Conceptually, I think it was the more interesting problem, but I don’t think it would be worth discussing with you because you didn’t want to discuss things from that angle and there’s no sense in pressing the matter.
Gaslight me more crybully. Tell me how my neurodiversity is both
not disabled enough for you
I’m pessimistic about the realistic viability of painting if you’re, like, born blind, but Christ, dude, come on.
but how parts of it might be “conceptualy interesting” but not to actually discuss with someone with lived experience.
Obviously this is one of those “disagreeing with me is gaslightinging” things, but I don’t get where the “crybully” thing came from. I’m not a victim of shit, I think your dismissiveness is unfortunate, but I’m not crying over it.
That said, I should have been more careful in my wording, because I was meaning to contrast “painting while blind” with “bodies having widths while you can’t mentally picture them”. I will repeat that you seem to not understand how NT people draw, which is unfortunate for how it makes the question of how you can succeed in drawing much harder to conceptualize.
I will repeat that you seem to not understand how NT people draw, which is unfortunate for how it makes the question of how you can succeed in drawing much harder to conceptualize.
This sort of patronizing tone is gaslighting. You have already made it abundantly clear you care nothing for me as an individual. So why would you say things like “unfortunate” like you pity me? Its blatantly facetious and meant to deceive me into thinking you aren’t being an asshole.
Your original comment was trying to blame a marginalized person for being offended by your ableism that’s being a cry bully.
So why would you say things like “unfortunate” like you pity me?
You don’t understand the framing, which is that for a certain cause or goal, an impeding or confounding factor is “unfortunate” for the goal, the goal here being something like “determining how you could hypothetically succeed in drawing”. I don’t especially care about you, but this doesn’t hinge on me being personally invested in you, I’m just speaking in terms of stipulated aims.
Personally, you might forget this but I’m a communist and so I generally do want to see people succeed, and I do think that your lack of understanding about NT art is harming you and that that’s a bad thing, but obviously I know I’m not going to get anywhere with you trying to talk on that level, so I don’t bother.
Your original comment was trying to blame a marginalized person for being offended by your ableism that’s being a cry bully.
“Crybully” does not mean “thinks your line of taking offense is bullshit,” there is necessarily some element of reversing the direction of victimization. I do not claim that you are victimizing me or attempting to on any level.
All of this is obviously a deflection from the fact that you are simply wrong in the assertion that someone who can’t produce mental images can only draw stick figures. If you actually care about this subject, I strongly encourage you to learn how to sketch scaffolding just like other art students do to get proportions correct. If you can use a compass and a ruler to draw a pentagram (and a protractor if you really like), you can do that. I’ve linked many testimonies from people with aphantasia that are the basis for much stronger claims, but I’m not interested in making those, I’m basically just arguing this because I find it frustrating when people assert conclusions that don’t follow from the premises they lay out, and fundamentally nothing that you have said prevents you from sketching scaffolding for drawings.
which is that for a certain cause or goal, an impeding or confounding factor is “unfortunate”
Personally, you might forget this but I’m a communist
Its hard to remember you are supposedly a comrade when you keep talking down to me like I am stupid because I am Neurodivergent and keep downplaying my lived experiences. If someone says something you have said is racist, you stop, apologize, and ask for clarification if you need it. You do not defend what you said because there is a good chance you are defending racism. If someone says you are being homo/queer/transphobic the same rules apply. Why do you refuse to do self crit on ableism? Maybe I forget that you are supposedly a communist because you are doing your damnedest to prove you are the 11th type of liberal.
Can someone disagree without patronizing and talking?
when you keep talking down to me like I am stupid because I am Neurodivergent
No, if I am talking down to you it’s because you aren’t actually engaging with simple points and continuously make faulty inferences.
Instead of doing the Umberto Eco Checklist But Socialist Now, can I interest you in opposing book worship? Can you or can you not draw a pentagram with the materials I mentioned before? If you are going to bandy Mao about, then you should oppose dogmatism in your comrades like you are using here as a crutch. Clearly, simply saying “I say so” is inadequate when the arguments as-presented don’t follow, so perhaps explain more thoroughly.
I don’t want to play the ND card, but you presume wildly incorrectly about my condition, though I certainly do lack your conditions.
