Профиль

Yes agreed, see the rest of my thread. This is not me expressing relief. :)

Yeah, even putting aside the inappropriateness of it, I also don't understand why people think it makes any *logical* sense to demand answers about a big project from one artist. You're not gonna get the answers you're looking for.

Thank you for relaying this. You really shouldn't have to be the spokesperson for this. The art was wonderful. 🙏

Well, if I'm gonna cut ties with the brand, I'm also not gonna be that invested in what are now just details. It doesn't really matter. I don't like how they handled this whole thing, and I don't like many of their other recent decisions either.

And I say "straight answer" very generously here, because the "I guess" in that response was... a choice.

But yes, it was frustrating because until now we never got a single straight answer to the question "Did someone on the team consult ChatGPT on the appearance of South East Asian males?"

I can kinda understand the desperate need to address that point, because even if it wasn't the original point, it became the loudest point (see my comment about my biggest frustration).

P.S. Stop just parroting things as fact without fact-checking. I don't give a shit if you heard it from Gizmodo or Liam Triforce.

I won't say the team is straight up lying about it, but it's impossible to simply assume it never happened again. I've been doing some reflection on my own relationship with this brand. It's sad to admit that this will be the last time I engage with it. Sadder to admit it's probably overdue.

To be clear, I don't care which artist(s) did this. Nobody should be harrassing Kat or the rest of the team. It's entirely possible to show artists respect/support while simultaneously drawing firm boundaries with a franchise/company.

Lastly, and most frustrating for me, was seeing the discourse about culture get hijacked by one about art generation. The concerns of POC, as usual, pushed to the side, with so many "anti-AI" people breathing sighs of relief when they found out "AT LEAST" it wasn't used for art.

This theory was very easy to debunk too: - The slide contained non-ATLA copyrighted images - The aspect ratio is totally different from the artbook listing - The seam would run right through the most prominent picture and label Everything about this looks like a concept board.

This situation has been frustrating to watch unfold. People (including many in my circles) hopped on the artbook thing and shared it as fact, even though it was a theory from one bsky user, with zero source. While simultaneously lambasting others for spreading "misinformation" about the team.

If you've been sharing the theory that the Avatar AI text was added by an unaffiliated artbook author, we now have official confirmation that it was actually a character artist very early on in production, with assurances that it was the only time it happened, as far as they know.

Hell yeah let's go! 🐧 Thanks for sharing! :)

Damn, that exhaust plume... 😍

I know. That's an expression of an attitude and of knowledge. It's not an explanation of anything and changes nothing about what's on the slide. I'm not accusing any artists.

Totally understandable!

For the record, my reaction here is to the possible implications, based on an Occam's Razor interpretation. We don't know the truth yet. There's a lot of speculation and extrapolation flying around.