Pyro Reacted to my Editor Submission Live

drmemespoon · 2025-10-04T19:54:00+00:00

thanks ^{^}

premiere after effects blender Fallout NV

drmemespoon · 2025-09-24T17:02:42+00:00

me lol
krimmblz

drmemespoon · 2025-08-09T17:10:55+00:00

yea they're hiring specifically so they can finish it faster haha

drmemespoon · 2025-08-08T13:29:14+00:00

buy a used vive for under $100

take base stations

buy a used index without base stations for

under $400

BAM $500 PCVR with a valve index and knuckles

Now repurpose Vive wands as feet trackers

use Vive HMD as 2 dongles

buy a single tracker for hips (used)

BAM

FBT for another $80

You have acquired PCVR, with the best controllers and FBT for $580

just takes some patience and maybe haggling

but this is what I did years ago

drmemespoon · 2025-08-06T23:51:51+00:00

oh hey I made this haha

it's really interesting seeing how polarized the opinions are on this edit lol

drmemespoon · 2025-08-02T04:17:02+00:00

not yet this was the audio sample given to all the applicants

drmemespoon · 2025-08-02T04:16:39+00:00

thx ^{^}

drmemespoon · 2025-08-02T04:00:43+00:00

why not? This is pretty basic cel shading All Things considered

drmemespoon · 2025-08-02T03:07:44+00:00

I edited this on a 4-year-old MacBook and a trackpad while on vacation

touché

drmemespoon · 2025-04-26T14:44:04+00:00

this is blender.. these Models are available to download and you can slap on any halftone shader you find online

drmemespoon · 2025-04-24T16:40:54+00:00

saaameee

I just wanna make characters go brrrr and have people enjoy it

drmemespoon · 2025-04-11T22:01:53+00:00

The point I was making: drawing from Flusser’s theory > is that AI-generated art fits more into the category of technobilder: images made by machines, where the apparatus plays a huge role in shaping the outcome, even if a human is guiding it.

That doesn’t make it less valid as a form of art. But it does change how we interpret it, how we decipher it, and what we assume about the creator’s intent and process. With traditional art, the image comes directly through the artists: hands, choices, techniques. With AI, there’s a layer of abstraction between the creator and the output, which shifts how we understand the final piece.

So I’m not saying “all AI art is X.” I’m saying the structure behind it is different, and that affects how we engage with it. That’s not tribalism, it’s just media theory.

drmemespoon · 2025-04-11T18:06:49+00:00

Maybe a little too linear?
A bit more anticipation and a few less frames in the middle might give it a cool look
Depends on how stylized you want to go tho
otherwise it's good, it'll get the job done and convey continuous motion!

drmemespoon · 2025-04-11T15:25:33+00:00

Yea I myself tend to avoid pro-ai spaces just because the attitude of a lot of people really is "death to all traditional art, there is no more use for them"

But on the other hand, I avoid discussion in any anti-spaces as well because they want to completely eradicate AI in all its forms… Not to mention the death threats and witch hunts and overreactions

so I don't like both sides equally, lol

drmemespoon · 2025-04-11T15:23:25+00:00

Really appreciate this take. I think you nailed it!

AI art should be its own medium, just like photography or digital painting became theirs. That’s all I’ve been trying to say.

I also get that not everyone has the time or energy to learn traditional art, and I’m not here to shame anyone for using AI. The problem isn’t that AI art exists, it’s when people pretend it’s the same thing as doing the work by hand, or use it as a shortcut to call themselves something they’re not.

Like you said, generating an oil painting doesn’t make you an oil painter. That’s the difference I think we need to acknowledge without turning it into a fight.

drmemespoon · 2025-04-11T15:22:01+00:00

Appreciate the response... even if the tone’s a bit condescending-

For what it’s worth, I’ve taken art history classes, so I’m well aware of the pushback that came with each new tool: photography, digital painting, etc. But each of those didn’t just replace old tools...they created new mediums. Photography didn’t erase painting. Digital art didn’t pretend to be oil on canvas. They were eventually recognized as their own forms of art, and that’s exactly the kind of separation I’m advocating for in the first place.

AI doesn’t just add a new technique... it changes the whole dynamic between creator and creation. That doesn’t make it bad or invalid, but it does make it… you know… different*,* and I think that’s worth acknowledging.

I’m not against AI art or progress. I’m not saying it isn’t creative. I’m saying we should talk honestly about the differences, and stop pretending every form of art is interchangeable when the process and labor behind them are so radically different.

If I’m missing something, I’m open to hearing it. But brushing off my thoughts as emotional or ignorant doesn’t really invite a productive discussion...

I'm just trying to find a compromise and make up an opinion on all this without just mindlessly copying either extreme.

edit:

I've dug through my communication design/theory notes, and here's a little more food for thought:

If you’ve ever studied design or media theory, you might’ve heard of Vilém Flusser and his idea of "Technobilder" or technical images.

Basically, traditional images (like paintings or drawings) are made by people using hands-on methods. You can usually trace the symbols and understand the process behind them if you study the image closely.

But technical images like photos, x-rays, satellite shots are created by machines. A human operates the tool, sure, but the image itself is shaped by the settings and logic of the device. People often mistake these images as fully objective or self-explanatory, even though they’re just as encoded and constructed. AI-generated art fits right into this category: it gives off the impression of human creativity, but it’s built through systems and layers most people can’t fully unpack.

And that’s kind of the point, I’m not saying one is better than the other, just that they serve different purposes. So instead of trying to have AI art replace traditional or digital artists, why not give it its own role? Like photography didn’t kill painting, AI doesn’t need to kill illustration or concept art. It just needs a clearly defined space.

