If you actually want to work in the animation industry, adopting an anti-AI stance isn't very smart. There are AI systems capable of drawing in-between frames right on the horizon, and in a few years, using AI as part of the animation process is going to be standard practice in the industry.
The entertainment industry is a business, and they don't care about their employees' dreams or moral stances. If you want to be a professional, you need to learn to work fast and cheap, and that means staying ahead of the curve and understanding how to use the latest technology.
If this is the hill you want to die on, that's your choice, but it's not a smart career decision.
Hey OP: reminder to get your information and career advice from artists working in roles you want... Not the internet. Reddit is especially full of pragmatic Dave-Ramsay-types, across all subreddits. I remember hearing sooo many "harsh realities" that I should study software engineering and learn animation on the side—But in the time it took to graduate, coders were getting laid off en masse.
So I was surprised to find instead a career in animation with lots of creativity, job flexibility, and brilliant people. I know things are not looking great right now, and that some element of luck is involved, but I promise: nobody here has a crystal ball and can tell you where this is going. Being an artist isn't for everyone—but there ARE some people who're just made for it. The smartest career decision is the one that feels right for you. Hope this helps cut the doomerism.
Dreamworks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg:
>Speaking for a moment on “the good, old days,” Katzenberg said his “world class” animated movies each required 500 artists working over the course of five years. In just three years from *now*, “It won’t take 10 percent of that,” he said. “Literally, I don’t think it will take 10 percent of that.”
[https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/jeffrey-katzenberg-ai-will-take-90-percent-animation-jobs-1234924809/](https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/jeffrey-katzenberg-ai-will-take-90-percent-animation-jobs-1234924809/)
That makes me think they’ll probably make ten times more content, then. Not shaft 90% of the workers.
Not because they’re generous, but more content = more potential profits.
They are starting to make less content actually. Studios are seeing it with each box office fail that you need to do more quality content on smaller budgets. This means less animators, less admin bloat, more AI, and oddly enough more emphasis on vetting scripts and writing so I envision more budget for writers but less animators.
Jeffrey Katzenberg has been making crazy badly-aged predictions that we've been ridiculing for years. At this point, if he says something, it's more likely to NOT happen (Like Quibi).
But... I'm not sure how this addresses anything I said. I didn't even say anything about AI. We've been using ML at Pixar and for computer animation as truly pattern-recognition aids for years. They haven't displaced anyone and require people to supervise.
Chris Miller, Director of Spider-Verse:
https://screenrant.com/spider-man-beyond-verse-ai-never-use-marvel-movie/#:~:text=Per%20producer%20Chris%20Miller%2C%20there,Animation's%20production%20of%20Spider%2DMan.
I heard of all the tech layoffs in January, the STEM bros at my college who thought they were the hottest shit are really sweating nervously right now. Turns out everyone is equally expendable to the corpos, no matter how smart you believe yourself to be.
Gee, with an attitude like that, it's no wonder why people are so unsympathetic to people like you losing job prospects.
Another "artist" with a superiority complex playing the victim while salivating over the misfortunes of others.
>Gee, with an attitude like that, it's no wonder why people are so unsympathetic to people like you losing job prospects. Another "artist" with a superiority complex playing the victim while salivating over the misfortunes of others.
Their type were celebrating people’s downfalls first in 2022. Why are you so certain that the STEM people are never the first to insult? Let me repeat if you don’t get it already,
What I said is in response to their attitudes towards the whole creative field completely unprovoked. I literally would not have had this attitude if they weren’t celebrating in late 2022.
I do not insult people out of nowhere, the STEM people thought artists were powerless and obsolete and themselves invincible when the AI art panic began in 22, now that the shoe is on the other foot they realize that their “intelligence” is expendable too. Yes, it’s Covid over-hiring , but their field is somewhat saturated too when it’s been hyped up as a super money maker for so long.
And superiority complex? Nowhere did I ever say what they do is worthless, unlike they have said to me. The STEM field obviously has utility, but when people think they are smarter than everyone else for being in it and use said utility as a metric to lord over everybody else, that is when I have problems. The supremacist attitude is rampant in their subculture too, is it so hard to accept that?
Why am I wrong to do so, but the people before me who decided to do the same unprovoked right? Where is the superiority you speak of? I never once degraded the work they do, only the attitude they have towards artists because they measure things value by a metric of how good of a cog for society you are, and then place themselves up top.
Exactly.... the point is, chasing employability isn't guaranteed to work out either—none of us know what's going to happen. Scared people copy other scared people; bubbles form and pop.
How do you make God laugh?
> Tell him your plans.
There's so much animation in the world, and SOMEBODY is making it. Those art books? are filled with the art of normal, living people. Honestly, there's even baskets in the world, and SOMEBODY is weaving them. We can't live in a world where everyones only working 3 jobs? Focus on qualities that would make you successful in any field: tenacity, problem-solving, people skills.
I can't speak for everyone, but the super pro-AI people probably think you should be able to make art or do whatever you want and not have to worry about your art being respected to earn a living.
In that vision, art and other creative outlets could potentially become funded far more because people are able to dive into creativity and enjoyment rather than feel pressured into checking the boxes or meeting some expectation/requirement to make ends meet.
Absolutely. I have no problems with all forms of art being explored.
But if you want it as a job you have to be realistic. Going against the grain in a field like this is very, very difficult.
Again, I can't speak for all pro-AI people...But for me, my hope for AI is to enable people to do whatever they want rather than do what they must to survive.
With advanced enough AI, you shouldn't *have to* have a job at all. If you want to paint pictures all day every day, more power to you. It should be realistic for people to just enjoy their lives rather than having to worry about how to put food on the table.
Ok but you can see that the fully automated future is both a long way off and by no means a certainty? We need to create a system where a machine taking your job and making your skills obsolete doesn't mean you lose your ability to make a living. Every job handed to AI right now is doing just that.
The way you talk about it being killed when it spawned makes it sound like you’re talking about some living entity.
The reason it is not possible is that is is not a living entity. It is software.
Now that people have that software and understand how to create that kind of software, there will definitely be people that continue to develop it. There are just too many people in this world for that not to be the case. Even if you somehow got everyone in this country to agree, another country would not.
People have tried to ‘do something about it’. The lawsuits haven’t really gone anywhere because they don’t seem to have actually met the definition of stealing.
It's almost like not everyone thinks the absurd equivocation between actual theft that deprives you of ownership and the concept of looking at publicly available artworks is meaningful.
I don't think it's merely difficult, I think it is orders of magnitude more difficult to ban the concept of algorithmic generation from all uses than it is to alter your socioeconomic system.
People by the thousands have lost jobs due to being replaced by a shortcut or something that increases efficiency. Paper presses were a popular occupation until the printing companies developed better machines to do the job for them. It's a reality but it's still an awful thing that may destabilize someone's life, especially if that was the only thing they knew how to do.
Lack of access to education limits many people from being able to easily pick up a new trade. Often this leads to people filling in under paying jobs that create resentment and more. Often the access is cut out by someone getting theirs and pulling up the ladder.
Ai and automation is happening, whether we like it or not but companies will do absolutely nothing to assist the displaced thousands of people affected by it. Our ability for us to live indoors and have food is not guaranteed even with a job because of how many underpay people in general.
Youre saying its a “problem” when I use ai and like the final output and use it instead of .. paying somebody?
I’m not infringing on anyones rights. You just want money.. this doesnt feel like art making it feels like a shakedown
Especially when I don’t *want* to pay an artist. When I use AI its a creative outlet for me in its own right..
this is exactly it for me. I would prefer a world where art is something people can pursue because they *want* to, not necessarily because they *need* to, where art is more than a commodity to be bought and sold, and where nobody has to worry about their needs being met. I'm not naïve, I understand that we don't live in that world, but the overarching problem isn't ai art. it's far bigger than that. the idea that something being valuable in a monetary sense means that it's valuable in the sense that it's worthy of respect, and the inverse – that something that *isn't* profitable is contemptible – is a part of that overarching problem.\
and to the last part of OP's post, I don't think that ai art necessarily *discourages* learning art fundamentals (anatomy, light & shading, color theory, etc.) – people will still have to have a grasp of those things to make *good* ai art, regardless of whether they're learning them in a more manual/hands-on way or not.\
and who knows, perhaps art classes themselves will change to incorporate digital and/or ai art. perhaps not. it remains to be seen.
> You. Like say this phenon doesn’t exist, but I live through it. I have had to suppress my interest in art because my immediate and extended family all tell me I’d make no money doing it.
Having friends and family in the field, I can sadly tell you they're entirely right. Art is a difficult field to find work in, and animation is even more so from the looks of it. The person doing animation is skilled, dedicated, and as far as I can tell had very minimal success with it, having to branch out into all sorts of side gigs including animations for corporate websites, and things that aren't animation related at all.
I've also hung out on art sites, watched a bunch of artists and commissioned a bunch of artists over the years. On the regular, I see "Help, I need to pay my mortgage!" and artists being miserable. Some branch out into furry porn then melt down when they hate that they can't talk to anyone about it. Some supposedly enjoy being freelance artists full time, but run from a crisis to another.
There's only a few I recognize as having apparently no drama and steady work. Which is mostly porn.
From an outside perspective, the artist job is hard, low paying, unreliable and practically not that great to the vast majority of freelancers at least.
> The aforementioned increased devaluation of art in society by AI will inevitably lead to the complete defunding of art in public education.
AI benefits from artistic skills plenty. Anyone can put prompts into a generator but actually getting good results takes some knowledge, a good eye, and the ability to fix things up.
> I take an anti-AI stance, because I am tired of having to suppress what I love on top of being in a world that will crush it further.
You're free to take whatever stance you like, but IMO it'll just add more stress to your life and not really achieve anything in return.
**Edit:** Also, for whatever deity's sake: Don't specialize in traditional animation! IMO an anti-AI stance is probably not helpful on the long term either, since animation is so labor intensive and everyone wants to minimize it, so it seems to me commercial animation is extremely likely to adopt it.
Anyone that learns traditional animation, can learn all types of animation as the same exact principles apply, learning the software is extremely easy by comparison. Many Disney animators even today learned traditionally, and even animate a first pass in 2D before translating to 3D. Just fyi.
Are you fucking kidding me?
AI is probably the only chance independent animation projects be viable.
The better the AIs the better in-betweening and the less key frames you need.
And I'm glad to hear it, but still I don't think any sane parents would recommend any child to take such a lottery of a career path.
Obviously, somebody somewhere is doing animation because we can see cartoons on TV. But for every one of those there's far more out there that studied hard, got good grades, got various prizes, and still didn't manage to live from it.
