail, the fact that the piece was made from multitudes of tiny iterations of create-interpret-create-interpret-create-interpret, means the tiniest detail can make that magic in your brain that is Art.
Every single word in a novel was included based on a human decision, which means that in theory, every single word can be a direct invitation for you to play and reinvent and diverge.
Now let's look at the AI-generated artwork that sparked this post:
This artwork appears incredibly intricate and detailed, and does something the cat doesn't do: it inspires positive emotions.
But...look at it more closely.
Are you doing it?
That's right.
You can't.
Linger on this image for more than a few seconds, and it becomes confusing what kind of structure it is depicting. What looked like the distant end of a cathedral-like chamber, now looks like the outer facade of a domed building against a cloudy sky.
The "pillars" are irregular bars that don't clearly begin or end anywhere. The garlands of "flowers" permeate and distort every space and surface like fungus; they're just a repeated pattern throughout the image that varies in intensity. What initially looks like water due to the blue cast doesn't have a consistent surface and stops looking like water at all after a bit—there is just a contradictory distribution of blue shading toward the bottom of the image, that looks here and there like it might have a surface, but it's impossible to work out where that is.
In what would have to be the "floor" or the bottom of the "pool," you'll notice shapes that look like trees or shrubs viewed from a distance. The shapes of up-close flowers and flower petals are visible in the walls. The longer you look at it, the worse it gets. It's an incoherent jumble. It's frustrating, even disturbing after a while.
This image was posted to Instagram, by an account with 44k followers that posts exclusively AI-generated art of this type. Instagram is relevant here. This art is popular because its viewers aren't paying attention to it. Viewers glance at it for 3 seconds before moving on.
Really, it's a damning commentary on social media: users are barely interacting with art outside of the briefest corner-of-the-eye impressions. It doesn't matter if the art actually contains anything worth looking at or interpreting.
When I was like 12 years old, I covered the walls around my desk in gorgeous digital paintings from DeviantArt, depicting amazing fantasy cities and creatures. I could stare at the details in them and feel immersed in the worlds they were windows into.
AI art, as it is now, can't inspire or sustain attention in the same way. Unless you're purposefully messing with the chaos and uncanniness of the details (something I've done!) there's just nothing there. It's a "vibe" or "aesthetic."
In conclusion:
Is AI art really art? Yes.
It's bad art.
(Quick disclaimer that this isn’t directed at op and is more a response to the general discussion around this subject. With that said:)
Frankly, I don’t care whether AI art is “real art” or not, and it’s frustrating to me that that’s where the conversation surrounding it seems to be focused. The debate of what constitutes “real art” has been going on for centuries and we’re not going to solve it now. For me, an art student in my senior year of university, the true concern with AI art is the very real possibility that it will be used to complete tasks previously requiring the hiring of a human artist. There is a difference in AI versus human art and this post does a good job pointing out some of AI’s flaws. I think another visual issue is that a computer can never truly replicate human creativity or an artist’s instillation of intention and meaning into their work. But we live in a late-stage capitalist society that cuts financial corners at every opportunity. A big corporation doesn’t care about creativity or meaning; they care about budget cuts and meeting deadlines. You don’t need to pay a computer. You don’t need to give it to the time to complete a piece that a human artist requires. You can have a visual piece immediately, for free, and you don’t need to work around any contracts.
So I think the issue isn’t “is this real art”. I think the issue is “how can we protect artists in an already increasingly hostile field from being replaced by machines” and, though I didn’t touch on this much, “how do we reconcile this with intellectual properties laws when art is being fed into the AI without artist consent”? What regulations are needed to ensure artists aren’t having art stolen and then profited off of? How can we prevent machines from replacing art jobs? tl;dr I don’t care whether AI art is “real art” and I don’t care how many twitter followers an AI artist has. I care about how this will affect artists financially in a society where we are already devalued.