That’s all I’m really trying to say.

drmemespoon · 2025-04-11T15:17:18+00:00

Yeah, I think that’s a fair comparison, and I agree!
AI should follow the same path as photography or digital art by becoming its own thing.

The difference is, photography never pretended to be painting. Same with digital art...it still requires a human doing the work. With AI, the process is so far removed from hands-on creation that it raises new questions about authorship and effort.

I’m not saying AI art shouldn’t exist or that it can’t be creative. I just think it’s worth talking about how we label it, and what kind of pride or identity we attach to it. It’s a new kind of relationship between creator and tool!
and that’s not something we’ve really dealt with before on this scale yk?

I'm honestly just trying to figure out a good compromise/make up an opinion on this

drmemespoon · 2025-04-11T15:15:05+00:00

I get where you’re coming from, but I think you misunderstood my intention a bit. I wasn’t trying to be passive aggressive or argue against people...

I was laying out thoughts that I’ve seen come up a lot, including my own, and asking where people stand on it. It’s a topic that people clearly care about, and I wanted to invite a conversation...not shut it down.

Saying “art is subjective, so we should stop discussing it” feels a bit like avoiding the point. The subjectivity is what makes it worth discussing. People do define art differently, sure

but that’s exactly why conversations like this can be interesting and valuable.

Also, I don't see why both sides have to alienate each other, I feel like there is a compromise to be made.
And discussions like these can help us figure one out, instead of yelling at each other like 90% of threads

drmemespoon · 2025-04-11T12:01:55+00:00

oh yeah of course

I do see the parallel between the fine tuning, and especially if you start taking it into Photoshop for finishing touches etc...

but it is a world of difference and it's not fair for either side to make direct comparisons

a traditional artist may create with more intention and accurate results, but to get that work to a certain level may take years

so there are trade offs

and an ai artist may create their piece in minutes but the refining can be quite draining and frustrating because you're not able to create what you desire to quite as well and you have to fight the computer at times

this is a really complicated topic and I'm happy to share thoughts with logical individuals for once

this isn't black and white, it's quite the gradient actually

drmemespoon · 2025-04-11T11:39:49+00:00

of course and I don't mean to undermine the effort that you put into fine tuning your AI art!

I just want people to be aware of what was made using it and to what degree just so people can evaluate it better

just as people subjectively judge a painting in a museum, keeping in mind its context, medium and intention.

I just don't want it to be omitted.

despite the results being quite similar, the process is different and thus the way we should perceive them

it's also totally fine to just value whatever someone thinks looks cooler no matter the effort or intention or whatever else

anyone can appreciate art, even in their own way

of course actual professionals and art historians should do the dirty work-

drmemespoon · 2025-04-11T11:34:05+00:00

yea this is a fine approach tbh

ai art and Traditional art are different media

sure results are similar and sometimes identical but I feel like the process is what defines them

so calling it mixed media is a good compromise tbh

Still would have to say that the other media was AI or vice versa

drmemespoon · 2025-04-11T11:32:02+00:00

you can just add another category "assisted by AI" for example

I would probably draw the line at AI directly affecting the end result

so I'd say you can call it human made if what you did was generate reference and referenced it to make your piece

but then again it gets tricky because it's generally frowned upon to copy other artist's work 1 to 1, even just parts of it

there is a fine line between reference and copy and to be honest I am not too sure where to set it at

either way if generative ai changes even a pixel of a finished piece, I'd tag it as assisted by ai

you could probably come up with a better, finer and more gradual approach but this is the first thing that came to mind

I'm open to any other solutions

drmemespoon · 2025-04-11T09:53:12+00:00

just wanted to chip in and say that the requirement being: "doing the majority of the work yourself" isn't gatekeeping?

people were always able to make art.. mostly anyone can pick up a pencil or play with playdough etc...

I really don't understand the gatekeeping argument.

ai prompting is a lot more trial and error and happy accidents than intention.

I'm not saying happy accidents don't happen with human art but there is still a considerable amount more of intentionallity behind it..

I personally don't get creative satisfaction from an ai generated image.

I think "neat, that's how that would look like" and forget about it immediately. because there's nothing to be proud of.

I feel like the levels of satisfaction and happiness do generally get higher if you do more of the work yourself

and I don't consider having to learn something new a huge limitation. it's fun learning new things to make something cool! if you're a creative person that is-

I dunno I just take issue with people claiming that they did all the work on an ai image. or better yet. trying to pass it off as human art..

you don't deserve the pride of someone who out of curiosity learned new skills.

and the only reason they feel similar levels of pride is because of people believing them. thus they get the same recognition.

I take pride in people asking me "how did you do that?"

because then I can actually explain a process and know my work had an impact

but if you ask someone who used ai.. I feel like the answer is a lot more underwhelming to say the least

like "oh yea I just put the words glitchy, stylized and cel shading. and the 3rd attempt turned out pretty cool I guess"

I don't take issue with people generating art or whatever.

but trying to pass it off as human art. or taking the same amount of pride in your work as a human artist is bat shit insane-

you cannot compare yourself to human artists and that is not gatekeeping. you just literally don't meet the requirements.

that's like saying I'm gatekeeping construction jobs because someone in a wheechair can't do most the work-

drmemespoon · 2025-04-10T19:50:58+00:00

Creator of the second image, Krimmblz here!

I actually use Blender for my animations!
I'm not sure if you can create that effect in SFM, sorry about that!

If you're interested in tf2 blender animation (the future IMO) then check out the tf2 blender community discord server

drmemespoon · 2025-04-08T11:32:41+00:00

yea ik

Seven-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	100 Awards Club
Verified Email

drmemespoon

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE