🩻

My art is not the result of my need to create, but of my attempt to learn.

@SoulMFSS That helps a lot, thanks brother!

@Jonny337799 Some of the poses feel rather static and a bit one dimensional, your line work feels to be your style. Definitely a consistency that make things stand out with it but I certainly believe that some aspect of it can be worked on but that's more up to you. It's a strong style so far

If you have any criticism about my art, I always welcome it. I won't be offended.

@SoulMFSS Thanks, brother, I appreciate your comment. Would you give me your opinion? what do you think of my art? Do you think it's too flat? What do you think of my lines? Do they look confident or are they too irregular? Does it look with intention or it's something too Inconsistent?

@Jonny337799 Criticism comes with great error,if you desire improvement on your own skill then sometimes with the lens of distaste can discern the difference between style and mistake. If you believe that something that is done a certain way identifies you then that's style

@sylessae Because learning to draw is painful, and very few people enjoy suffering.

Genuine question: Why do people want to learn to draw if they don't enjoy the process of drawing?

@RownouArts Today is the worst day to draw.

I tend to block AI "artists" on sight, but I saw one with a P*treon and got curious, looked at it, and they earn €379 per month from it-- Thinking about the multiple real artists I follow who are financially struggling real bad at the same time, it was super depressing to see

@TNLA_ @Abandon_hopee @HunnieVT If something only counts as objective when is an absolute, then language, ethics, aesthetics, law, and meaning itself become "just subjective consensus". Art can be objective within the context of human experience. To call existence a purely subjective experience is meaningless.

You're making a massive category error by conflating mathematics and logic with language and music theory. Mathematics deals with absolute, unyielding truths (2 + 2 = 4). Language and music theory, however, are fluid, culturally relative descriptions of human behaviour—not immutable laws. They change constantly precisely because they are shared human agreements, not rules built into the physics of the universe. Furthermore, you are repeating your failed alarmist claim that if a system isn't objective, it collapses into 'meaningless personal preference.' Shared human agreements—like language, money, or etiquette—are entirely subjective social constructs, yet they hold immense meaning and structure. You still haven't found objectivity; you've just described highly organized human consensus.

These people want applause for using a printer 🤦‍♀️

@TNLA_ @Abandon_hopee @HunnieVT You are trying to justify your absurd opinion by using the wrong analogy. Hieroglyphs are art because they were accompanied by human figures and other details, that's why was valuable before it was language. In contrast, your toilet and toilet paper have no value.

By your logic, ancient hieroglyphics had zero value for centuries just because no one alive knew how to read them. Legibility to the viewer does not dictate the existence of intent by the creator. You keep blaming the 'paper' for not communicating, but the breakdown is entirely on your end. You are refusing to look past the physical material to translate the human intent, and then claiming the intent doesn't exist. That's not objectivity; it's just intellectual laziness.

@TNLA_ @HunnieVT No brother, I already explained why an AI image is still art. If it looks pretty and good enough (meets artistic standards), it has a message. It doesn't matter how or who made it.

You just completely conceded my entire point. By admitting the printer isn't an artist, you are admitting that AI is entirely incapable of imbuing a message into what it generates. You have officially abandoned your original claim that art's value comes from 'the quality of its message.' Now you're arguing that a message doesn't even need to exist, as long as a mechanical accident looks convincing enough to trick you. Replicating the surface look of art isn't the same as creating it. A counterfeit bill replicates a real one, but it holds no actual validity. You are essentially admitting that you are perfectly content with a hollow visual illusion, as long as it looks pretty.

@TNLA_ @HunnieVT The printer may not be an artist but the poem may be art, if it has enough quality. It doesn't matter whether AI has a soul or not; what matters is that it can replicate human art. That's all.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding what a 'message' is. A message isn't just a literal picture of a landscape; it is a conscious perspective, a feeling, and an intent shared between two minds. AI doesn't 'convey a message clearly'—it simulates the aesthetic look of a message. By your logic, if a printing press malfunctions and leaks ink in a pattern that looks like a beautiful poem, the machine is a poet. It isn't. You are continuously confusing an accidental visual coincidence with an act of human communication because you refuse to acknowledge that a message requires a mind to send it.

@TNLA_ @Abandon_hopee @HunnieVT The problem is that you're trying to prove that the piece of paper says something when it doesn't have any message at all. A book can be translated into other languages so that others can read it. Your paper is only legible to you, therefore it has no artistic value.

You are confusing your personal inability to perceive a message with the non-existence of the message itself. If you look at a book written in a language you don't speak, it just looks like random ink on a page. The book doesn't stop communicating; you just don't have the ability to understand it. By stating "it doesn't communicate anything" just because you can't see it, you are proving my exact point: your entire worldview is built on your narrow, subjective perspective, not an objective truth.