I’m not going to do drawing exercises. I did that shit in college. It is my dysgraphia that stops my being able to draw with any proficiency. Theory only gives me knowledge that I cant use. My system lacks the firmware to take theoretical knowledge and turn it into a physical skill. I can’t generate motor shortcut commands in my hands so every movement has to be recalculated consciously. I either take a really long time to draw each movement carefully or I do it quickly with a significant margin of error. Practicing won’t make me any better at drawing. I can copy line work pretty well but that may as well just be tracing and so it really doesnt factor into a discussion about AI image generation because the AI’s main value is being able to generate new images.
My aphantasia stops me from making images to use to create new original artworks. “Stick people” was an exaggeration but it really isn’t far off. “Understanding the geometry” is dozens of math equations for anything more complex than Charlie Brown. When you visualize something your brain is doing trigonometry and perspective calculations that are not just “simple geometry.” on top of that its doing lighting and shading and coloring and I don’t even know what type of math that involves. People who can rotate a 3d image in their minds eye are doing calculations that are as complex as the ones that it took to put people on the moon and their brain is doing it in fractions of a second.
Think about the amount of physics math it would take to predict where a baseball is going to go after a batter hits it. An average 10 year old in little league can catch a pop fly. Their brain is running those calculations in nano seconds. Imagine someone who couldn’t do those calculations playing baseball. They could be the most fit human in the history of the universe, run a 3 minute mile and be able to lift 3 times their weight but they couldn’t catch or hit a ball so they’d be useless. They might be useful in other sporstball games but only in specialized roles that dot touch the ball. Would you expect them to learn the rules of the game or the proper technique to swing a bat?
Aphantasia makes it so that an artist has to work from a source image even if that image is stored in their motor memory. They practice drawing so that their hands can spit the images out without their brains ever seeing them. They are only ever making images based on things that they have drawn before or are looking at in the moment. Most artists do this to a degree they use stock data in their motor memory to make general shapes and then fill in details that make it unique.
I got an art diploma from college. I had instructors tell me to give up and change my focus from the first week. A painting Instructor once told me “you should never use a brush under 2 inches wide. If you want to be a painter the closest you will get is being a house painter.” I stuck with it because I’m stubborn and changing my courses at that point would cost me a whole semester. I only passed most courses because showing up and doing the assignments was half the grade. Most of the reason for this was probably my dysgraphia but the system gatekeeps against all sorts neuro divergent and other conditions. (it also fetishizes others which is fucked in other ways) That prejudice keeps many people from ever trying to become artists.
Just because there are a few examples of aphantasia artists doesn’t mean that it isn’t a major hinderance. The level of ablist prejudice in art is probably as bad or worse than Politics is prejudiced against people based on race. Just because a black man was elected president doesn’t mean that the system isn’t built for old white men. If there were a tool to make a person’s race not effect their chances in politics would banning it not be a racist act? Language to Image Models can make it so I can have a picture of a thing I lack the ability to see in my minds eye and the capacity to make with my hands. Is depriving me of the same rights to such image that another artist has over their images made using different tools not ableism?
“Just try harder” is puritanical nonsense. Tools were invented so that we don’t have to work as hard. All technology right down to use of fire have been used in the pursuit of doing less work. We cook food so that we can expend less energy digesting. Most tech has been used or even completely developed for sole purpose of exploitation and violence. When so many tools make more human suffering the tools that make creation of a product accessible to people who otherwise would be incapable are something to be celebrated. Every tool regardless of what went into its creation has the end goal to make more work happen with less effort. AI images are no different. The technology that puts satellites into orbit was pioneered by Nazis who used slave labor from concentration camps. Do we condemn all satellite tech? The morality of a tools creator shouldn’t be passed onto a tool just as the crimes of parents should not taint their children. Tools are inanimate and thus blameless anything that comes from the use of a tool is solely the production of the person using the tool and all morality questions are solved on their intentions and the outcome. A thousand children killed by a bomb is no more or less morally despicable than a thousand killed by a knife.
Feeling jaded because technology has made your hard fought skills obsolete is the “sunk costs” fallacy crossed with jealousy. It is emotional, illogical and reactionary. The Arguments of “plagiarism” or “stolen labor” are founded in liberalism’s core tenet “protection of personal property.” Communism is not about everyone getting their fair share of the profits of their labor. If no one is entitled to the excess value of labor by owning the means of production workers will get a larger share of the profits of labor but it is a consequence not the goal. Communism is about ending private property so that any excess profits of labor are redirected to everyone including those who cannot produce as much as they require to live instead of the excess profits going to people who do nothing but own things.