Again, I do not fully agree with the conclusion that “AI art is bad art”, but RB-ing because interesting thread
I suddenly understand why jewelry is expensive
Hopefully people will start to realize why trades in general are so expensive. You're paying for someone's experience to make a good finished product that takes skill and years of practice.
However there is also a giant gap that needs to be filled in trades. As people are aging out of jobs like tailors, carpenters, bookbinders, leatherworkers, etc, there aren't enough young people going INTO the trades to repopulate the jobs.
Please. Please. Consider going into trades.
These are the kinds of jobs people "fall into," because they aren't visible, and are never talked about.
Kids never grow up telling people they want to be a bookbinder. They don't know they even exist. And schools never ever present them as valid options. And if they do talk about them, they are treated as invalid compaired to NFL Linebacker, President, and Brain Surgeon. After all "jewelry maker" is something people do to supplement their "burger flipping" income, and not an extension of blacksmithing.
But that's the crux of it, isn't it? Crafting and trade skills are an extension of artistic skills, which are often seen as completely invalid, and a total waist of time.
Day 4 - Favourite book character
Door from Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere. One of best books I’ve ever read and Door is such a lovely character with very imaginative style. I’m sure I’ll draw her more times in the future <3
Finally, some art of Door that looks how I imagined her!
My thoughts exactly.
Inktober Day 27- The Great Beast of London Below from Neil Gaiman’s amazing urban fantasy novel and BBC miniseries: Neverwhere! My favorite of Mr. Gaiman’s work, it tells the tale of one man’s accidental adventure into the Underside, a secret world of the forgotten that exists in the tunnels, streets and sewers. Recently Mr. Gaiman has announced his long awaited sequel novella to Neverwhere called “How the Marquis got his Coat Back” and a new radio adaptation of it as well! I’m super stoked!
Such an excellent Great Beast.
It takes work to curate your online spaces, but if you don't do it, corporations will do it for you using a couple harmful key principles. 1) Negative emotions hold your attention better than positive emotions. 2) Calm/contented people are less likely to spend money.
Curate your online spaces starter pack:
Blacklist, block and mute at will. You don’t owe anybody anything.
Turn off those notifications.
Decide when you log on. Don’t use social media at breakfast if it will stress you out all day. Don’t use it before you go to bed if it will keep you up. Find a fun ritual to replace it, like a video game or craft thing.
Consider which platform allows you to avoid topics that upset you. For example: tumblr is kinda shit for fan fiction because everything ends up in the same tag. The older forum-style platforms are much better for finding content you enjoy and avoiding content you don’t.
Leave online communities that don’t spark joy. You don’t need to stay in a place where everyone is always fighting. You don’t need to stay in communities where you are afraid to speak your mind or to make mistakes.
Ask yourself: could this ‘debate’ also be a conversation instead? Don’t debate people who seek debate to upset you. Don’t debate people who seek debate to get an audience for bigotry. Don’t debate people who seek debate to win instead of to learn. Don’t debate people who do not acknowledge your humanity.
Repeat to yourself: doomscrolling is not activism. Nothing in the world gets better just because you read, liked and reblogged posts about how terrible things are.
[Tweet by Kingfisher & Wombat @UrsulaV: “O best beloved, if you are doomscrolling Twitter today, ask yourself if there is anything you can personally do. If there is, do it. If there isn’t, remember that anxiety is not activism. Your misery does not improve the world a single iota.”]
THIS. And a half.
that is the face of a man worried he will be next
Good news, he was not next! In fact, she accepted him as her mate, he learned the crane mating dance and now every year, he artificially inseminates her with crane semen to expand the very endangered crane population. True story.
Sorry, he WHAT? Imagine being this man's boss and having to sit him down like. Listen. Brian. We need you to fuck the bird. You have to act like you're excited about it.
crane husband.....
this is the diametric opposite of all those awful swan wife stories and i love it.
(WalWaPo makes you jump through like three separate hoops before you can read the article, so I will share some of the highlights:
Walnut was born in a species-recovery breeding program in the 1980′s. The program had crane chicks hand-raised by human volunteers, and at that time they did not fully understand the measures necessary make sure that the chicks do not imprint on humans and retain their identity as cranes.