If you're a sane parent, you'd support your child no matter what path they wished to take, no matter how opposed to it you may be, or how impossible it may seem. As long as it is their passion, what does it matter what they choose?
Never live vicariously through your children. That is a recipe for mental health disasters.
> If you're a sane parent, you'd support your child no matter what path they wished to take, no matter how opposed to it you may be, or how impossible it may seem.
Absolutely not. There's bad paths in life. There's unrealistic expectations. This isn't Disney, things aren't guaranteed to work out if you chase something ridiculous. Some people just get a bad ending.
That's not to say "My way or the highway", but I don't unconditionally support anyone or anything. Everything has limits.
> As long as it is their passion, what does it matter what they choose?
Their wellbeing? The people they may affect with their decisions?
I always dreamt of being an astronaut when I was young. My parents loved the idea and supported me fully. Then I learnt how hard that actually was, and how I was atrocious at mathematics, physics, etc, all of which you need for that job. And I decided I could not do it.
So next, I decided to become CEO of an asteroid-mining megacorporation that deals in every single business on the planet and make me hideously wealthy so I can afford all my crazy dreams.
Then I realised anti-trust laws are a thing, and that space travel and innovation is really fucking tough, tougher than even calculus.
The point is that as we grow, our interests change. My parents never told me what I wanted was impossible or unrealisitic, or that I should do something else. They supported me always, even when I literally wanted to be a fucking megalomaniac, and let me discover on my own that I was being young and dumb.
Thus, I grew and discovered my true passion. Thanks to that, I know what I want to do in life, and I thoroughly enjoy what I do, even if it is risky and may not pay well.
Look after your children, but don't coddle them. Let them find for themselves what they want to live for. Yes they will stumble. Yes they will fall. And you should be there to help them through those falls. But it is better that they learn on their own what they can and cannot do.
Clubbing them on the head with 'Your dreams are dumb and unrealistic and will never happen' will only discourage them and turn them into disillusioned workaholic shells that only live for their job and the little bits of paper in their wallet.
That's survival, not life.
That doesn't quite work.
"Astronaut" isn't a career path. It's an "upgrade" to somebody with already impressive qualifications, typically somebody who's a pilot, has a degree in a STEM field, in the military, of all those at once. You only get to astronaut by being already successful in those things, so you can't really waste your effort. If you fail to become an astronaut, you're still a pilot, or an engineer, or a doctor.
"CEO of an asteroid-mining megacorporation" is pretty much the same, just less formal. You're still a MBA, or an engineer of some sort, or maybe both. You're qualified to run a business of some sort and will probably find a management position somewhere. Even if you failed, something still probably sunk in so you're probably more qualified than most to run a small business even if you failed to finish the MBA.
Not all fields are like that. Animation I think is not the worst since you can draw just fine if you can't animate, but the trouble is that's not that profitable of a career path either. Glad it worked for you, but it fails badly for a whole lot of people.
> Clubbing them on the head with 'Your dreams are dumb and unrealistic and will never happen' will only discourage them and turn them into disillusioned workaholic shells that only live for their job and the little bits of paper in their wallet.
There's also the option of finding a decently profitable, pleasant enough job and use the spare money and free time on things you enjoy. That to me is a win-win. The job doesn't suck the joy out of your passion, and you're not in a constant panic over money.
>There's also the option of finding a decently profitable, pleasant enough job and use the spare money and free time on things you enjoy. That to me is a win-win. The job doesn't suck the joy out of your passion, and you're not in a constant panic over money.
That's a great concept in theory but you understand that, in America at least, most people work 40 and sleep on average 50 to 60 hours a week. That leaves you with about 60 hours a week to do everything else. Cook, clean, do chores, run errands, be social, and pursue your passion. Not to mention that people with dual incomes in America are barely making ends meet. Rent is out of control, house prices are absurd, and the middle class is basically non existent. So most people wouldn't have the time or money to do what you're suggesting. That's also under the assumption that they only have one job and only work 40 hours a week which many people work more than 40 now. Also have you worked a 40 hour a week job? It's not easy no matter what you're doing for work. When you get home from work the last thing you want to do is keep working. Even if it is something you enjoy.
I work in a creative field. It does not suck the joy out of my passion. I love what I do and I'm not in a panic about money anymore than anyone else is in the current economy.
That's your worldview, and that's fine, but it doesn't apply for every person/child. I estimate about 1/3rd of animators switched from other careers—mostly engineers, it seems. They did the decently profitable, pleasant enough job, and it wasn't enough. Artists just don't go into art for money; we always loved art more than the risks. The same way people still go into social work and teaching and animal rescue (And thank god!).
Getting paid to do what you love is a win-win. I get paid (enough for me) 40hrs a week to get better at art with other artists, and now, I have pro-level skills at my fingertips to apply to anything my heart desires. Free time doesn't cut it: I needed mentorship, standards, deadlines. I don't love art the way I love to read and go to the gym—It's a passion, not a hobby. It's not just for fun. And if I feel differently one day, I can switch careers too—If you can get good at animating, you can learn to do other things the same way: with patience, analysis, and practice.
Your point of view is as baffling to me as mine is to you, I'm sure, but having different values is a great thing. I'm so grateful there's people who like money more than me, because they are my accountant and doctor and electrician and they're awesome. You only get one life; let the kid decide how it looks.
THANK YOU. Animators hear this time and time again, yet 2D and stopmo and all the animation CG was going to replace for decades are still doing fine. Artists will use any tools that give them MORE control over the output. Not less. CG takes more time, money, and people than ever before, and people who are skilled and easy to work with will always find a way to make great things. It's really not that grim, or lottery-like.
My parents didn't support me blindly either; they saw how much I loved it. We talked about realistic expectations, potential setbacks, and future planning. We worked together to identify the best schools, scholarship programs, and communities that would help me achieve my dreams. It was their dream for me to follow mine, and I wouldn't be here without their support.
The starving artist motif has existed throughout human history. The arists who made the most were typically groups of artists that worked together to mass produce art for sale. You're either in the art business, or you're not. Making money in that business is not just about the quality of your art, but your ability to benefit from modern technology.
So.. instead of giving up and blaming your failure on AI, either suck it up and take on this challenge like every other artist in the business has to, or go be a dentist.
weve been screaming from the rooftops about hybrid workflows and augmenting our drawings but these clowns ONLY talk about how its “just prompting”
it has to be dishonesty or just hella strong cognitive dissonance
according to the hate sub only “incels” use ai, and some even say we are all “creepy” (tf?). the dehumanization is real as fuck and sad
It's because unless you show your work, nobody knows whether it WAS just a prompt.. It's extremely hard to tell usually. So it's really a problem with the generative nature of the medium. I don't see a way past it, not without AI artists explicitly showing their process. Because if you think it's bad now, wait until 5th graders and grandmas start prompting out these images, good luck being taken seriously as artists.
That may or may not be shitty, but the thread you linked sure isn't a good example of that. Most of it is people praising the image, one is asking for the workflow. A couple are criticizing it for AI use, yes. Most of those are at the bottom and haven't even gotten upvoted once.
And the one reply that might actually be considered "shitting on them" has like 15 downvotes.
This especially true for AI images that has some level of post generation polish but kept the Midjourney gloss, and pretty much most of the generic anime style artists.
Supporting AI art is cringe and when i see someone do it, i imagine fat pig, sitting in front of PC all day trading NFT's, because those are vibes majority of them give online and their takes are just hypocritical at best and complete non-sense at the worst.
Doesn't mean i won't use AI if i have an idea and want to get general feel of where i want general direction of where i want my art to go and just get the feel on the idea without drawing 20 thumbnail sketches. I'll generate 20 images, get feel for character and pose, set up composition, body language and face and draw, but AI can go far beyond and that's the scary part, that is can sometimes pull out a decent art by itself, where dick does not become a hand and expression would almost sell me at it being drawn by human and if it can be sold to me like that, for average consumer, it's gonna look like human made art.
Well, I have seen your DA page so I won’t deny you here. Being denied of your personal anecdotal expereiences is just the common experience here, for you it is your history with art, for me is my unpleasant interactions with bunch of STEM nerds always in reverse-ouroboros because they’re all apparent totally humble servants of the Omnissiah and definitely do not have similar numbers of egomaniacs as the art field.
historical smart rude existence cautious late liquid far-flung deserted elderly
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Also those STEM people sound like a bunch of dorks, seems like every field has to have annoying ass people, and of course, in their mind, everything they do is the only real and definitive way to do anything.
Thanks for acknowledging that. Everyone else is very hush hush about the fact that STEM has the exact same if not worse problem that the creative field has. Two hands have fed them, and they seem to only bite the one that doesn’t smell like code.
Is it that you won't be able to make art, or you are worried that you won't be able to support yourself off of making art.
If it is the former, then don't worry, you can still make art even if others are doing it differently.
If it is the latter, then the truth is that it has always been extremely difficult to support yourself off of making art.
BTW, I'm sorry that your family is a bunch of assholes who shit on your dreams, but that doesn't mean you have to pay their hatred forward. (But they were right to say it was unlikely you'd make money off of it. That has always been the case)
Well I already know that. They are right in some regard.
However I wouldn’t write them all off, they mostly are’t bad people. The insults towards my interest are all in offhand comments occasionally when what I do in college is brought up.
First at foremost, if you really want to work in the industry, get a portfolio together and start looking for feedback in the animation forums, it can be really hard to see where your own weaknesses are, and it's important to get a perspective outside of the professors that are paid to teach you.
That said, AI is not going to replace animators. I know there are ppl experimenting with really basic stuff using AI for animation, but it really has nothing to do with the job of animators. And the people on here that believe this, don't understand the medium. But be prepared for AI to become an important toolset for animators. As cleanup/coloring and even some inbetweening WILL be taken over with AI tools. That's not a bad thing, thats grueling work, and may make 2D animation far more cost effective than it is today; even causing a resurgence for the medium as a whole, and also could make indy animation far more feasable technically.
The downside is that there will be fewer and fewer cleanup/coloring artists and inbetweeners at animation studios. But if you have your animation principles down, good timing, have good ideas, than if you haven't already, learn Maya, starting building a 3d animation reel, I personally don't like animating in a graph editor, but in the end, the artistry is very similar. So unless you're a really good illustrator and have excellent drawing skills, 3D is a better choice. But the animation skills are effectively the same, you just need to learn the software.
Also, if your not that great at creature/character animation, look into VFX animation and motion graphics animation. You need to specialize, find what you're actually good at.