Comrade, I understand and agree with most of what you’re saying, but
Feeling jaded because technology has made your hard fought skills obsolete is the “sunk costs” fallacy crossed with jealousy. It is emotional, illogical and reactionary.
You completely lost me here. We are (and I say we because I do not like the prospect of automating artistic endeavors) not even remotely concerned about it making manual art obsolete. Manual art has numerous upsides, not the least of which is the sheer degree of control the user has over what they’re portraying, and as a result the ability to inspect quite literally every line of detail and consider if it fits what one is trying to portray. This level of control, this ability to portray, is not necessarily something AI art is incapable of, but AI art as a tool is fundamentally designed to do the exact opposite. It is like music sampling; The artistic portrayal doesn’t come from the general societal conceptions that are regurgitated by the tool, but by the ways that an artist uses or modifies it. “Modifying” in this case would include modifying the model itself or it’s variables, in my opinion, but not changing prompts (merely changing what words the AI reproduces societal attitudes of does not change that it is just reproducing societal attitudes, unless one goes so deep into detailing visual differences that I doubt the AI actually responds to it properly).
When we naively accept that these “naive regurgitations” are art in and of themselves, and even worse, normalize them as equal to manual art or an actually artistic use of AI art thereof, we trivialize actual human interpretation of the world around us. And this is the path we are currently racing towards at a terrifying speed.
I do not want us to “RETVRN” to manual art, I do not think AI art is “inferior” arbitrarily merely because I am scared of new things, but fundamentally I am opposed to the automation of a good that has to be produced manually (meaning not automatically, some uses of AI art could fall under that definition of manual here IMO, so I am using the term manual differently here than the rest of my comment) to fulfill a basic human need (that being the artistic reinterpretation of the world around us). Yes, this is fundamentally an issue that only exists under capitalism, but as we do not have a socialist revolution happening anytime soon, it’s worth talking about other solutions for the right now.
I do not agree with the hostile tone of the other poster.
You know what is a completely irredeemable piece of technology? AI text generation. I don’t care if it makes me reactionary, until we find a practical way to actually help disabled people or something using it AI text generation can only exist as a shit substitute to human interaction and is shit in general. Fucking glorified exam cheating tool, we should only allow exam cheaters to use it. Fuck that shit
Gaslight me more crybully. Tell me how my neurodiversity is both
not disabled enough for you
I’m pessimistic about the realistic viability of painting if you’re, like, born blind, but Christ, dude, come on.
but how parts of it might be “conceptualy interesting” but not to actually discuss with someone with lived experience.
Obviously this is one of those “disagreeing with me is gaslightinging” things, but I don’t get where the “crybully” thing came from. I’m not a victim of shit, I think your dismissiveness is unfortunate, but I’m not crying over it.
That said, I should have been more careful in my wording, because I was meaning to contrast “painting while blind” with “bodies having widths while you can’t mentally picture them”. I will repeat that you seem to not understand how NT people draw, which is unfortunate for how it makes the question of how you can succeed in drawing much harder to conceptualize.
Remember that one time I said I liked your post despite not liking you?
This is why I don’t like you.
This sort of patronizing tone is gaslighting. You have already made it abundantly clear you care nothing for me as an individual. So why would you say things like “unfortunate” like you pity me? Its blatantly facetious and meant to deceive me into thinking you aren’t being an asshole.
Your original comment was trying to blame a marginalized person for being offended by your ableism that’s being a cry bully.
You don’t understand the framing, which is that for a certain cause or goal, an impeding or confounding factor is “unfortunate” for the goal, the goal here being something like “determining how you could hypothetically succeed in drawing”. I don’t especially care about you, but this doesn’t hinge on me being personally invested in you, I’m just speaking in terms of stipulated aims.
Personally, you might forget this but I’m a communist and so I generally do want to see people succeed, and I do think that your lack of understanding about NT art is harming you and that that’s a bad thing, but obviously I know I’m not going to get anywhere with you trying to talk on that level, so I don’t bother.
“Crybully” does not mean “thinks your line of taking offense is bullshit,” there is necessarily some element of reversing the direction of victimization. I do not claim that you are victimizing me or attempting to on any level.
