Then you believe a lie.
I am fatigued by generative "art". Feels like browsing stock art. It's uninspiring. Lifeless. Meaningless. Stock image libraries have more life, since they are often made by humans.
Outsourcing human imagination to generative AI is unhealthy karma and a lousy business to be in. The results are not "creative", nor the prompts.
People who rely on generative models for "creativity", and not undertaking any creative process. They may be doing themselves harm by accepting whatever AI produces, forgetting how to think about composition, style, substance, subtlety, wit, contradiction, creative iteration and progression, balance, and deliberate imbalance.
> "Ideogram 1.0 excels at interpreting complex prompts, as the examples below demonstrate.".
Really? The first example demonstrates no such thing.
Prompt: A fascinating family portrait of a solid matte red sphere Christmas present perched atop a blue cube wrapped as a Christmas present, with a vivid green Christmas tree standing behind them with a green cloth wrapped around its base. A curious dog is positioned on the right and a cute cat lounges on the left.
Try it. Imagine the above scene, then go look at what was generated. The "curious dog" isn't doing anything to deserve the curious label, and the "vivid Christmas tree" looks like a plastic tree found in the trash. The whole scene looks stale and sterile. Yet, people will use this AI and say "wow, it's so clever". Wrong. It just made you a boring image to fill the void you made when disengaging your own imagination.
Your own imagination is better. There is no creativity happening with these models.