Artiesdiary

Online I am seeing floods of AI ‘artists’ defending their use of AI, by labelling prompting as a part of the creative process.

While I agree that AI can be used as a tool to boost productivity, by completing the more menial and repetitive tasks. I don’t believe that by generating AI images, you can consider yourself an artist. It’s the equivalent of microwaving food and calling yourself a chef.

I find it insulting to artists that you consider AI image generators, which are trained by being fed stolen artwork, a valid tool for creating art. Art is created by being inspired, that is by other art, your surroundings or even your own thoughts. It is not art to generate some twisted amalgamation of stolen artwork.

Art has and always will be an integral part of politics, culture and life. It is a direct expression of the soul. And AI art cannot physically have a soul. It is spewing out images based on your orders. Imitating the data it’s trained on to create something that fits your prompt. AI art cannot even begin to express the grit, passion and determination that REAL artists possess.

While I understand AI ‘artists’ have a desire to create something with AI, that they are too talentless to do themselves. I see using AI as an easy way out. No artist is born with talent. They are born with the passion to create. And they master their talent through hard work. It screams unmotivated to me if you are too afraid to make the mistakes, to create the ‘poor’ art. If you were a true artist, you would be prepared to go through a long process to improve your work.

The majority of these ‘artists’ who use AI don’t use it as the tool it was designed for. They simply cower from the tediousness of creating, by making AI do it for them. There is no art in that, it’s pure laziness.

It pains me ro read Marguerite Johnson's 'Sappho' book. Not only is the tragedy of Sappho's lost works made painfully obvious, but the way critics portrayed Sappho is horrific. She is either villainised, and deemed a depraved tribade, or her sexuality is denounced entirely. Phaon being a recurring 'part' of her life enrages me. He is a mythological character. An ugly, old boat man who was gifted ointment by Aphrodite, transforming him into an alluring youth. The idea that Sappho threw herself into the sea to die because of this one man should be denounced. Incorporating Phaon into her story is insulting. They have mixed mythology with reality, to the point that Sappho is inextricable from it.

These heterosexual fantasies of Sappho are cruel erasures of her unapologetic homoerotic poetry. Sanitising her life through literary revisionism is pure disrespect. It's extremely disheartening to see the majority of Renaissance critics show their invariable anxiety surrounding lesbianism. They deemed her sexuality an irremovable 'stain' to her image. It's upsetting to see Sappho be condemned due to the queer nature of her art.

Although the way that the majority of Sappho's works were destroyed is unknown. I feel overwhelmed with the suspicion that one of the leading theories -that it was destroyed at the hands of the Christian church- is the most probable, along with the idea that her work was neglected and slowly decayed. It would not be wrong to think that her work was destroyed due to its queer themes, as her image has already been warped beyond repair due to heterosexuality being forced upon her in revisionisms.

Regardless of the nature of her poems destruction, it is a true tragedy.

It is also extremely enraging that male homosexuality was deemed more natural than lesbianism in antiquity. Male homosexuality was accepted in Ancient Greece, but they believed penetration to be an essential part of sex, leaving the idea of lesbianism incomprehensible. Sexuality revolved around men, and women didn't have much sexual liberty. This male-centred sexual liberty suppressed woman's desires and freedom.

This mirrors the modern-day experience for sapphics in a lot of ways. While lesbianism is more acceptable nowadays, the concept of tribadism is still not comprehensible for many. Rather, lesbians are sexualised. Tribadism is deemed a 'gift' for porn -watching straight men, with the pleasure of the women involved ultimately disregarded. This ultimately reduces lesbians down to a fantasy.

The homoeroticism of Sappho's work should ABSOLUTELY be discussed, but only with the respect it deserves. I hope that in the future we don't fantasise and twist the narratives of queer women. I also hope we will stop focusing on male-centred ideas of sexual pleasure, and stop acting as if acts of lesbianism are 'unnatural' or 'depraved'.

Women no longer need to be censored and subservient.

Especially when The picture of Dorian Gray was used in his trial as proof of him being a homosexual, completely erasing that crucial element from your adaptation is a huge slap in the face to not only Oscar Wilde, but the entirety of the queer and literature community .

