TST | ART
23.04.202515:44
Happy St George’s day to all my countryfolk 🏴
Some gothic scribbles from this afternoon.
Some gothic scribbles from this afternoon.
10.04.202512:18
Studies after the great Frazetta. A5 sketchbook - 1.5 hours per page. Oak gall ink with sable brush. Pages 17 & 18 of 90.
28.03.202517:59
Started a new sketchbook for observational drawing practice. Limiting myself to around 1 hour per page to keep things intuitive and energetic in contrast with my more considered and slow decorative work. These are Pages 7 and 8 of an eventual 90.
post.deleted08.04.202509:48
post.reposted:
The Fyrgen • ᚫᛚᚢ:ᚢᛚᚫ
25.03.202515:41
I'm curious about Pagans who talk about 'winning'. I suspect they would elaborate by saying that they want Paganism to become the dominant religion. Dominant where? Nationally? Among their ethnic kin exclusively? Globally?
And which Paganism, exactly, should 'win'? Germanic? Celtic? Hellenistic? Should Icelandic Heathenry 'win', or should Anglo-Saxon? Mercian or Bernician?
It seems to me that to talk of Paganism 'winning' is to treat it like a political movement rather than an indigenous way of life. The aforementioned are merely questions; my real point is this...
Any 'winning' that comes by the indiscriminate use of technology is of the material kind. For a political movement, that might be okay. But for a religion/indigenous spirituality, equal (if not greater) consideration must be given to the spiritual, philosophical and cultural impact of technologies. Is it any wonder that critics accuse Folkish Paganism of being foremostly political when many Folkish Pagans act more like a political movement by prioritising material victory?
According to official history, in 2600-1500 BC, whilst the people of the Indus Valley were writing scriptures, the proto-Germanic people hadn't even discovered the runes. We were essentially illiterate until Christianity brought to us the technology of writing. Is that because we were so inferior, or did our ancestors choose not to adopt this technology?
Technological adoption can be beneficial, when the material benefits are weighed against the spiritual, cultural and physiological dangers. AI's proponents seem concerned solely with the material impact. That's not surprising in this godless modern age. But it is surprising when self-proclaimed religious people likewise pay no heed to the spiritual, cultural and physiological dangers.
So now you can produce visual propaganda in the blink of an eye. Meanwhile the hand withers, the mind atrophies, imagination fades, the exchange of energies (gift for a gift) principle is overlooked, the very purpose for which the gods gave us this life (to share in the act of creation, to nurture beauty, to forge powerful bonds of kinship, to exercise mind and body) is shunned. Worse still - those who adopt AI technology may be empowering Loki and the þursar (more on that in a future post).
And which Paganism, exactly, should 'win'? Germanic? Celtic? Hellenistic? Should Icelandic Heathenry 'win', or should Anglo-Saxon? Mercian or Bernician?
It seems to me that to talk of Paganism 'winning' is to treat it like a political movement rather than an indigenous way of life. The aforementioned are merely questions; my real point is this...
Any 'winning' that comes by the indiscriminate use of technology is of the material kind. For a political movement, that might be okay. But for a religion/indigenous spirituality, equal (if not greater) consideration must be given to the spiritual, philosophical and cultural impact of technologies. Is it any wonder that critics accuse Folkish Paganism of being foremostly political when many Folkish Pagans act more like a political movement by prioritising material victory?
According to official history, in 2600-1500 BC, whilst the people of the Indus Valley were writing scriptures, the proto-Germanic people hadn't even discovered the runes. We were essentially illiterate until Christianity brought to us the technology of writing. Is that because we were so inferior, or did our ancestors choose not to adopt this technology?
Technological adoption can be beneficial, when the material benefits are weighed against the spiritual, cultural and physiological dangers. AI's proponents seem concerned solely with the material impact. That's not surprising in this godless modern age. But it is surprising when self-proclaimed religious people likewise pay no heed to the spiritual, cultural and physiological dangers.
So now you can produce visual propaganda in the blink of an eye. Meanwhile the hand withers, the mind atrophies, imagination fades, the exchange of energies (gift for a gift) principle is overlooked, the very purpose for which the gods gave us this life (to share in the act of creation, to nurture beauty, to forge powerful bonds of kinship, to exercise mind and body) is shunned. Worse still - those who adopt AI technology may be empowering Loki and the þursar (more on that in a future post).
post.reposted:
Morbid Souls
03.03.202507:57
The "Thinking Tree," An Ancient Olive Tree In Puglia, Italy
24.02.202514:19
Only just realised that I can scan bigger paintings in sections and stitch them together on photoshop...genius. Anyway, here's a properly scanned version of my watercolour study of Hercules and the Hydra after Franz von Stuck painted last year.