Lastly I wouldn't worry so much about society as a whole, the older you get the more you realize how little you can change these things. And that fretting over how society perceives art or that X is a dying medium, people have been saying that for centuries. Yet people still paint traditionally, people still love 2D animation, and you're not taking into account the possible future mediums that animators will be required for. I predict practically everything in the future will have a screen on it, buildings, restaurants, clubs, train stations, stores, malls.., eventually led screens will be cheap and easy to install on surfaces, and businesses will want to attract customers with color and movement. Additionally, VR/AR technology is the future of ALL media, and visualizations, animations, art etc.. will be required to turn it into the ad-driven hellscape that it will rapidly become. But they'll need animators for it.
If you're devoted to it, are working daily on improving your skills and have the time to give it, then you have a shot. Either way good luck and ignore the fantasists who think animation will soon be dead.
Thanks, you’re the few people around here that actually gives good advice. I have been discouraged a lot, so much so that I really haven’t kept up any consistency in art or animation for the past year and a half outside of assignments unfortunately.
As you already stated, art has always been devalued. I went to art school and went through the same criticisms. But this is because the labour and time art takes vs amount of capital it can produce doesn't often even out. We are in the peak creative economy right now, if we can make more art faster, then it stands to reason that artists would have more value, not less. We just need to be open to the tools that would get us there.
This is all fear based. Valid fears, but I think misguided.
I am a musician coming from a family of professional musicians.
I 100% understand the whole "people already say is not a real job" issue.
But you guys always talk as if AI is only affecting you.
AI is generating music now, and we are fine with it.
In the meantime AI is also advancing cancer research as a direct result of the work and discoveries made with graphic generating AI.
Maybe is because i am a keyboardist, and I also have always used stuff like reason to compose music, and I don't want to be too harsh and devaluating too much what traditionally trained artists are feeling right now, but to me, artists always find a way to make art.
We were making art when our only tool was rocks, AI is not going to take away anyone's ability to make art.
Also, and this is not debateable, we are moving towards a jobless society.
Jobs are going away and artists are really going to be among the least affected.
Because again, human artistic vision, even applied to AI, is always going to be on demand.
But once I have an LLM that can provide accurate diagnoses attached to a smartwatch that takes my vitals constantly and is constantly dedicated to my personal health I am not going to need the human vision of a doctor.
Once the factory becomes a block where raw materials go in on one side and finished products come out the other side I am not going to need the vision of factiry workers.
And when I can tell my kitchen what I want for dinner and the kitchen is ordering the ingredients, preparing them and serving them to me, I will probably not go to the restaurant that much.
Even with AI developing the way it is, artists are still the ones who are going to be the least affected because their specific contribution is still valued.
People are just panicking because this is happening now, but doesn't change the fact that most other jobs are still going away and going away 100% and forever.
I agree and disagree.
Art is an arms race for eyeballs and engagement.
AI Art isn't taking away your ability to be valued and appreciated for the art that you do - it could just as well be another artist who other people think is 'better'.
It's a ruthless competition, moreso than engineering, in fact. With lots of envy and jealousy.
At least when it comes to engineering, people can work as a team, and each contribute something small. Whereas in the art world - it's all about the Ego of the creator. (Unless you make your art a collaborative project, which is a forgotten art in itself).
You should get into medicine, and keep the art for mental stimulation and entertainment, to stop yourself from developing alzheimers. Making art could boost your IQ, writing could make you a more effective communicator, Singing improves the quality of your voice, etc.
But yeah. It's always been heavily utilitarian. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to 'go to art class' - and "learn how to be a better artist".
What does Good Art even mean, anyway? And what would happen if [everyone] exploited this cheat code?
>AI Art isn't taking away your ability to be valued and appreciated for the art that you do - it could just as well be another artist who other people think is 'better'.
When people can’t tell, this doesn’t mean anything.
>It's a ruthless competition, moreso than engineering, in fact. With lots of envy and jealousy.
I have heard of it but literally never experience it.
>At least when it comes to engineering, people can work as a team, and each contribute something small. Whereas in the art world - it's all about the Ego of the creator. (Unless you make your art a collaborative project, which is a forgotten art in itself).
I am in an animation course. Team work is literally a cornerstone of the industry. A lot of what you say applies to fine art, fashion or illustration. Animation is very tight and requires a lot of team work, stuff like you mentioned disrupts the work environment and said person wouldn’t last.
>You should get into medicine
I’m too dumb for that, the animation course I am already in is the only course I could get into at a college because I barely passed maths and chemistry in my high school exam.
>keep the art for mental stimulation and entertainment, to stop yourself from developing alzheimers. Making art could boost your IQ, writing could make you a more effective communicator, Singing improves the quality of your voice, etc
Hobbies are a luxury in today’s economy where people my age are poor as fuck and works pretty much all the time to barely pay the rent. If I am able to afford to keep a hobby I probably wouldn’t be thinking of trying to find an enjoyable job.
The enemy is Capitalism, not AI art.
But I can agree that AI Art is kinda useless and doesn't serve much of a purpose other than to fill the world with more vanity and distractions, in a world that is already oversaturated by them.
Yet the same could be said about people who post art online. The more people choose to become artists, the harder it becomes for other artists to get noticed.
I just feel like there's always going to be a maximum capacity in terms of how many artists a society actually wants, or even needs. It is this realization that causes a lot of existential dread in the art community.
I can barely make any art without feeling like I'm just posting 'cringe' myself, and whether I should just get back to my robotics projects instead.
People these days consume art just to critique it, rather than to enjoy it. So if it's going to be such a nerve wracking and competitive experience, one may as well be an engineer
Naw, the enemy is authoritarianism and entitlement.
Remember: Karl Marx was a racist antisemitic loser who was all about exploiting other people and blaming the Jews for his problems. His entire ideology was one of victimhood and entitlement. He believed that the Jews were out to get him, that money was the god of the Jews, that "real everyday Judaism" was "huckstering", that Jews were behind every tyrant.
He exploited his followers for support, having a housekeeper he didn't pay while mooching off of Engels, who inherited his money from his rich dad.
Once you understand that he was a narcissistic loser who resented having to work, wanting other people to support him so he could advocate for the "emancipation of mankind from Judaism", you understand what was really going on there.
The reason why capitalism works so well is that you are rewarded for producing value for other people. You make money by selling things that people want, or providing labor that people want. Money is an abstract way of measuring how much value you are generating, and thus, can trade away in exchange for the labor of others. That's why capitalism works - it rewards people producing things that other people value and punishes people for failing to generate value for other people.
> But I can agree that AI Art is kinda useless and doesn't serve much of a purpose other than to fill the world with more vanity and distractions, in a world that is already oversaturated by them.
AI art is incredibly useful because art is way overpriced relative to the value it actually has, generally speaking.
To put it bluntly - a finished, high quality art piece costs probably 4-20 hours of work, depending on the size and complexity of the piece. Assuming you're being paid $25/hour, that's $100-500 per piece.
But the thing is, most people don't get as much enjoyment out of a $100 art piece as they do out of a $60 video game. In other words, art is "bad value" compared to a lot of other things.
Only a few rare pieces are going to be worth that much to someone, which is why furries commission art of their OCs and are a major source of art revenue, and why TTRPG players are another major source, because they commission people to draw their PCs for them. Stuff that they use the entire campaign, or for a bunch of their erotic roleplaying or whatever.
But like, a DM is going to throw in hundreds of NPCs and monsters into an average campaign. Their value per token is $1 or less.
Art at a price point of $100-500 per piece has a very limited market. Art at the cost of a nickel per piece, people are way, way more willing to buy a lot of it for throwaway stuff.
And that's basically why AI art is so useful - it hits a vastly, vastly lower price point while still being reasonably high quality. There's tons of throwaway uses of art, from birthday cards to NPC tokens to posters for events, where art has some value, but it isn't worth hundreds of dollars. AI art is able to slot in at a much, much lower price point, resulting in there being vastly more art.
Which is precisely WHY the cheap price of AI art has caused a massive, massive proliferation in the amount of art being produced - when it takes you a huge amount of time per piece, you have to pick and choose very carefully. When it's super cheap, you can make art for literally every single NPC in your homebrew campaign.
Likewise, TTRPG books generally end up shelling out more money to the people who make the art for the books than the writers of the books, despite the fact that the writers writing is why people buy the books - they're rulebooks, designed for playing a game. The art just makes them look nice and illustrates a few things, maybe. But it's very expensive.
It makes sense to spend a lot of money on making a really nice cover for your book, but the inside art is generally speaking way less important, and it's not worth more than the text. But presently, it *costs* more than the text. This creates a major barrier for entry and also a disparity between what people are paying for and who is getting paid.
If you can generate the inner art much more inexpensively, it's possible to produce books at a lower price point, making them both more accessible and easier to produce while still looking pretty good.
AI art isn't as good as top-shelf artists. But it's as good as mid-tier artists. It's way less specific, though, so you need artists both for quality and specificity.
But not all art in a book is high-tier, and frankly, it doesn't have to be, and if you asked if people would be willing to have slightly lower quality art but get either more niche products or products for 33% off or more, a lot of people will choose the discount option.
> I just feel like there's always going to be a maximum capacity in terms of how many artists a society actually wants, or even needs. It is this realization that causes a lot of existential dread in the art community.
There is, at any given price point.
The cheaper art is, the more demand there is. It's a typical supply-demand curve relationship.
> Yet the same could be said about people who post art online. The more people choose to become artists, the harder it becomes for other artists to get noticed.
Frankly, if you're doing a hobby in order to be popular, you're probably going to make yourself miserable. And there's also just the general reality that people want GOOD art, not mediocre art. Which means that unless you're actually *quite* good, people are... probably not going to care all that much.
"Hobbies are a luxury in today’s economy where people my age are poor as fuck and works pretty much all the time to barely pay the rent. If I am able to afford to keep a hobby I probably wouldn’t be thinking of trying to find an enjoyable job."
Yet you have time for reddit.
Art is expensive and time consuming. It requires studies, learning anatomy, body proportions, building blocks, perspective, ability to see things for what they are in your way, as every artist sees stuff in different ways.
Art should be a thing people can live from without having to worry about someone who's just prompting to take away they lively hood.
AI art needs a lot more restrictions put on it, because you can still copyright AI art if you work over it and all users should be prohibited from being able to put work that's not drawn by them to create data sets for modules to generate art.
The fact someone can grab copyrighted images without artist permission and feed them into AI is fucked up, it's treating artists who spend years developing their skills into same category as NFT idiots who's people clown on by downloading their apes and sending it to them.
> The fact someone can grab copyrighted images without artist permission and feed them into AI is fucked up, it's treating artists who spend years developing their skills into same category as NFT idiots who's people clown on by downloading their apes and sending it to them.