@TNLA_ @Abandon_hopee @HunnieVT No. Human systems can be intersubjective while still developing stable structures, constraints, and evaluative standards. Otherwise language, mathematics, logic, and music theory would collapse into meaningless personal preference too.

By pivoting to the word "intersubjective," you just completely conceded the entire debate. Intersubjectivity literally means a shared subjectivity between human minds. You spent this whole conversation demanding a rigid, objective criteria for art, only to now admit that the "structure" you worship is just a collective human agreement. A social consensus is not a law of physics. The fact that a group of humans agrees on what constitutes "harmony" doesn't make it objective; it just makes it a popular subjective preference.

@TNLA_ @HunnieVT Because the artist's intention and message can only be perceived in relation to the end result. AI simulates that result. Your intention and effort mean nothing if you are unable to convey your message clearly.

Your statement completely proves the reductive nature of your lens. By viewing a landscape created by AI and declaring it the exact same thing, you admit that you are either unaware of, or simply don't care to acknowledge, the deeper meanings, intents, and expressions a human artist is attempting to communicate.

@TNLA_ @Abandon_hopee @HunnieVT No, It's not that I'm incapable of perceiving art, It's because your piece of paper doesn't communicate anything.

You are choosing to rebrand basic literalism as "objective criteria" to avoid admitting it's just your subjective opinion. But look at what you just confessed: you admitted that your "objective criteria" can only see a flat colour on paper. By your own definition, your worldview is completely blind to concepts, intent, and meaning. You have destroyed your own original argument that art's value comes from "the quality of its message," because your criteria are physically incapable of detecting one.

@TNLA_ @Abandon_hopee @HunnieVT You're falling into a false dichotomy. Artistic principles don't need to be laws of physics to exhibit structural consistency. Intersubjective does not mean arbitrary. Chaos is only recognizable as chaos relative to an expected structure. You can't claim all to be subjective.

You're confusing the existence of a tool with an objective law of nature. Concepts like balance, rhythm, and visual hierarchy are human-invented tools, not absolute laws like gravity. If an artist deliberately rejects them to create chaos, that chaos is still art. Furthermore, saying 'if everything were subjective, harmony would mean nothing' is completely false. Love, language, and morals are entirely subjective human constructs, yet they have immense meaning. Art principles mean something precisely because humans subjectively agree to give them meaning, not because they are hardwired into the physics of the universe.

@TNLA_ @HunnieVT Even if it's created by AI, you'll still see a landscape.

You're confusing the artist's physical presence with their intellectual presence. When I look at a landscape painting, I'm not looking through a window; I am looking at a series of deliberate choices—colours, framing, and brushstrokes—made by a human mind to communicate an experience. AI doesn't make choices; you project those choices onto its result rather than those choices existing intrinsically. It calculates statistical probabilities. Valuing the conscious mind that sent a message isn't a 'need for authority'; it's just understanding how basic communication works. Without a sender, your 'final product' is just a machine-generated illusion that you are talking to.

@TNLA_ @Abandon_hopee @HunnieVT It is precisely because my criteria is objective that I only see a flat color on a piece of paper. Your all-encompassing, subjective criteria is the only one without foundation.

@Jonny337799 @Abandon_hopee @HunnieVT That's just how your subjective lens perceives it. It's less of a slight at me and more of a demonstration of a lack of creative reasoning on your part. Refusing to look past the physical material just proves you are blind to the human intent behind it.

@TNLA_ @Abandon_hopee @HunnieVT All artists responds to structural patterns such as balance, rhythm, proportion, and visual hierarchy. You can distort these principles, but you still operate in relation to them. If everything were subjective, concepts like harmony or visual coherence would meaning nothing.

It does, because beauty cannot be objective if it's fluid and constantly changing. The reason fundamentals exist is to give artists guidelines to help translate reality onto their preferred medium—guidelines which an artist can stray from or break entirely to achieve certain expressions and desired effects. What's the specific "structure of harmony" you speak of, and how is it not entirely subjective?

@TNLA_ @HunnieVT False, because art communicates without the artist being present in the message. When you see a landscape painting, you're not seeing the artist, but the landscape. AI can mimic that outcome; your need for authority is irrelevant compared to the final product.

A beautiful pattern isn't a message. A message requires a mind with an intent to communicate. If there is no creator intending to say something, there is no message—there's only a viewer projecting one onto the image. You say the message exists "regardless of who created it," so you admit that the message is just a passive, accidental property of the image. You are describing a Rorschach inkblot while trying to claim it's actual communication.

@TNLA_ @Abandon_hopee @HunnieVT No. It's just a flat color on a piece of paper.

You are constantly switching back and forth between valuing the message and valuing the physical product whenever it suits your narrative. A flat colour on a piece of paper is like a single word written on a page. The word itself is just ink on paper (the substrate), but the meaning comes from the human mind that chose it, alongside the meaning, intent, and expression the artist was attempting to communicate via that medium.