23.04.202505:26
Sometimes we do a little statue respecting.
28.03.202511:41
Through the Sands, commission piece
22.03.202518:12
Ink & Watercolour, A5
27.02.202513:22
Just to briefly elaborate before I pipe down for the foreseeable future; it’s not so much the use of AI that I am objecting too here, although it doesn’t personally appeal to me. I’m not naive, I know this technology is here to stay and will proliferate, no matter what I think about it. People are free to do as they wish. Those who use AI and are honest about it, that’s up to them. And being honest myself, I have experimented with AI out of curiosity in the past.
What is insidious here is the element of deliberate deception that is involved in creating, by all appearances, a fake online persona as a painter and churning out AI generations to sell as prints, which your audience have been duped into believing are solely the product of your own skill and talent. That is the next level of machiavellian and malignant peddling which will become all the more common in the near future. In short, be careful who and what you trust, in this age of ever growing nefarious online illusion.
What is insidious here is the element of deliberate deception that is involved in creating, by all appearances, a fake online persona as a painter and churning out AI generations to sell as prints, which your audience have been duped into believing are solely the product of your own skill and talent. That is the next level of machiavellian and malignant peddling which will become all the more common in the near future. In short, be careful who and what you trust, in this age of ever growing nefarious online illusion.
06.02.202518:07
post.reposted:
Dark & Fascinating Art (Vin's Favourite Artwork Archive)
31.03.202519:36
Moonlit Lake by Ivan Fedorovich Choultsé, 1923
26.03.202515:57
post.deleted08.04.202509:48
post.reposted:
Survive the Jive: All-feed
15.03.202514:46
Wotan by Rudolf Maison (1900)
post.reposted:The Fyrgen • ᚫᛚᚢ:ᚢᛚᚫ
27.02.202512:16
^ An important lesson. I shared the image. I liked it. As I keep saying - this is what makes generative AI so dangerous. It's not that it's laughably bad; it's that it can be shockingly impressive. You cannot trust anything you see, read or hear online anymore.
29.01.202517:53
Portrait study after Michelangelo, red bole and ink on paper
12.04.202517:53
Page of Gothic script from last year, me first attempt.
post.deleted08.04.202509:48
26.03.202512:06
The abstract Greek noun techne, in it's Latin equivalent ars, means, in one sense, a way of being. From the Latin ars we derive our word art. The Indo-European root of art means to fit together. Techne means a visible skill in craftsmanship. Art itself is not a product, it is the process by which things can be created. It is human skill in making and doing things - an activity and an exteriorisation of knowledge.
The tool is an extension of the artists will, which they control and direct with their mind and body. An artist is responsible for quality of what they make when they use tools, for good or for bad. Machines on the other hand take over the creative process and do the making instead of people - an individual only turns on the machine or operates it as a subordinate sentient part. They can also later refine the machine’s work but there is less art in doing so. In the case of AI generation at least, a prompt is entered by an individual. Although they have tailored the prompt with specific queues themselves, after they hit the enter button, they relinquish all responsibility for the quality of the outcome and cannot be praised or credited for the result for obvious reasons. No sane person tells someone who uses AI that they are talented, skilful or hard working.
That's why I believe that there is no such thing as AI 'art'. There are only AI generated images. The actual art, the craftsmanship and the human skill which would usually be present in the process has been entirely removed from the equation. There is only a digital commodity which has been instantly created by an algorithm on computer software. If we did happen to look into this process I assume that we would only see lines of code or numbers on a screen. There is no craftsmanship to speak of here. No matter how high resolution, startlingly aesthetic or magnificent these generations may appear, they are still not works of art nor will they ever become artefacts in the future.
There are many nuanced and different ways to use this technology which constitute a kind of sliding scale of responsibility and skill which could be elaborated on in the future.