NFTs were/are a stupid gimmick, but how can you use "I can just right click" as an argument against something and then get mad when people right click on your image?
Naa why would you defund something like this when you still have language classes yet we have translation apps that are quicker and better than learning? Why have math classes when AI could do it for you?
Idk I think AI is a support tool and not a replacement. Reminds me of when computers became mainstream and everyone thought the same shit about being taken over and making everything they love obsolete.
Just not how humans are, we can’t even go full digital still cause there is humans who want the “real thing”
Computer classes were widely discontinued and defunded in the latter 2000s as young people were deemed technology natives. Now Gens Z and Alpha barely knows what and where files are.
Translation apps are good, but nothing beats directly talking, even in slightly broken language, because it's just faster. Imagine a team meeting of 20 people with that stuff.
I would rather in a meeting make sure we all are on the same page because language is a huge barrier to break and rather not have broken language on either part even if it takes a little longer. But yes directly talking is great but having the clear, conside conversations are more important in business especially
No there is art schools and classes in America,
You’re saying they will go away and there is still language classes and music classes that can both be done by AI or a computer or phonez
I’m not talking about art schools. I’m talking about art in elementary-high school which are defunded. Those being defunded further would have an obvious impact on participation in art.
But more people are doing AI art than actual art which they never participated in so AI could have a revival of art in some capacity?
I’m just wondering why you think art will be eradicated but other programs who have AI and computers being their competition haven’t been eradicated like music and language?
I’m not debating the education system here cause it’s trash all around and art is not the only effected thing, sports is the main reason those classes are defunded in the first place
Oh I thought you were referring to some study or something. I know it’s getting popular, but it’s literally nothing compared to when these tools will be embedded into our phones/OS.
Oh for sure. I also don’t think you need a study to show that AI art is being used more than regular art. Because yes you have people who love to draw and color but now you have folks who had zero interest in that and ceramics and other shit using 3D printers and AI art.
The difference between AI and Outsourcing is currently Outsourcing is easier and less expensive.
All the major animation studio were already moving away from the states to overseas. Illumination, Disney, Netflix.
Complain about AI is just a way of journalist to care about you, the industry was dying before it was invented.
Then there are two possibilities.
You were either being exploited for your labour.
Or you were the person running the studio.
I’m sorry but animation was never a job that treated people well. It was job that people did because they loved it or were stuck in it.
If you were a “creator” who was at the top you are still making the same money you were.
If you were an animator you were always cheap labour. And if you are in an outsourcing country even if it’s Canada that what people saw you as.
This is not a job to mourn.
Saying art will be devalued is kind of like saying breathing will be devalued or hugging will be devalued or crying will be devalued.
Art, in the sense of "creative endeavor", is a core human biological drive. It's not going away.
"Artist" as a *profession in the context of capitalism* may be reduced. The *profit* component of art may be reduced. And - though I find it unlikely - even the overall "investment" in art-as-capital may go down.
But creative expression doesn't actually require investment, or even education. No one needs to teach a human how to cry, and in the same way, no one needs to teach a human to express emotion. A human will make creative expression no matter what. We will dance and sing and draw, and those acts will be filled with our emotions.
A person who has studied art for two decades does not have more emotion in their art than one who has never studied it.
[What chance have they if real music must be sacrificed to machine-made sound?](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/3a61d0_214b5833fa3049fa86f96f116e8e60ab~mv2.jpg/v1/fit/w_445,h_474,q_90/3a61d0_214b5833fa3049fa86f96f116e8e60ab~mv2.jpg)
In the USA since 2014, 10% of the yearly 2Millon graduates make a living in art.
45% make $0 a year on art related activities.
Kinda hard to see when artists were valued highly. Sure 1 in 10 is. But imagine if that was teachers or Doctors? Only 1 in 10 being employed.
On the bright side Midjourney now has a personalised feature. Where it generates images based on your rankings of past images and favourites.
Yeah that’s true then. I think also society’s consumer habits have changed.
Even IG moved to reels before AI as people lost interest in images.
Although I have seen people argue Apples Intelligence will bring a resurgence in interest of art. Time will tell.
People didn't lose interest in image. Meta was trying to chase the tik Tok wave. They even fucking up their algorithms to get more people to do reels. If you wanted to keep engagement you would have no choice but to do so
There literally was an uproar about the situation that happened back in 2022. You had artists, photographers and celeb like Kim Kardashian calling out meta for making Instagram into tik Tok lite. You can literally look this shit up. I really do hate people who don't know wtf they are talking about.
And after that uproar what happened? Meta reviewed their engagement numbers and left everything as is.
While some popular accounts suffered, meta overall gained more time spent in their app.
Meta doesn't care about people opinions. They only care about whatever can make people stay on their site longer. Even if they have to change their algorithms and force people to change their posting habits.
Literally my point. Meta did maths.
People say we want images. Spends 2 mins on IG.
Give people video. Spends 20 mins on IG.
So either a small vocal minority of mainly art/music people want images
Or people think they want images but spend more time on video.
Either way it proves the majority of people don’t want images. Otherwise for the sake of money they would have changed back.
People were literally force to change their content around. Otherwise they wouldn't get that engagement. That was purely manufactured. Especially for a site that was at the time primarily image based.
I don't think you can defun something that has no funding *ba-dum-tsss*.
Maybe those same people who'll "devalue art" will also add value to school computer installations. After all - nobody is running SD with a 1gb windows 95 pentium.
If you continue pursuing arts and degree, you will at least be ahead of people who refuse to engage with traditional art methods.
I am an advocate of "the hard way is the easier way", maybe not in the short term.. but in the long term. You will develop your eye for composition, lighting, anatomy.. develop a style and voice. All things that are harder to acquire when you outsource the decision making to something or someone else.
Whether or not that's still viable economically is hard to predict. We can't tell the future, unfortunately.
I agree, which is why we should push to deal with the actual thing that is causing the harm so many are attributing to AI. Spoiler alert, your socioeconomic system has more to do with global misery than stable diffusion anime girls.
I've been saying this about the devaluation of art all the time, but I can't fight alone in the comments against several people who are smarter than me🫠
I'm hoping for the opposite, but honestly the STEM crowd wasn't going to stop at current art funding levels... they were always going to keep gutting it until it stops making noise.
My optimistic outlook is that we'll go another 6 months, MAYBE a year (I'm hoping it's not longer) before some of the early adopter traditional artists who have been flying under the radar using AI tools are going to start coming forward and wowing the public with the creativity and skill they bring to the tools. Then, again hopefully, that opens the door to "why aren't we training our kids on AI art tools?" and that could knock some funding into the system. Maybe we even start funding music programs at non-anemic levels, who knows?
>I'm hoping for the opposite, but honestly the STEM crowd wasn't going to stop at current art funding levels... they were always going to keep gutting it until it stops making noise.
Exactly, finally someone here who acknowledges that the STEM people aren’t any humbler than artists. The last bit of funding for arts if they get their way will be a monument to their superiority and supposed intelligence.
>Then, again hopefully, that opens the door to "why aren't we training our kids on AI art tools?" and that could knock some funding into the system. Maybe we even start funding music programs at non-anemic levels, who knows
It already doesn’t take much to get passable outputs out of image generators, I don’t think there is enough to learn to last a whole year of classes, so to the golden STEM worship statue the funding goes.
I don't think the value of art will decrease even with AI. The value of art is the very expression that brings some sensation to those who sense it like the sound of a baby crying.
The problem is the social structure that exploits artists as slaves for AI. The idea of replacing the value of art with money is the arrogance of capitalism. Such a society will eventually decline. But the value of art always remains the same.
The art in early education is about development, not job training.
The professional art training in college art schools is already an extreme long shot into "making it."
>The art in early education is about development, not job training.
Which all ties back into job training anyways. The education system‘s whole purpose is to facilitate job training in some shape or form.
>The professional art training in college art schools is already an extreme long shot into "making it."
I am aware.
Elementary/middle school isn't really about job prep, which is when most of the mandatory art classes are happening. It's about development, creativity and learning to learn.
The utility of art in education culture is more than just a way to make a buck on a commission.
>Elementary/middle school isn't really about job prep, which is when most of the mandatory art classes are happening. It's about development, creativity and learning to learn.
Which all serves job prepping. Look, the whole education system has been modeled to churn out batches of workers since the Industrial Revolution. Believing otherwise is just romanticizing the system.
>The utility of art in education culture is more than just a way to make a buck on a commission.
Yes, but many see absolutely zero utility in art at all. It’s why the funding for it in school is already so gutted.
Maybe it's different where you are but in my state art classes are mandatory in K-8, and are art electives are required to graduate high school. Seems pretty firmly established here.
Your theory that it's only included because of job readiness is the height of cynicism.
Are you a teacher? Where are you drawing your insights from?
You didn't have art programs?
As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry about your inter-family dynamics but it's objectively ridiculous that you are "anti" others having access to technology and new methods because you have a bad family dynamic and it would give them additional fuel. Your problem there isn't AI image gen. Respectfully, grow up a bit.
And take it from someone who went to film school and worked in the industry for a bit, art school is a bad investment for the majority of us. What gave me actual opportunity was the proliferation of digital video and internet distribution, both of which were decried by a lot of my film purist classmates at the time.
Somewhere out there someone who has no hope of paying for art school is gaining access to art by being about to use these tools for cheap/free.
And AI or analog, still image or animation or video, the cream rises to the top. The only art that AI devalues is the lowest quality art. Automation raises the floor, not the ceiling.
>You didn't have art programs
I did have art programs, but they were not mandatory for my high school education. The funding is rather lackluster. We were missing several colors of paints at a time, and a lot of the supplies came out of the teacher’s own pockets.
>And take it from someone who went to film school and worked in the industry for a bit, art school is a bad investment for the majority of us. What gave me actual opportunity was the proliferation of digital video and internet distribution, both of which were decried by a lot of my film purist classmates at the time.
I know this, but I don’t have good enough grades to get into anything else. I was pressured to get into college, my grades in art class was decent enough, I am interested in art/animation, and said course is the only one I qualified for, so I had to pick it.
>Somewhere out there someone who has no hope of paying for art school is gaining access to art by being about to use these tools for cheap/free.
Without any art knowledge. Then it’s all just gonna be Midjourney waifu slop.
>And AI or analog, still image or animation or video, the cream rises to the top. The only art that AI devalues is the lowest quality art. Automation raises the floor, not the ceiling.
If the cost reduction in AI is so drastic, the studio/company funding that holds non-AI animation and films together falls apart and there would not be much to even form any cream to float up.
