As tech has gotten better, creative tools have gotten worse. The replacements we got were tools to optimize the process, not enhance it. The game for most legacy tools-makers was to appeal to enterprise customers with a procession of new ‘features’ to justify subscription seats, to 'capture and hold' creative works in a rented eco-system, and of course to maximize wealth extraction (because shareholders). With all the good that’s come in the 'era of AI’, unfortunately creativity was hit disproportionately hard with the bad. The expectation of immediate results is real, craft is an antiquated term, and choosing has become the job. Design by committee went from a nightmare, to the norm. Pick the preset. 'Copy my prompt!’ ‘AI would be done already.’ Reverse-engineering a concept to fit some VP’s AI gen is all too common. Now, what you can make in the time allotted, is at least a few shades from what you’d want it to be. This is either out of necessity being forced to use a tool not meant to be very expressive, or having to hand the creative keys to a text box that spits out some derivation of the ask. People quizzically wonder why everything looks the same when they use a tool that has a strong inherent bias to do so. Creative idiocracy has arrived. These tools make some decision-making managers quite happy though: the ones who long ago traded away creativity for stability. They’re happiest when creative looks safe, recognizable, and there’s lots of it. In their minds, there’s safety in numbers despite a lack of relevance or substance that wouldn’t survive scrutiny. 'The team was so busy killing it, look at all this work!’ I might be old-fashioned, but I believe there’s more to creativity than boxes– the grey ones, and the text ones. They both have a place in creative works, but they’re an ingredient to a recipe, not the whole meal. In an era of efficiency, many people claim they can one-shot great work with XYZ model and some convoluted prompt to cosplay intentionality… but sadly, they lack the experience to understand why they never have. Too much time playing with black boxes. Creativity is a non-linear journey based on exploration, failings, and findings– there’s no short-cutting the 10,000-hour rule on the journey to making great work. It’s ok to have a thoughtful direction without a specific destination in mind– I’d argue it’s better that way. The process can be the greatest source of joy (or pain), but either way it’s the primary path to creative growth. Unfortunately because of the current climate and the forces at play, many people are currently being pushed/lured away from it and into homogeneity. What's missing is our willingness or ability to get it wrong, and not have an immediate answer for everything. You know the feeling you're after, and nobody, including you, knows what it looks like until it exists. The version you didn't plan for is often the better one, and that can only be found if you have the ability to explore, and the tools to bring it to life. The 'new and novel' comes from allowing yourself to fail, pissing off some armchair creatives who fell upward into decision-making roles, and doing something derivative models never could. Some might look at STRADIS and think it’s out-of-touch, or philosophically dated. ‘Creating by hand? Who does that anymore? Why doesn’t AI do more?’ Maybe they’re right, but maybe I have aspirations to do something a bit weird, thoughtful and net new… and I’ve yet to see AI alone be the means to those ends. As an augmentation? Absolutely. STRADIS is a love letter to the creative process as I know it, and I chose to use AI not to replace it, but to enhance it. I don’t look around and see a need for more, I see a need for better. It isn’t for everyone, but everyone is welcome. Creatives by trade, or someone who wants to fuck around and find out. It’s a tool built to be very capable in a professional context to justify child-like exploration. Have fun, break rules, and…