Space Sidhe

https://youtube.com/shorts/vOA3OZZufSQ

Here's the link!!!

These 2 are professional ballet dancer Victoria Dauberville(https://youtube.com/@victoriadauberville) and hip hop dancer Salif Gueye(https://youtube.com/@salifmjj93800)

Actually the portrait of Charles is red to represent enthusiasm, energy, determination, passion, strength, leadership, and love. It doesn't matter that it looks like he's walking through fountains of blood spilled by the British empire! Some of you people need to learn color theory

i was WAITING for this post

I will be honest guys, the Red portrait of king Charles is gorgeous asdfghjkl

it's a bad portrait. Like. Objectively. It does the opposite of what's intended. It looks like the painter is insulting him. If it was in a contemporary gallery with no context you would see it immediately as the ambivalent criticism of Charles's reign, how he fades into the overwhelming red background as a tiny little figure, small and insignificant, insufficient for the clothes he's wearing. It reminds my of Goya's portraits, how they were so 'realistic' that they ended up making these great figures look pathetic to the viewer. So these are our rulers?

the sheer novelty. the surprise and shock, the kinda cunt it's serving for no reason. I. I love it. It's an incredible portrait by Jonathan Yeo. By the sheer fact that Charles, the man, is impossible to portray as greater than man because he's just such a nothingburger of a dude. So a portrait made to make him look huge and interesting made him be swallowed in red brushstrokes. The butterfly, that reminded me immediately of " we will all laugh at guilded butterflies", draws more attention than him. It looks like an omen. It looks like a warning in all this red. Something is not right here.

This is the best royal portrait ever 10/10

This is a painting of a monarch whose individual personality and even bodily presence are a mere footnote within the legacy of bloodshed that built the throne he occupies. This is the only way it's possible to depict him. It's a photograph of his soul

Stray cats 🐈

The one that never goes away..

i feel quite bad for people who are convinced nightshade and glaze are going to fix the balance of power in the art world because it really won't. they're quite useless and extremely easily circumvented, but trying to tell anyone this results in you getting shouted down. buddy i wish it worked too!

sure, here's 5 reasons.

#1 - they're designed for very specific models of ai. by the time they could even hypothetically poison enough of the world's images to affect ais in any meaningful sense the architecture will have changed. it's not fast enough

#2 - it only prevents people training things like LORAs or fine-tuning on a specific artist's output and does nothing to affect image-to-image (the only thing that could realistically be qualified as plagiarism in any sense) or image prompting (i've tried this one myself to win an argument on twitter but they told me to kill myself).

#3 - image ais are no longer trained by vacuuming up as many images as possible and training on the resultant sludge - that's 2021-tier. two years in ai research is a LOT of time and by the time enough data gets poisoned to hypothetically matter it'll be years down the road. the emphasis in ai research nowadays is increasing the quality of the caption data as well as developing models that function more efficiently off fewer images, which is not something that many anti-ai people don't know because they keep a concerted effort to not stay up to date.

#4 - the image ais like stable diffusion are already trained. as that one post about vegan chicken nuggets said, the chicken is already in the nugget. you can't un-train the ai and then force the poisoned data back in. if you poison enough data for it to matter ai art people will just go back to earlier models (or wait until the architecture changes enough for it to not matter, see point #1). anyone selling you 'algorithmic disgorgement' has no idea what they're talking about and fundamentally doesn't understand the FOSS ecosystem.

#5 - the most damning is that nightshade and glaze can both be trivially defeated by applying a 1% gaussian blur to your image, which destroys the perturbations required to poison the data.

thanks for asking

side note:

i, personally, think nightshade poisoned pictures look cool and are more aesthetically pleasing to me than midjourney or novelai slop.

An additional point my colleague-in-ai and overall lovely human Max Woolf raised (he helped me make drilbot! Say hi);

Okay that’s all! Cheers

Even if you don't like generative models, this blog post is an amazing read. It also explains why Glaze and Nightshade aren't going to work on "local" models. People aren't training generative image models on their own personal computer. They're using Stable Diffusion and "fine tuning" it with LoRA (the math/stats people always make fun of CS people's sexy names, but I like this one). The UChicago people replied to a Twitter thread confirming that they didn't/don't expect Nightshade to work for LoRAs (someone put a screenshot somewhere else in the notes, and I didn't think to grab it. Maybe it was OP?).

If you know an image has had both or either applied, you can basically tell the model that the image is wrong and improve the model using the borked pictures. I think it is really cool that Max Woolf figured out how to do this in this particular case, but I think it should be made clear to non-ML people that augmenting/perturbing data is like... a foundational strategy to improving a model. Sometimes the augmentations are as simple as up-sampling classes that are underrepresented, but the popular ML libraries actually include functions to bork images to train image classifiers on (not in the same way as Glaze or Nightshade, but still).

while im busy upsetting 90% of tumblr i also regret to inform you that the glaze/nightshade developers have a noted history of code plagiarism to develop glaze. it's not relevant to the wider point of glaze/nightshade being useful but i think it's indicative of the snake oil on sale. this came up because people kept asking me to source what i meant when i said glaze & nightshade used stable diffusion (DiffusionBee is a GPL-licensed stable diffusion interface).