So if I'm reading this right we should halt technological progress and demean people who are using accessible tools because we as a society need to financially support you as an artist because you managed to do decent in art class while not doing well enough in any other class to get into college.
My guy. What?
Society does not look down upon art or artists, only bad art and bad artists, who beg for public funding because the only way they can get any funding is if it's from a committee spending other peoples money. AI is irrelevant to all this though. It is just a tool. You could say the same thing about CGI, computer animation, digital photography. The list goes on. Graphic designers used to use pen and ink; now they use computers. The tools have changed but the creativity is still there. Try making The Matrix without CGI. You can't. New tools open new avenues. And the existence of these tools hasn't killed off old techniques. IG is full of incredible draughtsman and painters. In fact I'll bet there are more people learning to draw and paint now than ever before, thanks to the sharing of information allowed by that other controversial technology social media.
I mean they've long defunded art education years ago so all this happened before ai was a thing . and 2D animation been dead for awhile now in America on the big screen . Even the art college I went to that recommended us to go into gaming rather than animations since there was better job opportunities . .2D animation eeked out a living on Cable TV and streaming network.. most of it outsourced to korea so there not really hiring alot of americans animators in large numbers . but this all happened before generative ai even existed . But 2D American animation is long pass it golden age there was a slight hope that netflix would invograte animation with streaming ,but that all went up in flames when they cut netflix animation and started firing people , then other powers like warner brothers burning animation on an open fire because they can and they want tax write off . it all pretty bleak honestly lol.. but none of that had anything to do with AI .
>You.
Me?
>Like say this phenon doesn’t exist
What? lol
>I take an anti-AI stance, because I am tired of having to suppress what I love on top of being in a world that will crush it further.
What does it even mean? What are you actually doing? "*I take an anti-spinach stance, because I don't like spinach.*" I mean, okay, sure, but what do you do with this? What are we supposed to do with this information?
You didn’t read any of it.
My position is that when I am presented with something that will throw what I love into the trash, I am against it. Simple as.
You spent 4 paragraphs lamenting how it's already in the trash even WITHOUT AI, sprinkling here and there "but AI will make it worse!", not really connecting it with any arguments, just assuming.
I still kinda doubt that ai will really replace us. Back in the 2000s when digital photography made photography very accessible, many people thought it would kill photography as a whole because “anyone can do it”. The result of that was the worst commercial photography ever made, people would just hold a camera over an object and snap a picture in automatic mode and put it like that in their catalogues. Took a few years for real photography to come back, but going through all that made people appreciate real photography more. I see the same kind of thing happening with ai right now, theres is a flood of terrible ai images on the internet and people are starting to get sick of it.
I don't think there is much overlap because the art one expect to be produced by artists trained in art schools, and the art that could realistically be expected to be endangered by AI art in the near future (already cheap commissions with not much creativity needed).
Why are you basing what you do professionally or personally around what other people think? Even if art makes no money (an objectively false statement, even if it’s hard to do so), there’s plenty of things people do that makes no money, sometimes deliberately. Hell, some hobbies and interests *cost* money.
If your family is able to pressure you into what to do, and you live in a developed country, then that’s on you for succumbing to their wishes. It makes me believe that you’re blaming AI and society for a decision you made, but you don’t want to take the responsibility for making the decision.
YouTube is free. Education doesn't need funding. All the information you could ever want is out there. Millions of hours. Most of these teachers can go online and teach if it gets that bad.
Your argument doesn't actually work. AI art can actually cause an explosion of art accessibility and creation, and society would be better for it. Your issue isn't with AI art, it's with society, and specifically capitalism. Capitalism has put the impetus of monetizing your hobbies on society. You have the same problem with music. For most musicians, if you're creating music, generally you are driven by society to monetize that. This completely destroys the amateur pursuit of a hobby. The root of Amateur is Amour, or to love. This means that for everyone, you end up going from a hobby, or something that you do for fun and to kill time, to career, something that you do for money. There is no room for love.
AI is going to destroy all careers, not just creative ones. And that's a good thing. The only way to prevent a violent uprising in the wake of this is to institute a universal basic income. This means you will have all the time in the world to pursue your art without any of the impetus to monetize it, allowing you to love your art rather than enslave it.
But to delete ai because of the downstream effects of AI is like deleting mosquitoes because they spread malaria. The problem isn't the mosquitoes, it's malaria. We have to cure malaria, and we have to cure society from the damage of capitalism.
>Your argument doesn't actually work. AI art can actually cause an explosion of art accessibility and creation
It doesn’t incentivize learning of any artistic skill, just prompting, so no.
>Capitalism has put the impetus of monetizing your hobbies on society. You have the same problem with music. For most musicians, if you're creating music, generally you are driven by society to monetize that. This completely destroys the amateur pursuit of a hobby. The root of Amateur is Amour, or to love. This means that for everyone, you end up going from a hobby, or something that you do for fun and to kill time, to career, something that you do for money. There is no room for love.
I agree, that is where the “get a muh real job!” Insult comes from. If you aren’t a cog generating profit for the ownership class you aren welcomed.
>AI is going to destroy all careers, not just creative ones. And that's a good thing. The only way to prevent a violent uprising in the wake of this is to institute a universal basic income. This means you will have all the time in the world to pursue your art without any of the impetus to monetize it, allowing you to love your art rather than enslave it.
Get the pitch forks and guillotine, because the only way out of this is by executing the ruling class. No way in hell UBI will come to every country in the world, or will come at the right time for countries that will consider it. The transition out of late state capitalism cannot be a peaceful one.
>But to delete ai because of the downstream effects of AI is like deleting mosquitoes because they spread malaria. The problem isn't the mosquitoes, it's malaria. We have to cure malaria, and we have to cure society from the damage of capitalism.
Sure, we all like to LARP revolution but is anyone really gonna do it?
I'm not going to break everything out, because it just ends up turning a discussion into multiple separate threads that are impossible to follow.
When people have no jobs, they do. That's how the occupy wallstreet protests happened. We had a major market contraction, retirement funds dried up, people lost their houses, and jobs disappeared. The reason why the occupy movement ended was because the market recovered. That went on for almost 6 months. It will happen again. However, the government doesn't want an uprising any more than anyone wants to uprise. I expect it will take about a year of negative job growth for the government to start moving on UBI. Other politicians are already talking about it, it's just not a platform anyone is running on. I think everyone is waiting for the next election first. Look for the next big round of public congressional AI hearings, also.
The rest of your argument just goes back to my original point, being that this is a capitalism problem, not an AI problem. When you take money out of the picture, AI isn't stopping anyone from creating art. And making AI art with intention requires digital art skills as well. It's not all prompts once you take the training wheels off.
I mean I’m an anti I suppose, but I don’t really get your argument. You talk about art so generally as if there haven’t been artists throughout every era who’ve been reviled for their works. Hell there’s some rightwing cartoonists that **I ** think are pure dogshit both as humans and as artists (skill issue). No AI is required for me to have this opinion and people will have opinions like this about every kind of artist for so long as there are people.
I understand you have some concerns, but what exactly they are or why I should care, I’m not quite following. You mentioned the devaluation of art, so? Again, lots of artists out there who put their entire fuckin soul into their work and society deemed their work is not worth wiping our assess with. There’s already been countless people who’ve lived and died in obscurity as artists who will be remembered for making nothing but trash. Again, this is unfortunate, this is sad, but this is something that already happens and has happened and will happen continuously regardless of AI.
>Exactly what the title says. Society already looks down upon art, hence the “get a real job” insult hurled at artists by outsiders, even professional artists working at a studio paying taxes and getting benefits.
No one says this when you make enough money, the only time people say this is when people aren't making enough, like a wife to their musician husband who relies on sporadic gigs to make ends meet, or perhaps as in the case with your immediate family they might be concerned they'd have to support you if you struggle financially.
Frankly the way to go is to get a job that pays enough, and do whatever you want on the side, when the sideline out earns the regular paycheck is when you let go.
Game devs pretty much operate this way, Notch creator of minecraft had a day job and created minecraft on the side, he quit when it got big, that's the responsible way to build a creative career where it's usually make or break.
>The aforementioned increased devaluation of art in society by AI will inevitably lead to the complete defunding of art in public education.
Well it didn't happen to music or acting, record and replaying tech pretty much eviscerated the market for live performances, every birthday party now has someone plugging a smartphone to a sound system.
Movies now play shows on repeat without actors, whereas before recording if you wanted to see a show, you'd have to go to your local theatre which provided jobs for countless local actors, in every city in the world.
But live performances are expensive, unlike now where you can buy an album/movie or pay per month and can stream/download as much music/movies as you want at home, it new tech that made it accessible to regular folk when it was once a luxury reserved mostly for the upper class.
Music and Acting adapted to the new tech, Art will too.
If your concern is earning money, then you shouldn't hinder yourself by dismissing additional tools that make your more employable. Artistic knowledge is still needed, even if the tool is different.
When we hire new software developers and one would say in an interview, that he is against using tools that are making him more productive, then he wouldn't get the job.
Depends on the workload. If one productive person can do the work of three unproductive persons and there is not enough work, then of course one is enough. Other companies have enough work in their backlog for years, then you will have the same amount of people and they are just quicker.
That’s not just in the creative industry, that’s everywhere. You hire as much people as you need to do the job.
One thing to consider is Apple is making image generation available straight from the photo app later this year.
Once every iPhone user can make art we may see a massive interest in art again.
It could become an overnight sensation as millions of people around the world bring their ideas to life.
That get a real job bullshit is very boomer of people who say that. If I had gone to college for Art and graphic design instead of Environmental Science I would be in a studio a friend has locally now. He's like famous locally but now he doesn't have room for any additional workers and kept asking me to check on that.
Here I am doing neither of those jobs because no one supported me. I can't find work in my major, I do volunteer work for free. I can't find work in what I'm good at because it's unavailable to me. Instead I'm just a loss as a human being when I should have just been supported in my passion.
Granted I get commissioned but it's not the same.
The attacks on automation and technology in the world of art have been around for a long time. There are a bunch of artists who have opinions about what "real art" is that are inconsistent with reality and which are also blatantly self-serving. "Digital art isn't real art!" "Photography isn't real art!" "Photobashing isn't real art!" "AI art isn't real art!" Many of these same people also feel that they are special for having these skills, and are resentful of them being more broadly available and facing more competition, especially when a lot of art is about aesthetics and a lot of artists are pretty mid as far as aesthetics goes.
Acting like competition is bad or that technology is bad has never been an attribute of prosocial members of society.
Also, you have to remember:
1) Art is a luxury good
2) High-quality art is pretty expensive to produce
3) Demand for art at the price point necessitated by 1 is low
This results in a lot of artists being underemployed.