However in terms of culture as I understand it, it is human activity which positively cultivates the soul. This means that replacing human activity with machines which usurp the creative process is detrimental to real culture and people's artistic and spiritual development. There is such a thing as experiencing the joys of creation and something to be said for pursuing mastery in a given field, which entails a life of struggle and dedication even if one entirely falls short. For myself as an illustrator, it's never been about power or survival – painting pictures never saved a society. I think it's more about embodying a spirit of creativity and attempting to live a meaningful and fulfilling life by having a vocation and connecting to one's own artistic traditions. If nothing else, it's a good way to pass the time. Getting machines to do the work for me would essentially defeat the purpose.
The tool is an extension of the artists will, which they control and direct with their mind and body. An artist is responsible for quality of what they make when they use tools, for good or for bad. Machines on the other hand take over the creative process and do the making instead of people - an individual only turns on the machine or operates it as a subordinate sentient part. They can also later refine the machine’s work but there is less art in doing so. In the case of AI generation at least, a prompt is entered by an individual. Although they have tailored the prompt with specific queues themselves, after they hit the enter button, they relinquish all responsibility for the quality of the outcome and cannot be praised or credited for the result for obvious reasons. No sane person tells someone who uses AI that they are talented, skilful or hard working.
That's why I believe that there is no such thing as AI 'art'. There are only AI generated images. The actual art, the craftsmanship and the human skill which would usually be present in the process has been entirely removed from the equation. There is only a digital commodity which has been instantly created by an algorithm on computer software. If we did happen to look into this process I assume that we would only see lines of code or numbers on a screen. There is no craftsmanship to speak of here. No matter how high resolution, startlingly aesthetic or magnificent these generations may appear, they are still not works of art nor will they ever become artefacts in the future.
There are many nuanced and different ways to use this technology which constitute a kind of sliding scale of responsibility and skill which could be elaborated on in the future.
However in terms of culture as I understand it, it is human activity which positively cultivates the soul. This means that replacing human activity with machines which usurp the creative process is detrimental to real culture and people's artistic and spiritual development. There is such a thing as experiencing the joys of creation and something to be said for pursuing mastery in a given field, which entails a life of struggle and dedication even if one entirely falls short. For myself as an illustrator, it's never been about power or survival – painting pictures never saved a society. I think it's more about embodying a spirit of creativity and attempting to live a meaningful and fulfilling life by having a vocation and connecting to one's own artistic traditions. If nothing else, it's a good way to pass the time. Getting machines to do the work for me would essentially defeat the purpose.
07.03.202515:00
Griffin, segreant, German version.
27.02.202511:21
I've seen this image shared around on Telegram a bit today. This is an AI generated image. A bloke with the name of 'Jef Bourgeau' might have uploaded it to his Instagram account, but he certainly did not paint it.
I don't blame people for being fooled, there's no denying the image has an aesthetic quality, but I've got to call a spade a spade.
From his Instagram it reads 'Jef Bourgeau's art is a fascinating blend of traditional and digital media. He uses computer technology to reimagine and reinterpret modern art, often incorporating elements of collage, scanning, and digital manipulation. His work is characterized by a playful and experimental approach, often combining disparate elements to create new and intriguing pieces.' - This even sounds like it was generated by AI too. Total fakery and deception.
Using AI is one thing, but deliberately deceiving your ever swelling audience of unsuspecting and enamoured fans on social media, whilst selling prints under false pretences of artistry, is quite another matter.
I will leave it up to my well endowed subscribers to ponder about the morality and spiritual standing of one who might do this.
There's much more to said about this and perhaps I will write more in the future, but I will leave it there for now.
I don't blame people for being fooled, there's no denying the image has an aesthetic quality, but I've got to call a spade a spade.
From his Instagram it reads 'Jef Bourgeau's art is a fascinating blend of traditional and digital media. He uses computer technology to reimagine and reinterpret modern art, often incorporating elements of collage, scanning, and digital manipulation. His work is characterized by a playful and experimental approach, often combining disparate elements to create new and intriguing pieces.' - This even sounds like it was generated by AI too. Total fakery and deception.
Using AI is one thing, but deliberately deceiving your ever swelling audience of unsuspecting and enamoured fans on social media, whilst selling prints under false pretences of artistry, is quite another matter.
I will leave it up to my well endowed subscribers to ponder about the morality and spiritual standing of one who might do this.
There's much more to said about this and perhaps I will write more in the future, but I will leave it there for now.
25.01.202500:20
Through the Sands
Показано 1 - 24 из 34
Войдите, чтобы разблокировать больше функциональности.