Don’t read for other people, because you want to be like the aesthetic booktokers. You don’t have to be perfectly poised on your bed, while daintily annotating a trending book. Indulge in the weird books, scribble your ideas in it and don’t be afraid to crease it. Book creases are like wrinkles, or old bark on a tree, it shows your love and interest in the book, and all the time you’ve spent absorbed in it. Read for your inner child, the one who would feverishly finish books in one night, with a desperate need to shove as much knowledge as they could in their head.

Don’t write for other people, your writing doesn’t have to be a perfectly curated essay. Let it be messy, express yourself, don’t let imposters syndrome stop you from posting your ideas. And certainly don’t curate a sanitised version of your thoughts to please the internet. Again, write for your inner child, who would scribble incoherent stories into notebooks, hoping of one day becoming an author.

Don’t draw for other people, let your personality shine in your art, without fearing that it may be considered ‘weird’ or ‘ugly’ (both extremely subjective terms). Create the ‘odd’ looking art, with messy scribbles and quirky expressions. Once more, draw for your inner child, who would spend their whole day doodling, whose face would light up when they were pleased with their work.

When I was discussing dystopian fiction with my brother, he asked me: “which dystopian fiction do you think we are living closest to?”

I don’t think there is a straight forward answer to this.

There are an alarming amount of similarities between dystopian fiction and our current world, and a dystopian world only seems to be creeping closer to us, especially considering current events. But there isn’t one book which directly parallels our current world, instead it’s a sinister concoction, mixed with certain elements of different dystopias. I’ll be talking about 3 dystopian books: brave new world, 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. As I believe this combination of books really reflects the disturbing path this world is going down.

Brave new world - Aldous Huxley

Brave new world is a society with a strict social hierarchy as a result of class conditioning. Everyone has a role, designed even before birth, and they are manipulated into enjoying it.

This society is a product of careful genetic engineering. There is also a strong belief in eugenics among the scientists in this book. (Which is increasingly relevant due to the ‘Sydney Sweeney has great GENES’ ad, something out of a eugenicists wet dream.)

Its society is also kept pacified by the pursuit of pleasure, in a world where the general population is kept sedated by happiness drugs, orgies and non-stop entertainment. Here, no one cares about education or the dark practices of the government, which leads to cognitive decline. And of course, this is all orchestrated by the government to control the masses.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.” - Aldous Huxley in a letter to George orwell

Seeing the similarities yet?

The hedonistic lifestyles portrayed in this book certainly reflect our current society. Where many put gambling, sex and substance abuce over everything. I can also see similarities with the ‘bored houswife’ in the 50’s taking drugs for alleviation. But it still doesn’t feel like OUR society completely. The idea of brainwashing people into ‘loving their servitude’ definitely still applies to our current society. But I can see more relation to the 80’s, with songs like ‘working 9 to 5’ glamorising the working class. Many, like in brave new world, choose to live in blissful ignorance in a false utopia than confront reality.

1984 - George Orwell

1984 was a dystopian book satirising a totalitarian society, it being inspired by the infamous Soviet Union regime and nazi Germany propaganda should definitely be telling to what this book is about…

In the 1984 world, the government keeps the people obedient by using mass surveillance and censorship. Contrary to the ‘brave new world’ world, citizens are controlled by fear rather than distractions. They are silenced by propaganda and fear of physical and psychological torture. But there are more similarities than you may think.

- “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one” - Neil postman

Ironically, 1984 is considered one of the most widely banned books in the world. It’s almost as if governments took the book as an instruction manual, rather than a warning on censorship.

Not so fun fact: 1984 was banned in the US for being considered ‘pro-communist’ and it was banned in Russia for being considered ‘anti-communist’. But in reality, the book was pro-socialist and anti-totalitarian. Funny..

Here, the citizens are forced to accept such obvious contradictions (such as the idea that 2+2=5). A common occurrence was something called ‘transferred nationalism’, where orators could change Oceania’s enemy mid sentence and the hate would immediately shift to the new enemy, no questions asked.

I think this applies to far too many people in our world, who are so painfully politically illiterate they can change opinions in a heartbeat if told to, and worship at the feet of their chosen politicians.

In 1984, the government could prosecute you for anything from a nervous jitter to a negative thought on the government (called a thought-crime). While this may not (yet) be applicable to us, it definitely parallels the extreme censorship from governments globally.

Considering the online safety act the UK passed recently (I prefer the name ‘online censorship and surveillance act), heavy surveillance and monitoring is very prevalent in current life. And like in 1984, there’s nothing we can do about it, so we are forced to comply.