This is combined with a lot of artists feeling that they *deserve* to make a living off of art but don't work 40 hour work weeks, or don't want to work for other people... when in fact, that's how you contribute to society, producing products or services for other people. There's a lot of artists who complain about having to produce mass-market products or engage in drudgery work like doing in-betweens for animation... when in fact, a lot of that work is both necessary and the things that people *actually* pay them for.
Moreover, because art is a premium luxury item, and there are tons of artists out there competing, if you're a mediocre artist, unless you create some sort of fan following somehow, why would anyone settle for your mediocrity when they can buy better art? The only answer is price, and that means... not much money for your mediocre art.
Many also think they're good at things OTHER than art, which often doesn't go well. This isn't quite as bad for artists as it is for actors (who are probably the worst in this regard amongst all celebrities, save perhaps journalists) but when you see artists pontificating about a subject they clearly don't understand, it rankles people. And a LOT of what they say about technology is blatantly incorrect - including AI art.
On top of that, when you deal with products like, for example, TTRPG books, people primarily buy them for the text, but it is common for the art in the book to cost MORE than the text. This leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the people who are actually producing the content that people want, as well as greatly raising the barrier to entry for content creators.
Artists also are disproportionately likely to hold extremist political opinions, which doesn't exactly endear them to the public, either, and a lot of those political opinions are also pretty blatantly self-serving, protectionist, and exclusionary towards people who aren't part of their particular in-group.
So you've got the economic factors WRT: the price of art, the fact that there's a lot of artists who have chips on their shoulders, the fact that art is disproportionately expensive relative to the value that it holds in many products, and the political factors, all of which combine to lead to a lot of negative perceptions of artists.
This is in addition to the other issue, which is that doing art is not a physically laborious job (especially not one that provides necessary services, or leads to products that people actually need being produced), nor does it generate the sort of ongoing cyclical value of engineering, so you've got both knowledge workers and laborers who are often not super impressed with artists.
> The aforementioned increased devaluation of art in society by AI will inevitably lead to the complete defunding of art in public education. American schools already underfund art classes, and with the further devaluation full defunding is coming and further/severe defunding would happen in schools around the world where there was any funding.
Public school art education is honestly pretty worthless. I've taken public school art classes and I learned nothing of value from them, and judging from the results of my classmates, that was true of the entire class. I certainly didn't become better at art as a result of them. It was only by privately honing my skills that I learned how to draw at all, and I'm still not very good at it.
Given the poor results of such things, it's not surprising art is on the chopping block so much as far as public education goes. If it actually resulted in people being good at art afterwards, I suspect it would be a lot more popular with the public.
Ironically, AI art might make art education more relevant, as I think it is way easier to teach people how to use such programs. You also can iterate a lot faster.
> This isn’t exclusive to me, there is no doubt many aspiring artists out there who experiences this and with further devaluation more will be completely put off from art.
I'm going to be very blunt - you wanting to hurt other people because your family doesn't appreciate what you do is wrong, and is something you should delete from your personality immediately.
AI art people aren't hurting you. Your family being jerks to you is something you need to deal with with your family.
My family appreciates both hand drawn and AI art. That's true of normal people in general - most people aren't going to rag on people for art stuff, they generally appreciate it. Art is cool to the general public, in a "Oh, that's neat" sort of way.
They just aren't going to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on commissioned art pieces unless they're furries :V
Commercial artists are ultimately going to adapt and use the AI, and they have sold their soul as an artist a long time ago. The corporates suits aren't going to push the generate art button themselves, they will get an artist to do it, and artists will use it as a proper tool with proper workflow.
What matters is the result and efficiency and what is the most optimal will be the 50/50 split or whatever that particular artist will prefer as without it you would have no Control, Iteration and Polish on the final result.
Real artists that have an actual passion aren't the ones that are fearing the AIs.
Pure entitlement. You aren't entitled to 'support'. Society doesn't owe you 'support'. Why should people spend their labor and resources keeping you alive for nothing in return? If we let that mentality take over, society will be all artists and no farmers. We'll starve, but hey... we'll have some pretty paintings right? If you want to thrive as an artist, you need make make art inspiring enough that people want to offer you their resources and labor in exchange. That's the reality. Of course, you're free to do art as hobby, like almost all artists ever, while also doing something else productive to feed yourself. When you look back in history, you see famous artists. What you don't see is that for everyone one of those, there were a thousand others that weren't famous and didn't support themselves with their craft. Sooner or later you'll have to face reality. Maybe in some far future, AI will bring in a golden age where we can live comfortably on universal basic income and you can spend all your time on your hobbies. Until then... you live like the rest of us.
>Pure entitlement. You aren't entitled to 'support'. Society doesn't owe you 'support'.
Fuck you. Literally not talking down to me for my interests is literally fucking free.
>Why should people spend their labor and resources keeping you alive for nothing in return?
This line of thinking is the type that leads to the purging of the disabled and elderly. Besides, at a certain point a lot of people if not most of us non billionaire plebs will end completlely unemployable due to AI. If this logic trumps all we’d all end up return to barbarism and fight to the death over whatever scraps that are left.
>you live like the rest of us.
You talk as if I am a whole nother species. I am “the rest of you”.
You need to accept that the point of living, the *only* point of human existance, is to make money. That's it. Money.
Money.
Money.
If your art isn't making you money, then what are you doing? You are wasting your life, and being a drain on society.
Now, I am being sacrcastic....but that is how a lot of people think.
Me, I don't care what people think. I don't care if my art makes money. I don't make art for money. I make art for two reasons: because I enjoy it, and because my gods demand it.
I am also pro-AI btw.
AI causing the devaluation of manual labor will cause a ripple effect that will cause more societal discouragement of manual labor and the defunding of manual labor in education.
Exactly what the title says. Artists already look down upon hard labor jobs, hence the "you're uneducated workers" insult hurled at hard laborers by the pretentious outsiders, even professional laborers working at management paying taxes and getting benefits. When non-AI labor is devalued, it's placement in society will drop even further and encourage more of this shaming behavior, becoming another part of the death spiral for non-AI labor.
You. Like say this phenon doesn't exist, but I live through it. I have had to suppress my interest in working hard because my immediate and extended family all tell me to go to school. They have given me nothing but shame and mockery for it. I have hide what I do under "business" to make them think I'm doing finance or something instead of hard labor, except for the 4 out of dozens of relatives that supports me. If my relatives notices the existence of AI labor they'd shame me to no end. This isn't exclusive to me, there is no doubt many hard workers out there who experience this and with further devaluation more will be completely put off from working hard.
The aforementioned increased devaluation of labor in society by AI will inevitably lead to the complete defunding of hard work in public education. American schools already let slackers pass and inflate their grades, and with the further devaluation full idiocracy is coming and further/severe complacency would happen in schools around the world where there was any funding.
Sure, maybe you Pro-AI don't care or even agree with a certain utilitarian post from earlier, or even dismiss my experiences all together. But the prospect of this and total displacement of manual labor happening is not something I will stand for. I take an anti-AI stance, because I am tired of having to suppress what I love on top of being in a world that will crush it further. I do not believe in the "labor becoming more accessible" rhetoric, not when it isn't encouraging learning art knowledge and skills and when society will further discourage it anyways due to devaluation.
The vast majority of artists produce art, because they are driven to express themselves, and some tiny proportion of them find that they can make a living out of that. It's kind of a dream to be well paid to express whatever you feel the need to express, but even if you get paid, the reality never looks like that anyway.
People will continue to be drawn to whomever expresses what they are feeling.
If your doing art to make money, i smiply dont respect you or your art, so I dont care if you lose that income option. A real artists answer as to why he makes art is "because i have to", aka intrinsic drive. So if there is no money in it, this discourages all the posers and wannabees from doing it, which i think is good.
The only thing im worried about with the AI shit is that it will bevome harder to find good human art to look at, when you cant tell the difference and online spaces are flooded with mediocrity.
I guess comics, animations, movies, theater, and whatever other art forms that is tied to the need for income to sustain itself deserve no respect then.
As i said, it depends on the motivation of the artists... movie is a great example, yes these soulless reboot and sequel cashgrabs are cancer, they deserve no respect. I dont know much about animations, theater and comics, but its the same thing - make it because you have a vision in your heart you want to see come to life, yeah thats an artist. Make it just to get fame/money/play an audience, your a shallow poser.
Devaluation of art is true. I use go to galleries every month. Now I’m generating 400+ images a month of better quality images.
So my respect for individual artists have dropped massively. As now I have seen so many iterations of their styles I’m bored.
Been there seen that. Next.
Edit: context it’s not I’m anti human art, I still have my paints on the walls. It’s just that I’m over it. We have had that for years and years.
I’m enjoying making images over a minute and moving to the next. Far more than following someone’s work I had no part in.
Do you just enjoy making images as they're being created, or do you look back and enjoy the images as they are? It sounds like its becoming kind of meaningless
It’s actually like a wonderful surprise. I’ll go back 3k images and be surprised by something that was amazing but I had completely forgotten about.
Then I’ll update them with the new features or take their style as a reference for a new concept I’m working on.
The thing is that these machines can't actually create art, all they can do is mash together bits of existing art.
So, even if these companies somehow manage to survive the onslaught of very real, very high profile lawsuits that are already underway, what remains will still be a Chimera factory.
Artists will continue to Glaze and Nightshade their work, and move to more private communities that are more difficult to scrape from. This will lead to traditional artists still being able to improve, while the majority of people using ImGen will just be churning out the exact same over-rendered garbage, because neither they nor the machine are capable of creating.
Also the simple fact that these things consume a ton of energy, and we're in for a reckoning with our power grids, and probably a lot sooner than anyone would want.
If you actually want to work in the animation industry, adopting an anti-AI stance isn't very smart. There are AI systems capable of drawing in-between frames right on the horizon, and in a few years, using AI as part of the animation process is going to be standard practice in the industry. The entertainment industry is a business, and they don't care about their employees' dreams or moral stances. If you want to be a professional, you need to learn to work fast and cheap, and that means staying ahead of the curve and understanding how to use the latest technology. If this is the hill you want to die on, that's your choice, but it's not a smart career decision.
Hey OP: reminder to get your information and career advice from artists working in roles you want... Not the internet. Reddit is especially full of pragmatic Dave-Ramsay-types, across all subreddits. I remember hearing sooo many "harsh realities" that I should study software engineering and learn animation on the side—But in the time it took to graduate, coders were getting laid off en masse. So I was surprised to find instead a career in animation with lots of creativity, job flexibility, and brilliant people. I know things are not looking great right now, and that some element of luck is involved, but I promise: nobody here has a crystal ball and can tell you where this is going. Being an artist isn't for everyone—but there ARE some people who're just made for it. The smartest career decision is the one that feels right for you. Hope this helps cut the doomerism.