Comics have always been political

the wedding

Art by Jo Rioux

The Collectibles: Best of 2023

Eva Kosmos, Away from the Flock

In Plagiarism and You(Tube), Hbomb says "If you consider something so obscure you can get away with stealing it, you do not respect it." Save that line for the next time someone tries to tell you that Roy Lichtenstein brought respect to comics as art.

It's since been pointed out that while Lichtenstein did copy one of Russ Heath's drawings of an airplane getting hit, the painting depicted above was actually copied off Irv Norvick, because Lichtenstein did this so many times to so many comic artists.

In Lichtenstein's defense, he was doing this in a time when comic artists frequently weren't even credited in the issues themselves. In his condemnation, he never even tried to check, nor has he made any move to pay or credit any of the comic artists who recognized their own work later on. Rather than elevating the "low art" of comics, he was widening the gap of financial success and respect even further.

The Hbomberguy of this story is art historian David Barsalou, who has now spent decades tracking down the original art and the names of the original artists used in Lichtenstein's most famous output. Here's the full flickr gallery for the Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein project. Frequently copied were Tony Abruzzo, Ted Galindo, Mike Sekowsky, Joe Kubert, Jerry Grandenetti, and dozens more Golden Age artists who aren't very well known in comics circles, let alone art history books. Many of them died in poverty. That's something that the Hero Initiative, mentioned in Russ Heath's comic above, aims to prevent.

Also, Lichtenstein didn't even paint Ben-Day dots. That's a specific thing.

Another throughline here: Plagarized work is lazy work, and lazy work shows through in the final product.

In a massive stroke of irony, the commercial artists he copied from display much higher classical technical skill than his enormous-scale paintings. There's a delicacy to the brushstrokes, a level of expressiveness, and a clear understanding of form and shadow in those tiny newsprint originals.

The changes Lichtenstein made often omitted or simplified backgrounds and text, used garish primary colors, and—later in his work—undressed the women in the panels. Central to his "iconoclasm" was depicting comic art as even more simplistic and culturally shallow than it already was.

Copyright law offers no help to the original creatives, freelancers on exploitative short-term contracts. Russ Heath explains, “I couldn’t do anything because all the characters that I did draw for comic books were, at that time, owned by the comic book company. So, if they want to sue, they could sue and have a legitimate reason to sue. But they wouldn’t make enough to bother having a suit.” Most of the writers ripped off by Somerton, too, were on contracts which meant they do not have the rights to their own work.

Art historians are correct that Roy Lichtenstein's work raises interesting questions about mass reproduction, parody, and the border between "commercial" and "high" art. The answers to those questions, however, are not flattering to the art world at all.

In this less than two minute TV segment, Dave Gibbons details everything loathsome about Lichtenstein's work in very polite terms.

God I hate these fucking floating monoliths. They always go, like, 10mph below the speed limit and if you try to pass them they just fucking distort reality around them until you're back behind them again. One of them cut me off on the highway once and when I honked it banished me to a hoary netherworld where I wandered, lost and alone, for untold centuries, trapped in the liminal space between what could have been and what never was, black stars dotting the bright infinity yawning out around me as I drove out of thought and time, through endless ruined cities and blighted lands unmarked by the sun's cold rays, and when I finally got out I was more than 20m late for my dentist appointment and they had to reschedule me.

also speaking of jakub różalski this painting of his is my FAVOURITE like yes girl snitch on the knight!!! get his ass!!!

the one of a girl looking longingly at a naked witch flying by and the one of a babushka yelling at a devil also rule tho

Iconic, what a mood.

do you ever just

happy 10 year anniversary to this game changer thank u @joscribbles for your services

can’t believe it’s been 10 years since i learned to always put my name on my art, even if it’s just a shitpost, bc u never know what’s going to blow up

anyway here’s a signed version if you wanna use it to shut up people who are trying to tell you their Opinions

World Heritage Post

Dr. Gachey with foxglove, 1890

Some of Van Gogh’s best work was done during a period of his life that he spent in a hospital being treated for his mental health problems. I could be wrong but I think Starry Night was among those.

This is consistently the case. Creators tend to do their best work when they are in a healthy place and receiving proper treatment and not being self destructive in their efforts to cope. Go figure.

All our experiences, good and bad, inform what we create, but suffering is not the price of great art. Suffering is what prevents artists from completing great art.

Just a bunch of cats 🎈

Trees for last month’s patreon drawing challenge, which was on drawing trees ✨