Comics Collection Blackadder Collection [2025-06-01] [Blackadder]

[DynamiteJoe]

Not saying what BA is doing is great but if anyone doesn't like AI stuff is fine, you do you, but don't say "no one wants it" or similar. If you really think that, you clearly haven't been around the Fan Art thread.

Personally, I would be okay with BA using AI to make animations if he was doing it with new sets. Which is why I think me and some others felt it was a slap in the face him using old Miriam content for that.

Oh well, at least there is still the model I made of her, hopefully I get the time to make something nice with her soon.

 

[Unklock]

But the photos you shared are not correct; it would be more appropriate to delete them.

 

[ThreeLeggedMan]

Not saying what BA is doing is great but if anyone doesn't like AI stuff is fine, you do you, but don't say "no one wants it" or similar. If you really think that, you clearly haven't been around the Fan Art thread.

Personally, I would be okay with BA using AI to make animations if he was doing it with new sets. Which is why I think me and some others felt it was a slap in the face him using old Miriam content for that.

Oh well, at least there is still the model I made of her, hopefully I get the time to make something nice with her soon.

He is literally mocking his fans. I hope to see some Miriam content from you ngl.

 

[gumpy101]

Nah. AI is a tool. A sloppy tool used by sloppy people who want to cut corners. Continue sucking AI cock if you want, but BA now pushing AI, means he's going to be "making" a lot of shit now. We've had three updates from him in November alone, and they're all about AI, and they're all shit. He usually posts once a month, or once every other month.

Not a single artist who has moved to AI has made anything good. There's no skill, there's no expertise, there's no talent, so what exactly are you paying for when it comes to supporting them or custom commissions? They click a button then wait a few minutes, if it doesn't make it right, click again, wait a few more minutes.

It's cheap, it's corner cutting and it's a joke to support "artists" who rely on it.

Instead of stepping up and learning something new, like animating for example and actually improve his art, BA took a step back and is now shouting about how it's actually a good thing.

 

[Erg-Samowzbudzik]

Not a single artist who has moved to AI has made anything good.

One of the most famous examples is totally Jason M. Allen, who, like, in 2022 won first prize in the digital art category at the Colorado State Fair in the US for his painting called "Théâtre D'opéra Spatial" (Space Opera Theatre). The painting was generated using the AI program Midjourney and then, you know, touched up by Allen. This caused a huge debate about what art even is and who the real artist is, which, honestly, totally makes the piece "significant" when you think about AI development in the art world.

 

[Erg-Samowzbudzik]

Not a single artist who has moved to AI has made anything good.

Another super noteworthy example is this art collective from Paris, Obvious.
So, like, back in 2018, their piece, "Portrait of Edmond Belamy," which was made using a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) algorithm, sold at a Christie's auction for a whopping $432,500!
That was, like, one of the first AI-created paintings to get such a high price at a major auction, which, obviously, totally marked a breakthrough in how people saw machine-generated creativity. The Obvious collective argued that they were the real artists, because they were the ones who had the vision and chose the algorithm and, you know, the input data.

 

[Erg-Samowzbudzik]

Not a single artist who has moved to AI has made anything good.

We should also mention Fernando Sánchez Castillo, who used AI (like, the generative fill feature in a graphics program) to totally recreate Diego Velázquez's lost masterpiece called "The Expulsion of the Moriscos," which burned down like, 300 years ago. I mean, even though the AI here is more of a reconstruction and support tool, the artist himself, like, stresses that it was only 20% of the project, and the other 80% was his actual artistic creation and directing the whole process.

 

[Piotrek]

Nah. AI is a tool. A sloppy tool used by sloppy people who want to cut corners. Continue sucking AI cock if you want, but BA now pushing AI, means he's going to be "making" a lot of shit now. We've had three updates from him in November alone, and they're all about AI, and they're all shit. He usually posts once a month, or once every other month.

Not a single artist who has moved to AI has made anything good. There's no skill, there's no expertise, there's no talent, so what exactly are you paying for when it comes to supporting them or custom commissions? They click a button then wait a few minutes, if it doesn't make it right, click again, wait a few more minutes.

It's cheap, it's corner cutting and it's a joke to support "artists" who rely on it.

Instead of stepping up and learning something new, like animating for example and actually improve his art, BA took a step back and is now shouting about how it's actually a good thing.

Correct AI is a tool and can be use to assist the artist to improve on many levels. Give it time, both the AI and Artist is evolving.

BA clearly hit a wall, or "writers block" on the creativity side of things (retiring popular models, failed models etc) now needs to find that magic again; and he looked to AI for assistance (which is easier, yet controversial; some are for or against AI to assist artists).

 

[parko666]

Everything you've said is wrong. No one wants AI.

As much as I hate to say it, there is a demand for AI art. Usually folk willing to drop their standards or don't care where it comes from.