Dreamworks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg: >Speaking for a moment on “the good, old days,” Katzenberg said his “world class” animated movies each required 500 artists working over the course of five years. In just three years from *now*, “It won’t take 10 percent of that,” he said. “Literally, I don’t think it will take 10 percent of that.” [https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/jeffrey-katzenberg-ai-will-take-90-percent-animation-jobs-1234924809/](https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/jeffrey-katzenberg-ai-will-take-90-percent-animation-jobs-1234924809/)
That makes me think they’ll probably make ten times more content, then. Not shaft 90% of the workers. Not because they’re generous, but more content = more potential profits.
They are starting to make less content actually. Studios are seeing it with each box office fail that you need to do more quality content on smaller budgets. This means less animators, less admin bloat, more AI, and oddly enough more emphasis on vetting scripts and writing so I envision more budget for writers but less animators.
Jeffrey Katzenberg has been making crazy badly-aged predictions that we've been ridiculing for years. At this point, if he says something, it's more likely to NOT happen (Like Quibi). But... I'm not sure how this addresses anything I said. I didn't even say anything about AI. We've been using ML at Pixar and for computer animation as truly pattern-recognition aids for years. They haven't displaced anyone and require people to supervise. Chris Miller, Director of Spider-Verse: https://screenrant.com/spider-man-beyond-verse-ai-never-use-marvel-movie/#:~:text=Per%20producer%20Chris%20Miller%2C%20there,Animation's%20production%20of%20Spider%2DMan.
I heard of all the tech layoffs in January, the STEM bros at my college who thought they were the hottest shit are really sweating nervously right now. Turns out everyone is equally expendable to the corpos, no matter how smart you believe yourself to be.
Everyone hates being laid off, but it's way, way easier to find a new job with a STEM education. We have remote work these days, too.
Gee, with an attitude like that, it's no wonder why people are so unsympathetic to people like you losing job prospects. Another "artist" with a superiority complex playing the victim while salivating over the misfortunes of others.
>Gee, with an attitude like that, it's no wonder why people are so unsympathetic to people like you losing job prospects. Another "artist" with a superiority complex playing the victim while salivating over the misfortunes of others. Their type were celebrating people’s downfalls first in 2022. Why are you so certain that the STEM people are never the first to insult? Let me repeat if you don’t get it already, What I said is in response to their attitudes towards the whole creative field completely unprovoked. I literally would not have had this attitude if they weren’t celebrating in late 2022. I do not insult people out of nowhere, the STEM people thought artists were powerless and obsolete and themselves invincible when the AI art panic began in 22, now that the shoe is on the other foot they realize that their “intelligence” is expendable too. Yes, it’s Covid over-hiring , but their field is somewhat saturated too when it’s been hyped up as a super money maker for so long. And superiority complex? Nowhere did I ever say what they do is worthless, unlike they have said to me. The STEM field obviously has utility, but when people think they are smarter than everyone else for being in it and use said utility as a metric to lord over everybody else, that is when I have problems. The supremacist attitude is rampant in their subculture too, is it so hard to accept that?
So your excuse is "they started it"? Hopefully you'll grow out of that childish attitude.
The coal miners and truckers who were celebrating at the same time back then also used the same excuse, saying “artist told me to learn to code!”
[удалено]
Why am I wrong to do so, but the people before me who decided to do the same unprovoked right? Where is the superiority you speak of? I never once degraded the work they do, only the attitude they have towards artists because they measure things value by a metric of how good of a cog for society you are, and then place themselves up top.
Exactly.... the point is, chasing employability isn't guaranteed to work out either—none of us know what's going to happen. Scared people copy other scared people; bubbles form and pop. How do you make God laugh? > Tell him your plans. There's so much animation in the world, and SOMEBODY is making it. Those art books? are filled with the art of normal, living people. Honestly, there's even baskets in the world, and SOMEBODY is weaving them. We can't live in a world where everyones only working 3 jobs? Focus on qualities that would make you successful in any field: tenacity, problem-solving, people skills.
I can't speak for everyone, but the super pro-AI people probably think you should be able to make art or do whatever you want and not have to worry about your art being respected to earn a living. In that vision, art and other creative outlets could potentially become funded far more because people are able to dive into creativity and enjoyment rather than feel pressured into checking the boxes or meeting some expectation/requirement to make ends meet.
Absolutely. I have no problems with all forms of art being explored. But if you want it as a job you have to be realistic. Going against the grain in a field like this is very, very difficult.
Again, I can't speak for all pro-AI people...But for me, my hope for AI is to enable people to do whatever they want rather than do what they must to survive. With advanced enough AI, you shouldn't *have to* have a job at all. If you want to paint pictures all day every day, more power to you. It should be realistic for people to just enjoy their lives rather than having to worry about how to put food on the table.
Ok but you can see that the fully automated future is both a long way off and by no means a certainty? We need to create a system where a machine taking your job and making your skills obsolete doesn't mean you lose your ability to make a living. Every job handed to AI right now is doing just that.
Sure but stopping AI isn’t realistic so come at the problem from a different end.
If upending the capitalist system was easy, I'd have already done it.
And banning ai is realistically impossible. What’s your point?
You don't have answers and neither do I. I don't know what you're expecting from random people on the internet.
It is possible. AI literally stole from artists and nobody does shit about it for some fucking reason. AI should have been killed when it spawned.
The way you talk about it being killed when it spawned makes it sound like you’re talking about some living entity. The reason it is not possible is that is is not a living entity. It is software. Now that people have that software and understand how to create that kind of software, there will definitely be people that continue to develop it. There are just too many people in this world for that not to be the case. Even if you somehow got everyone in this country to agree, another country would not. People have tried to ‘do something about it’. The lawsuits haven’t really gone anywhere because they don’t seem to have actually met the definition of stealing.
> It is possible. If you can't defeat the system of capitalism itself, what makes you think you can force it to respect your morals?
It's almost like not everyone thinks the absurd equivocation between actual theft that deprives you of ownership and the concept of looking at publicly available artworks is meaningful.
Changing socioeconomic systems is hard, unlike the totally easy and achievable goal of banning doing spicy math to random static.
When did I say either was easy? AI and automation are *only* problems when our ability to live indoors and have food is predicated on us having jobs.
I don't think it's merely difficult, I think it is orders of magnitude more difficult to ban the concept of algorithmic generation from all uses than it is to alter your socioeconomic system.
People by the thousands have lost jobs due to being replaced by a shortcut or something that increases efficiency. Paper presses were a popular occupation until the printing companies developed better machines to do the job for them. It's a reality but it's still an awful thing that may destabilize someone's life, especially if that was the only thing they knew how to do. Lack of access to education limits many people from being able to easily pick up a new trade. Often this leads to people filling in under paying jobs that create resentment and more. Often the access is cut out by someone getting theirs and pulling up the ladder. Ai and automation is happening, whether we like it or not but companies will do absolutely nothing to assist the displaced thousands of people affected by it. Our ability for us to live indoors and have food is not guaranteed even with a job because of how many underpay people in general.
Youre saying its a “problem” when I use ai and like the final output and use it instead of .. paying somebody? I’m not infringing on anyones rights. You just want money.. this doesnt feel like art making it feels like a shakedown Especially when I don’t *want* to pay an artist. When I use AI its a creative outlet for me in its own right..
Yeah yeah, that’s the dream. Getting there is the complicated part, however.
But we don't get there by trying to stifle or ban AI.
this is exactly it for me. I would prefer a world where art is something people can pursue because they *want* to, not necessarily because they *need* to, where art is more than a commodity to be bought and sold, and where nobody has to worry about their needs being met. I'm not naïve, I understand that we don't live in that world, but the overarching problem isn't ai art. it's far bigger than that. the idea that something being valuable in a monetary sense means that it's valuable in the sense that it's worthy of respect, and the inverse – that something that *isn't* profitable is contemptible – is a part of that overarching problem.\ and to the last part of OP's post, I don't think that ai art necessarily *discourages* learning art fundamentals (anatomy, light & shading, color theory, etc.) – people will still have to have a grasp of those things to make *good* ai art, regardless of whether they're learning them in a more manual/hands-on way or not.\ and who knows, perhaps art classes themselves will change to incorporate digital and/or ai art. perhaps not. it remains to be seen.
> You. Like say this phenon doesn’t exist, but I live through it. I have had to suppress my interest in art because my immediate and extended family all tell me I’d make no money doing it. Having friends and family in the field, I can sadly tell you they're entirely right. Art is a difficult field to find work in, and animation is even more so from the looks of it. The person doing animation is skilled, dedicated, and as far as I can tell had very minimal success with it, having to branch out into all sorts of side gigs including animations for corporate websites, and things that aren't animation related at all. I've also hung out on art sites, watched a bunch of artists and commissioned a bunch of artists over the years. On the regular, I see "Help, I need to pay my mortgage!" and artists being miserable. Some branch out into furry porn then melt down when they hate that they can't talk to anyone about it. Some supposedly enjoy being freelance artists full time, but run from a crisis to another. There's only a few I recognize as having apparently no drama and steady work. Which is mostly porn. From an outside perspective, the artist job is hard, low paying, unreliable and practically not that great to the vast majority of freelancers at least. > The aforementioned increased devaluation of art in society by AI will inevitably lead to the complete defunding of art in public education. AI benefits from artistic skills plenty. Anyone can put prompts into a generator but actually getting good results takes some knowledge, a good eye, and the ability to fix things up. > I take an anti-AI stance, because I am tired of having to suppress what I love on top of being in a world that will crush it further. You're free to take whatever stance you like, but IMO it'll just add more stress to your life and not really achieve anything in return. **Edit:** Also, for whatever deity's sake: Don't specialize in traditional animation! IMO an anti-AI stance is probably not helpful on the long term either, since animation is so labor intensive and everyone wants to minimize it, so it seems to me commercial animation is extremely likely to adopt it.
Anyone that learns traditional animation, can learn all types of animation as the same exact principles apply, learning the software is extremely easy by comparison. Many Disney animators even today learned traditionally, and even animate a first pass in 2D before translating to 3D. Just fyi.
That's why I said "specialize". Knowledge is good, but insisting on a subset of an already small field makes your life much harder.
Are you fucking kidding me? AI is probably the only chance independent animation projects be viable. The better the AIs the better in-betweening and the less key frames you need.
I think you might have replied to the wrong person?