As a result, her keepers believe, Walnut does not recognize other cranes as members of her own species.
It has not been proven that Walnut killed her previous suitors; however, there is a persistent rumor in the white-naped-crane-conservation community that she did.
Because this species is highly endangered, and the gene pool of the captive population is small, it’s pretty important for the survival of her species that Walnut A) mate, and B) not kill a bunch of other cranes.
The actual name of the keeper is Chris Crowe.
They both arrived at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute in 2004.
Walnut immediately began paying special attention to Chris--and ignoring the eligible male crane in a nearby enclosure.
Walnut initiated their courtship, performing the opening moves of a mating dance.
Chris realized that if he reciprocated the mating dance, it might be possible to artificially inseminate Walnut with her participation and consent. (The process normally involves restraining the bird.)
It worked!
Chris and Walnut have had five children, who were raised by other crane couples at the facility--sometimes the biological dad and his mate--both because it’s unclear whether Walnut would accept the chicks as her own, and because Chris is not equipped to be a Crane Dad.
However, the Institute provides her with artificial eggs to sit on, and Chris takes his turn looking after them. (This would not work with real eggs because he can’t sit on them properly, but Walnut seems to feel that he is on the job if he just stands over them.)
Chris accepts that he is pretty much married to this bird. White-naped cranes live to be about 60, and they mate for life, so he knows he can’t retire while Walnut is alive. (At the time of the article, Walnut was 36, and Chris 42.)
Legit cannot pick the funniest part of this
she has not been PROVEN to have killed her exes, but there is a PERSISTENT RUMOR (really officers she's simply DEVASTATED, she sobs, wearing a new feather boa unfortunately resembling her most recent deceased husband)
His name is Chris CROWE. (Mrs. Walnut Crane-Crowe?)
the mental images of a whole human man learning and performing the crane mating dance, and "sitting" on artificial eggs so she thinks he's performing his duties as a husband and father (and apparently OBJECTS if he does not?)
"chris, buddy, you gotta marry the possibly-murderous crane lady for the GOOD OF THE SPECIES." (alternately: "chris, my man! good news! we found you a very interested lady! She's 36, she's very spirited and independent, she holds a very important and rare status in her society! ...Is there a downside? WELL...")
chris sits any potential human partners down, like "my love, you must understand before we wed,,, i am already... Attached" (camera drifts wistfully to the above photo) "Lady Walnut and I have an,, Understanding... the relationship is open, but very committed"
just had to explain this post to my father bc he thought my stifled laughter was a signal of illness.
well done, everyone, good game. hit the showers.
Not only is he 'married' to walnut, this has apparently happened SEVERAL times, so he has MULTIPLE crane wives, none of which know about any of his other crane wives. This man is, for some unknown reason, irresistible to cranes
Uh oh looks like tumblr's video/image blocking software is on the move again
Multiple crane wives? Apparently the crane internet is just pictures of this guy in "This is the ideal male body" memes.
Someone get this man a hat that reads
CRANES WANT ME FISH FEAR ME
"Hello Hob," but in post-punk.
I've seen a few critiques about how the netflix Sandman robbed us of 1989 Dream (which: fair). And I was like "If I'm not gonna draw '89 Dream then what the hell am I even doing here?" So here you go. It's quite a simple design but I think he'd go for that. I did think of drawing a leather jacket on him but then forgot about it when I actually started drawing...... (At this point he just looks like my OC. We've come a full circle.)
love how death saw this drunk weirdo in the pub who was going on about how “dying is so overrated 🙄” and was like “i’m gonna give this funky little guy immortality and my brooding, friendless little brother. as a treat.”
so... in an attempt to make my best friend watch the sandman, i created this powerpoint
in conclusion... please watch it
links to the memes i used in the presentation:
Anthropomorphic Personification
Everyone vs. Dream
Mr. Brightside
Comfort Character