The Giant Art Thread

LOVE that card as well! Great choice. And welcome to the fourum, @destase !


Thank you!

Coming soon; “Connected World” card sleeves featuring the completed HYOGONOSUKE artwork!

Pokemon Card Game December 2023 Merchandise Revealed | PokeGuardian


Kawayoo did some awesome work for the Kyaku poke yaku release, and I figured you all would appreciate this deal on an A4 folder more than the giant deal thread. Haven’t seen them this cheap since just after release.


This is super cool! Time to debate buying something I don’t need. :laughing:

1 Like

Just came across this and thought how awesome it could be if we got complete evolutions lines on 1 pokemon card.


I want this on a shirt.

Who’s the artist? / what’s the source?

This looks like a mashup of Nishida and Kusajima and it’s awesome.

We got a few that did this year


Brian Serway


AI art will never have the why.

Text inputs are not why.

But I’ve not even bothered playing with the software because I don’t want to contribute to the continuous plagiarization and stealing of others’ work and effort.


Indeed. No soul.
As far as contributing tho, we’re all contributing by generating publicly available content on the internet. I wonder if it’s better to impact “AI” by using clinical grammar and sanitized pros, (hopefully limiting colloquial speech in AI output) or by not engaging with it at all. Money, after all, is and will be the driving force. Open AI ain’t free to run. The Screen writers in the US recently secured anti-AI clauses in contracts, and Screen Actors Guild (SAG) were pushing for that too. AI in media and art might be limited purely by money, sin law.

1 Like

6 posts were split to a new topic: Yuka Morii Exhibit Photos from Tokyo

Yeah, I almost totally agree.
I would just add that there are imho currently people creating art with AI, after all they are really pondering text prompts and carefully baking images, playing with models and attentively selecting the definitive picture that makes them proud.
But what makes it even sadder is that these persons will be quickly replaced by an upgraded model capable of selecting artworks on its own. The next upgrade will be a giant middle finger to everybody has ever thought that AI is just ‘like photography or a tool for already creative minds’, since it will be clear that the human isn’t part of the game.

AI is here to incessantly produce and replace, not to create.


Artist and former AI student soap box (but with some important informed distinctions):
Ultimately, what makes art “art”, and not simply a media artifact (clip art or a little 2-D icon on an advert) is the soul and intention behind its creation. Until an AI can make that determination for itself, AI does not make “art”, it’s just AI produced media.

Now if a human artist uses AI as a tool, which is fine, it MAY BE and PROBABLY WOULD BE human art, created with AI. And ultimately, some people will prefer the digital tool’s finished product to seeing the physical brushstrokes and texture of hand-made work, and appreciating that another human being’s hand made it. I would accept, as an artist, that AI-produced art, - with intent, conceptual expression, and soul - BY a human being counts as “art” but we aren’t there yet. AI as a tool is not granular and technical enough.

But just as Pop music today is comparatively (mathematically) less complex and unique than it was in the 1940s, 60s, or 90s, Pop visual art may become something similar where it’s just skillful re-hashings and re-digestings of prior work, guided integrally by a human.

If you told someone else to paint a picture of an elephant balancing on a circus ball, who’s artwork would that be? What is the "work in artwork? How is someone painting it for you different than an AI creating it?

Though this gives me an idea for a fun thread. Kinda like the Guess the Card Game Thread how about we have a “Guess the Artist Thread”? Might be fun for us here.


I like your definition and I would confirm, yes art is at least intentional.

The problem is that we will never be able to prove it, since it requires knowing the true intention of the creator/s.

Also, Depending on the definition of ‘soul’ one could argue that, until a human makes the ultimate pick of an AI image/craft/whatever, there is a soul: the choice is indeed the sum of their past experiences, future goals, their emotion in that day (and remember even opting for a random selection is a choice)

You can obviously understand how much subjectivity there is in that “soul and intention”, and how relative to the context it is.

Example 1
A crap ebook is spammed on Amazon self publishing, and you immediately think someone has upload it to make quick 5 $, after seeing one of that courses named “get rich in 1 week”. Is that art?
I would say no, but the artist keep arguing how much soul and effort he put, how intriguing his novel is. Who can judge? Clearly nobody is in the artist brain, our accusations could be only towards his quality.

Example 2
In your little town appears a new graffiti: a beautiful and colorful piece of modern abstract art. People immediately think that’s the work of a secret street artist like Banksy, they place a tag and name the art.
After 50 years this is part of the city, is preserved and they’re proud, books are written about it.
Nobody know however that the art was generated by accident for a mix of rain that day, and a paint loaded truck crushing there.
So, it isn’t art right? But the citizens love that and they all think is art.

Example 3

I love your example. Like you can imagine, there is indeed a paradox here.
The artisan could have used AI and we don’t know, or maybe put so much soul and struggle to deliver the highest quality of fine art.
The boss could be a visionary that kept pushing for corrections, provided sketch and set the direction he was dreaming.
Or maybe just said “lol whatever just do an animal to place on a T shirt and make some money”
They’re both artists? They’re both soulless moneygrabber? Who did all the work while the other makes just some quick buck?
It’s clearly impossible to know and having any proof.

TLDR: while I agree with your definition, ‘art’ will be always linked to the current context, the creator and the eye of the observer.
We can unfortunately only judge the value of that “art” , since ruling out things as “not art” would require knowing the true intention of a person/corporate/whatever creator.
Even setting a jury or having people voting just doesn’t work.

We can and should suppose the crappiness and lack of soul though, this for sure.


When I say “soul” i don’t mean the ineffable spirit :ghost: that brings life to the body, but rather “feeling and intention”. The soul of “soul music”, “soulfulness”, and “soul food”. Art is an expression of that.

edit: art = intent + level of agency and decision
I do think we can agree on using the modus and purpose of a creation as art, as long as 2 people cannot use a simple method to recreate the same thing. Giving a simple prompt to an art AI is not art, even if you claim it is, as multiple people will create the same exact output. BUT if say, trading cards are created with photoshop, many people can do the same thing, yet the layout and design of the card is determined through smaller personal decisions, and thus it is art.

1 Like

My absolute favourite art page on instagram, Shinon Art, they do a lot of other stuff than pokemon too but their style is just gorgeous, here’s few examples


Anyone know who’s work this is? Found these folders recently, and they’re pretty cool.


2024 Korean League key visual illustrated by hncl (hungry_clicker)