They would also fabricate evidence of an ever growing economy, to create manufactured progress and please the masses. And of course, there is a strong class system with extreme wealth disparities. Poverty is the norm. And lower classes are kept sedated by gambling, porn and booze.

Ring any bells?

-"In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance."-quote from 1984

Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury

Now, the final piece of the puzzle, Fahrenheit 451.

Fahrenheit 451, the temperature that paper burns at, is a totalitarian world where books have been banned, and any remaining books are burned by ‘firemen’. Inspired by the book burnings during nazi regime, it’s a world where the media created citizens disinterested in the art of reading. Bradbury said political correctness is used as an excuse for censorship in the book. Bradbury feared an illiterate society, brainwashed by entertainment. Unfortunately… this seems to be coming closer to reality than I’d like. More people would rather let their brains atrophy than pick up a book. The overuse in AI to do all tasks for us, such as simplifying already basic texts, has rendered a lot of people functionally illiterate and disinterested in literature. It’s pitiful to watch such blatant suppression of individualism. A world where books aren’t a priority doesn’t seem like much of a world to me.

Ironically (for the billionth time), Fahrenheit 451 was also heavily censored and banned, because it was deemed vulgar and had topics of drugs in the book. I don’t know.. but that seems like political correctness used as an excuse to censor to me…but hey, what do I know??

"It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God.” - extract from Fahrenheit 451

It also has themes of atomic war and heavy political discourse, I don’t think i need to even comment on similarities for that. The world has been plagued with endless discourse for centuries, to the point where it almost seems like an integral part of humanity.

What doesn’t scare me is a world where they try to censor and control us, as that is already reality. I will continue to read and share my knowledge no matter what. What terrifies me is a world where I have no one to share knowledge with, because reading isn’t seen as a priority.

Remember, it’s easier to control the naive and ignorant. Pick up a book, and let’s not ignore the clear warnings dangling in front of our heads.

Overall, I think there 3 books reflect the totalitarian and heavily controlled path our society is going down. Let’s not let the pursuit of pleasure sedate us and make us unaware of the world we are living in.

While there are many things on the Online safety act that i agree should be enforced, the sloppy execution of this act should stand as an issue for every British citizen.

As of July 25th 2025 online platforms have a legal duty to protect children online, by blocking content such as pornography, eating disorder content and content promoting self harm. Along with hateful content and dangerous stunts and behaviours. They are enforcing this by forcing every UK citizen to show proof they are over 18 in order to access this content, by showing a form of ID or banking information. And this is where I have my issue.

No one is opposing the idea of protecting children online, this is obviously a crucial thing. But hiding behind the idea of “for the children” to enforce censorship and mass surveillance is simply cowardly and deceitful. It is disastrous for children especially.

This act has not only caused the blocking of harmful content, but also of sites which contain crucial information for things such as domestic abuse, sexual assault, gender dysphoria, alcoholism, world politics and so much more. With young people now left isolated from these topics, the act is putting them in more danger. It leaves children more vulnerable to these threats as they no longer have access to information that might help them recognise dangerous behaviours that they or others are exhibiting. This act will literally KILL people.

Labelling people opposing this act as predators is ironic since, just a few months ago, PM Keir Starmer and other MP’s voted down the amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing Bill with 364 to 111. This bill was supposed to investigate child sex abuse and grooming gangs in the UK. They instead suggested it should be done at a local level. But they didn’t actually implement any of their suggestions while in office. Strange.. that they are now so obsessed with protecting the children? Since protecting the children is merely a cover.

Not only is this act wildly dangerous. It affects EVERYONE’S anonymity online. Everyone is now required to submit their precious personal information to third parties who will determine whether or not you are an adult. It is a clear breach of privacy. And it especially affects the elderly. They are the most sensitive to hackers and data theft. Having naive elderly people giving their personal banking info seems like an incredibly dangerous thing to do. With data breaches happening frequently already. Having a whole country submitting personal data could have immeasurable consequences.

As a teenager myself, it frustrates me that I am powerless. I can not just leave the country (it would be futile anyways since many other countries are eager to follow the UK’s footsteps). I am trapped under government control and unable to access such crucial information. I refuse to submit to this blatant authoritarianism and we can not allow this to go on.