All of this is obviously a deflection from the fact that you are simply wrong in the assertion that someone who can’t produce mental images can only draw stick figures. If you actually care about this subject, I strongly encourage you to learn how to sketch scaffolding just like other art students do to get proportions correct. If you can use a compass and a ruler to draw a pentagram (and a protractor if you really like), you can do that. I’ve linked many testimonies from people with aphantasia that are the basis for much stronger claims, but I’m not interested in making those, I’m basically just arguing this because I find it frustrating when people assert conclusions that don’t follow from the premises they lay out, and fundamentally nothing that you have said prevents you from sketching scaffolding for drawings.
More patronizing and talking down.
Its hard to remember you are supposedly a comrade when you keep talking down to me like I am stupid because I am Neurodivergent and keep downplaying my lived experiences. If someone says something you have said is racist, you stop, apologize, and ask for clarification if you need it. You do not defend what you said because there is a good chance you are defending racism. If someone says you are being homo/queer/transphobic the same rules apply. Why do you refuse to do self crit on ableism? Maybe I forget that you are supposedly a communist because you are doing your damnedest to prove you are the 11th type of liberal.
Can someone disagree without patronizing and talking?
No, if I am talking down to you it’s because you aren’t actually engaging with simple points and continuously make faulty inferences.
Instead of doing the Umberto Eco Checklist But Socialist Now, can I interest you in opposing book worship? Can you or can you not draw a pentagram with the materials I mentioned before? If you are going to bandy Mao about, then you should oppose dogmatism in your comrades like you are using here as a crutch. Clearly, simply saying “I say so” is inadequate when the arguments as-presented don’t follow, so perhaps explain more thoroughly.
I don’t want to play the ND card, but you presume wildly incorrectly about my condition, though I certainly do lack your conditions.
I’m not going to do drawing exercises. I did that shit in college. It is my dysgraphia that stops my being able to draw with any proficiency. Theory only gives me knowledge that I cant use. My system lacks the firmware to take theoretical knowledge and turn it into a physical skill. I can’t generate motor shortcut commands in my hands so every movement has to be recalculated consciously. I either take a really long time to draw each movement carefully or I do it quickly with a significant margin of error. Practicing won’t make me any better at drawing. I can copy line work pretty well but that may as well just be tracing and so it really doesnt factor into a discussion about AI image generation because the AI’s main value is being able to generate new images.
My aphantasia stops me from making images to use to create new original artworks. “Stick people” was an exaggeration but it really isn’t far off. “Understanding the geometry” is dozens of math equations for anything more complex than Charlie Brown. When you visualize something your brain is doing trigonometry and perspective calculations that are not just “simple geometry.” on top of that its doing lighting and shading and coloring and I don’t even know what type of math that involves. People who can rotate a 3d image in their minds eye are doing calculations that are as complex as the ones that it took to put people on the moon and their brain is doing it in fractions of a second.
Think about the amount of physics math it would take to predict where a baseball is going to go after a batter hits it. An average 10 year old in little league can catch a pop fly. Their brain is running those calculations in nano seconds. Imagine someone who couldn’t do those calculations playing baseball. They could be the most fit human in the history of the universe, run a 3 minute mile and be able to lift 3 times their weight but they couldn’t catch or hit a ball so they’d be useless. They might be useful in other sporstball games but only in specialized roles that dot touch the ball. Would you expect them to learn the rules of the game or the proper technique to swing a bat?
Aphantasia makes it so that an artist has to work from a source image even if that image is stored in their motor memory. They practice drawing so that their hands can spit the images out without their brains ever seeing them. They are only ever making images based on things that they have drawn before or are looking at in the moment. Most artists do this to a degree they use stock data in their motor memory to make general shapes and then fill in details that make it unique.
I got an art diploma from college. I had instructors tell me to give up and change my focus from the first week. A painting Instructor once told me “you should never use a brush under 2 inches wide. If you want to be a painter the closest you will get is being a house painter.” I stuck with it because I’m stubborn and changing my courses at that point would cost me a whole semester. I only passed most courses because showing up and doing the assignments was half the grade. Most of the reason for this was probably my dysgraphia but the system gatekeeps against all sorts neuro divergent and other conditions. (it also fetishizes others which is fucked in other ways) That prejudice keeps many people from ever trying to become artists.