Nah. AI is a tool. A sloppy tool used by sloppy people who want to cut corners. Continue sucking AI cock if you want, but BA now pushing AI, means he's going to be "making" a lot of shit now. We've had three updates from him in November alone, and they're all about AI, and they're all shit. He usually posts once a month, or once every other month.

Not a single artist who has moved to AI has made anything good. There's no skill, there's no expertise, there's no talent, so what exactly are you paying for when it comes to supporting them or custom commissions? They click a button then wait a few minutes, if it doesn't make it right, click again, wait a few more minutes.

It's cheap, it's corner cutting and it's a joke to support "artists" who rely on it.

Instead of stepping up and learning something new, like animating for example and actually improve his art, BA took a step back and is now shouting about how it's actually a good thing.

This I more agree with.

AI is a tool and if an artist used it simply make their life easier and make content faster, then I wouldn't be opposed to it in the slightest.

What I hate is exactly what the likes of Blackadder and Miro are doing. Taking the easy route of using AI to make their content entirely rather than as a tool to enhance or speed up things. They are doing the same thing that the asshole AI bros are doing on the likes of twitter and thinking that a prompt fed into an AI tool is just as creative or artistic as actually spending the time to learn and craft a skill to create something you actually put effort into.

That's why I hate AI 'artists'. Using AI and claiming to be an artist is like using a calculator and claiming to be a math genius.

And now Blackadder has joined those assholes. Fantastic.

 

[Erg-Samowzbudzik]

Using AI and claiming to be an artist is like using a calculator and claiming to be a math genius.

For mathematical geniuses, the calculator is not a substitute for thinking, but a tool for quickly and accurately performing numerically demanding tasks that do not add value to the process of abstract problem-solving. In academic and research environments, this often takes the form of advanced software, rather than a simple pocket calculator.

AI, much like a scientific calculator, is a powerful extension of the human mind, allowing for the achievement of results that would be impractical or impossible to attain without such support. This does not make either the mathematical genius or the artist less creative—it simply changes their working methods.

The History of Art is inextricably linked to the history of technology. Every new tool, from the invention of oil paints to ready-made paint in a tube, and subsequently the camera or digital software such as Photoshop and 3D programs, initially provoked fears about the authenticity of creation. However, in every instance, these innovations did not kill art, but rather liberated it, shifting the burden of work from tedious technical tasks to abstract vision. Just as mathematical geniuses use advanced software to focus on proof instead of manual calculation, AI enters the artist's studio as a powerful extension of the mind. Integrated generative functions in graphic applications, from filling backgrounds to creating foundational 3D textures, automate "numerically demanding" visual tasks. This means that in a few years, these tools will become the obvious standard, and the discussion will not be about whether it is art, but rather how creators will utilize this new computational power to produce works of unprecedented scale and complexity, focusing entirely on unique concept and artistic intent.

 

[Erg-Samowzbudzik]

But the photos you shared are not correct; it would be more appropriate to delete them.

I'm not entirely sure what the exact fuss is about, but you mentioned photos, so I reckon it’s photos you're talking about, not 3D graphics. The thing is, the 3D graphics posted around here aren't exactly 'correct' by any standard. Those scenes with the monsters are clearly scenes of young women being raped, and I don't think anyone's got any real doubt about that. Sure, some collections are clearly consensual sex scenes, but a fair chunk of it is forced sex, which is basically rape, isn’t it?
I’m not casting judgement, but if you’re saying the photos aren't 'correct', then sadly, the same can be said for all the rest of it. The 3D graphics themselves aren't actually illegal because they aren't real scenes of rape, they’re just made up. Mind you, rape scenes in porn films aren’t real either, they’re just choreographed.

The lively debate over which form of pornography – raw, realistic photos or stylised 3D graphics – packs the biggest punch really boils down to the subtle differences in the psychology of perception. Both sides have a point, but the final outcome is always down to how the material actually engages the viewer's grey matter.

Those who argue that photos are sharper tend to focus on their immediate, unflinching realism. The authenticity and raw physical fidelity to reality, even if it's staged, provides an intense, 'ready-made' visual stimulus. This form hits the recipient instantly and is often considered more potent simply because it’s grounded in the real world.

Conversely, the argument for the greater power of graphics and 3D imagery hinges on the mechanism of sparking the imagination. Since computer-generated content, while often hyper-realistic, is never perfectly real, it leaves a little gap that the viewer's brain must actively fill in. This need to actively guess the details and elaborate on the fantasy requires deeper cognitive engagement. Graphics also allow for virtually unlimited idealisation and styling of characters and scenarios well beyond physical possibilities. This combination of engaging the imagination and presenting idealised visions means that for many viewers, graphics don't just feel more powerful, but they have a more lasting impact on fantasy and the brain's reward system.

To sum up, realism provides a sharp, instant jolt of intensity, whereas the stylisation and idealisation in 3D graphics foster a longer, more complex imaginative engagement, which is often perceived as having a greater overall impact.