<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Artists on rkempe’s blog</title>
    <link>https://blog.rkempe.ca/tags/artists/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Artists on rkempe’s blog</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-ca</language>
    <copyright>&amp;copy; Copyright 2026 Rebecca Kempe</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 23:52:34 -0400</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://blog.rkempe.ca/tags/artists/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>AI art isn&#39;t for artists (third time&#39;s the charm?)</title>
      <link>https://blog.rkempe.ca/shorts/2026/06/ai-art-isnt-for-artists-third-times-the-charm/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 23:52:34 -0400</pubDate>
      <guid>https://blog.rkempe.ca/shorts/2026/06/ai-art-isnt-for-artists-third-times-the-charm/</guid>
      <description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You know what the missing piece of the puzzle was? It was that AI art isn&amp;rsquo;t for artists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like, it can be. But for the most part it isn&amp;rsquo;t.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Okay so here&amp;rsquo;s a “thread” I wrote back in October, in the pre-ChatGPT era, right when everyone was freaking out about AI art, and I&amp;rsquo;m pulling it out for a third time to add some commentary on which of my thoughts have shifted and which I still think are relevant.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AI art isn&#39;t for artists (redux)</title>
      <link>https://blog.rkempe.ca/shorts/2023/05/ai-art-isnt-for-artists-redux/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 May 2023 01:19:50 -0400</pubDate>
      <guid>https://blog.rkempe.ca/shorts/2023/05/ai-art-isnt-for-artists-redux/</guid>
      <description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;You know what the missing piece of the puzzle was? It was that AI art isn&amp;rsquo;t for artists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like, it can be. But for the most part it isn&amp;rsquo;t.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Here&amp;rsquo;s a &amp;ldquo;thread&amp;rdquo; I wrote back in October, in the pre-ChatGPT era, right when everyone was freaking out about AI art, and I&amp;rsquo;m pulling it out again to add some commentary on which of my thoughts have shifted and which I still think are relevant.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AI art isn&#39;t for artists</title>
      <link>https://blog.rkempe.ca/shorts/2022/10/ai-art-isnt-for-artists/</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 02 Oct 2022 23:35:23 -0400</pubDate>
      <guid>https://blog.rkempe.ca/shorts/2022/10/ai-art-isnt-for-artists/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;You know what the missing piece of the puzzle was? It was that AI art isn&amp;rsquo;t for artists.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like, it can be. But for the most part it isn&amp;rsquo;t.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Like, when you think about it, if you need a bowl, you can commission a ceramic artist to make a beautiful one for you, right? Or you can make one yourself, which will give you varying results depending on how skilled of a potter you are. Or you can just go buy a bowl at Dollarama, because you need a bowl, don&amp;rsquo;t have (or don&amp;rsquo;t want to spend) a shit ton of money, and Dollarama gives you enough choice that it&amp;rsquo;s not really worth dealing with a potter or becoming one. It&amp;rsquo;s just a bowl, for god&amp;rsquo;s sake. Who cares?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