Just because there are a few examples of aphantasia artists doesn’t mean that it isn’t a major hinderance. The level of ablist prejudice in art is probably as bad or worse than Politics is prejudiced against people based on race. Just because a black man was elected president doesn’t mean that the system isn’t built for old white men. If there were a tool to make a person’s race not effect their chances in politics would banning it not be a racist act? Language to Image Models can make it so I can have a picture of a thing I lack the ability to see in my minds eye and the capacity to make with my hands. Is depriving me of the same rights to such image that another artist has over their images made using different tools not ableism?
“Just try harder” is puritanical nonsense. Tools were invented so that we don’t have to work as hard. All technology right down to use of fire have been used in the pursuit of doing less work. We cook food so that we can expend less energy digesting. Most tech has been used or even completely developed for sole purpose of exploitation and violence. When so many tools make more human suffering the tools that make creation of a product accessible to people who otherwise would be incapable are something to be celebrated. Every tool regardless of what went into its creation has the end goal to make more work happen with less effort. AI images are no different. The technology that puts satellites into orbit was pioneered by Nazis who used slave labor from concentration camps. Do we condemn all satellite tech? The morality of a tools creator shouldn’t be passed onto a tool just as the crimes of parents should not taint their children. Tools are inanimate and thus blameless anything that comes from the use of a tool is solely the production of the person using the tool and all morality questions are solved on their intentions and the outcome. A thousand children killed by a bomb is no more or less morally despicable than a thousand killed by a knife.
Feeling jaded because technology has made your hard fought skills obsolete is the “sunk costs” fallacy crossed with jealousy. It is emotional, illogical and reactionary. The Arguments of “plagiarism” or “stolen labor” are founded in liberalism’s core tenet “protection of personal property.” Communism is not about everyone getting their fair share of the profits of their labor. If no one is entitled to the excess value of labor by owning the means of production workers will get a larger share of the profits of labor but it is a consequence not the goal. Communism is about ending private property so that any excess profits of labor are redirected to everyone including those who cannot produce as much as they require to live instead of the excess profits going to people who do nothing but own things.
Communism is about ending private property.
Thanks. fixed it.
Comrade, I understand and agree with most of what you’re saying, but
You completely lost me here. We are (and I say we because I do not like the prospect of automating artistic endeavors) not even remotely concerned about it making manual art obsolete. Manual art has numerous upsides, not the least of which is the sheer degree of control the user has over what they’re portraying, and as a result the ability to inspect quite literally every line of detail and consider if it fits what one is trying to portray. This level of control, this ability to portray, is not necessarily something AI art is incapable of, but AI art as a tool is fundamentally designed to do the exact opposite. It is like music sampling; The artistic portrayal doesn’t come from the general societal conceptions that are regurgitated by the tool, but by the ways that an artist uses or modifies it. “Modifying” in this case would include modifying the model itself or it’s variables, in my opinion, but not changing prompts (merely changing what words the AI reproduces societal attitudes of does not change that it is just reproducing societal attitudes, unless one goes so deep into detailing visual differences that I doubt the AI actually responds to it properly).
When we naively accept that these “naive regurgitations” are art in and of themselves, and even worse, normalize them as equal to manual art or an actually artistic use of AI art thereof, we trivialize actual human interpretation of the world around us. And this is the path we are currently racing towards at a terrifying speed.
I do not want us to “RETVRN” to manual art, I do not think AI art is “inferior” arbitrarily merely because I am scared of new things, but fundamentally I am opposed to the automation of a good that has to be produced manually (meaning not automatically, some uses of AI art could fall under that definition of manual here IMO, so I am using the term manual differently here than the rest of my comment) to fulfill a basic human need (that being the artistic reinterpretation of the world around us). Yes, this is fundamentally an issue that only exists under capitalism, but as we do not have a socialist revolution happening anytime soon, it’s worth talking about other solutions for the right now.
I do not agree with the hostile tone of the other poster.
You know what is a completely irredeemable piece of technology? AI text generation. I don’t care if it makes me reactionary, until we find a practical way to actually help disabled people or something using it AI text generation can only exist as a shit substitute to human interaction and is shit in general. Fucking glorified exam cheating tool, we should only allow exam cheaters to use it. Fuck that shit