I think if you use a pen the dynamic controls work better, and brushes are less of a pain to set up. I prefer to draw in krita and then fuck around in gimp.

I can only upvote you once. But imagine I held down on the screen for a reaaally long time when I did it.

Critics disliked Van gogh in his time too. And he used all the traditional kit.

Art had a sort of schism once photography took off. Pro-ai art seems to get stuck on one side of it. Traditional art had a long, long run of ‘good art’ being well composed and skillful reproductions of realism: people, places, events—with a few visual metaphors for spice.

But then came photography. And all those people using art to look back in time had options, cheaper and accessible options. The demand for the skill to make precise replicas nearly collapsed.

What has sustained was not the technical method of making art, but the expressiveness of the artist. The spice becomes the meal. Things become more referential, abstract. It envokes states of mind often contextual to the times and circumstances the art was produced, and drawing on concepts outside of the image itself. It’s not just about making pretty pictures from paint, charcoal, or photoshop.

Once you have the dadaists, Duchamps and Pollocks running around, arguments about ‘correct’ techniques to make art are always going to be shortlived. It’s not the advancement of technology that people question. Longish ago most of us collectively decided method didn’t really matter, intention did.

If you scrolled through your camera roll would you consider it art? Can you use ai to quickly copy a technique? Yes. Can it be applied critically to success? Maybe. But if you outsource the practical skill and contextual knowledge that makes good, deliberate art, what are the odds that happens?