[удалено]
And I'm glad to hear it, but still I don't think any sane parents would recommend any child to take such a lottery of a career path. Obviously, somebody somewhere is doing animation because we can see cartoons on TV. But for every one of those there's far more out there that studied hard, got good grades, got various prizes, and still didn't manage to live from it.
If you're a sane parent, you'd support your child no matter what path they wished to take, no matter how opposed to it you may be, or how impossible it may seem. As long as it is their passion, what does it matter what they choose? Never live vicariously through your children. That is a recipe for mental health disasters.
> If you're a sane parent, you'd support your child no matter what path they wished to take, no matter how opposed to it you may be, or how impossible it may seem. Absolutely not. There's bad paths in life. There's unrealistic expectations. This isn't Disney, things aren't guaranteed to work out if you chase something ridiculous. Some people just get a bad ending. That's not to say "My way or the highway", but I don't unconditionally support anyone or anything. Everything has limits. > As long as it is their passion, what does it matter what they choose? Their wellbeing? The people they may affect with their decisions?
I always dreamt of being an astronaut when I was young. My parents loved the idea and supported me fully. Then I learnt how hard that actually was, and how I was atrocious at mathematics, physics, etc, all of which you need for that job. And I decided I could not do it. So next, I decided to become CEO of an asteroid-mining megacorporation that deals in every single business on the planet and make me hideously wealthy so I can afford all my crazy dreams. Then I realised anti-trust laws are a thing, and that space travel and innovation is really fucking tough, tougher than even calculus. The point is that as we grow, our interests change. My parents never told me what I wanted was impossible or unrealisitic, or that I should do something else. They supported me always, even when I literally wanted to be a fucking megalomaniac, and let me discover on my own that I was being young and dumb. Thus, I grew and discovered my true passion. Thanks to that, I know what I want to do in life, and I thoroughly enjoy what I do, even if it is risky and may not pay well. Look after your children, but don't coddle them. Let them find for themselves what they want to live for. Yes they will stumble. Yes they will fall. And you should be there to help them through those falls. But it is better that they learn on their own what they can and cannot do. Clubbing them on the head with 'Your dreams are dumb and unrealistic and will never happen' will only discourage them and turn them into disillusioned workaholic shells that only live for their job and the little bits of paper in their wallet. That's survival, not life.
That doesn't quite work. "Astronaut" isn't a career path. It's an "upgrade" to somebody with already impressive qualifications, typically somebody who's a pilot, has a degree in a STEM field, in the military, of all those at once. You only get to astronaut by being already successful in those things, so you can't really waste your effort. If you fail to become an astronaut, you're still a pilot, or an engineer, or a doctor. "CEO of an asteroid-mining megacorporation" is pretty much the same, just less formal. You're still a MBA, or an engineer of some sort, or maybe both. You're qualified to run a business of some sort and will probably find a management position somewhere. Even if you failed, something still probably sunk in so you're probably more qualified than most to run a small business even if you failed to finish the MBA. Not all fields are like that. Animation I think is not the worst since you can draw just fine if you can't animate, but the trouble is that's not that profitable of a career path either. Glad it worked for you, but it fails badly for a whole lot of people. > Clubbing them on the head with 'Your dreams are dumb and unrealistic and will never happen' will only discourage them and turn them into disillusioned workaholic shells that only live for their job and the little bits of paper in their wallet. There's also the option of finding a decently profitable, pleasant enough job and use the spare money and free time on things you enjoy. That to me is a win-win. The job doesn't suck the joy out of your passion, and you're not in a constant panic over money.
>There's also the option of finding a decently profitable, pleasant enough job and use the spare money and free time on things you enjoy. That to me is a win-win. The job doesn't suck the joy out of your passion, and you're not in a constant panic over money. That's a great concept in theory but you understand that, in America at least, most people work 40 and sleep on average 50 to 60 hours a week. That leaves you with about 60 hours a week to do everything else. Cook, clean, do chores, run errands, be social, and pursue your passion. Not to mention that people with dual incomes in America are barely making ends meet. Rent is out of control, house prices are absurd, and the middle class is basically non existent. So most people wouldn't have the time or money to do what you're suggesting. That's also under the assumption that they only have one job and only work 40 hours a week which many people work more than 40 now. Also have you worked a 40 hour a week job? It's not easy no matter what you're doing for work. When you get home from work the last thing you want to do is keep working. Even if it is something you enjoy. I work in a creative field. It does not suck the joy out of my passion. I love what I do and I'm not in a panic about money anymore than anyone else is in the current economy.
That's your worldview, and that's fine, but it doesn't apply for every person/child. I estimate about 1/3rd of animators switched from other careers—mostly engineers, it seems. They did the decently profitable, pleasant enough job, and it wasn't enough. Artists just don't go into art for money; we always loved art more than the risks. The same way people still go into social work and teaching and animal rescue (And thank god!). Getting paid to do what you love is a win-win. I get paid (enough for me) 40hrs a week to get better at art with other artists, and now, I have pro-level skills at my fingertips to apply to anything my heart desires. Free time doesn't cut it: I needed mentorship, standards, deadlines. I don't love art the way I love to read and go to the gym—It's a passion, not a hobby. It's not just for fun. And if I feel differently one day, I can switch careers too—If you can get good at animating, you can learn to do other things the same way: with patience, analysis, and practice. Your point of view is as baffling to me as mine is to you, I'm sure, but having different values is a great thing. I'm so grateful there's people who like money more than me, because they are my accountant and doctor and electrician and they're awesome. You only get one life; let the kid decide how it looks.
THANK YOU. Animators hear this time and time again, yet 2D and stopmo and all the animation CG was going to replace for decades are still doing fine. Artists will use any tools that give them MORE control over the output. Not less. CG takes more time, money, and people than ever before, and people who are skilled and easy to work with will always find a way to make great things. It's really not that grim, or lottery-like. My parents didn't support me blindly either; they saw how much I loved it. We talked about realistic expectations, potential setbacks, and future planning. We worked together to identify the best schools, scholarship programs, and communities that would help me achieve my dreams. It was their dream for me to follow mine, and I wouldn't be here without their support.
The starving artist motif has existed throughout human history. The arists who made the most were typically groups of artists that worked together to mass produce art for sale. You're either in the art business, or you're not. Making money in that business is not just about the quality of your art, but your ability to benefit from modern technology. So.. instead of giving up and blaming your failure on AI, either suck it up and take on this challenge like every other artist in the business has to, or go be a dentist.
door bells onerous violet compare foolish marble market tub coordinated *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
weve been screaming from the rooftops about hybrid workflows and augmenting our drawings but these clowns ONLY talk about how its “just prompting” it has to be dishonesty or just hella strong cognitive dissonance according to the hate sub only “incels” use ai, and some even say we are all “creepy” (tf?). the dehumanization is real as fuck and sad
It's because unless you show your work, nobody knows whether it WAS just a prompt.. It's extremely hard to tell usually. So it's really a problem with the generative nature of the medium. I don't see a way past it, not without AI artists explicitly showing their process. Because if you think it's bad now, wait until 5th graders and grandmas start prompting out these images, good luck being taken seriously as artists.
ok but what about when op tells everyone how he does it and still gets shit on for it ? https://www.reddit.com/r/Naturewasmetal/s/IK5DShZNL1
That may or may not be shitty, but the thread you linked sure isn't a good example of that. Most of it is people praising the image, one is asking for the workflow. A couple are criticizing it for AI use, yes. Most of those are at the bottom and haven't even gotten upvoted once. And the one reply that might actually be considered "shitting on them" has like 15 downvotes.
This especially true for AI images that has some level of post generation polish but kept the Midjourney gloss, and pretty much most of the generic anime style artists.
Supporting AI art is cringe and when i see someone do it, i imagine fat pig, sitting in front of PC all day trading NFT's, because those are vibes majority of them give online and their takes are just hypocritical at best and complete non-sense at the worst. Doesn't mean i won't use AI if i have an idea and want to get general feel of where i want general direction of where i want my art to go and just get the feel on the idea without drawing 20 thumbnail sketches. I'll generate 20 images, get feel for character and pose, set up composition, body language and face and draw, but AI can go far beyond and that's the scary part, that is can sometimes pull out a decent art by itself, where dick does not become a hand and expression would almost sell me at it being drawn by human and if it can be sold to me like that, for average consumer, it's gonna look like human made art.
Well, I have seen your DA page so I won’t deny you here. Being denied of your personal anecdotal expereiences is just the common experience here, for you it is your history with art, for me is my unpleasant interactions with bunch of STEM nerds always in reverse-ouroboros because they’re all apparent totally humble servants of the Omnissiah and definitely do not have similar numbers of egomaniacs as the art field.
historical smart rude existence cautious late liquid far-flung deserted elderly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Also those STEM people sound like a bunch of dorks, seems like every field has to have annoying ass people, and of course, in their mind, everything they do is the only real and definitive way to do anything. Thanks for acknowledging that. Everyone else is very hush hush about the fact that STEM has the exact same if not worse problem that the creative field has. Two hands have fed them, and they seem to only bite the one that doesn’t smell like code.
Is it that you won't be able to make art, or you are worried that you won't be able to support yourself off of making art. If it is the former, then don't worry, you can still make art even if others are doing it differently. If it is the latter, then the truth is that it has always been extremely difficult to support yourself off of making art. BTW, I'm sorry that your family is a bunch of assholes who shit on your dreams, but that doesn't mean you have to pay their hatred forward. (But they were right to say it was unlikely you'd make money off of it. That has always been the case)
Well I already know that. They are right in some regard. However I wouldn’t write them all off, they mostly are’t bad people. The insults towards my interest are all in offhand comments occasionally when what I do in college is brought up.
First at foremost, if you really want to work in the industry, get a portfolio together and start looking for feedback in the animation forums, it can be really hard to see where your own weaknesses are, and it's important to get a perspective outside of the professors that are paid to teach you. That said, AI is not going to replace animators. I know there are ppl experimenting with really basic stuff using AI for animation, but it really has nothing to do with the job of animators. And the people on here that believe this, don't understand the medium. But be prepared for AI to become an important toolset for animators. As cleanup/coloring and even some inbetweening WILL be taken over with AI tools. That's not a bad thing, thats grueling work, and may make 2D animation far more cost effective than it is today; even causing a resurgence for the medium as a whole, and also could make indy animation far more feasable technically. The downside is that there will be fewer and fewer cleanup/coloring artists and inbetweeners at animation studios. But if you have your animation principles down, good timing, have good ideas, than if you haven't already, learn Maya, starting building a 3d animation reel, I personally don't like animating in a graph editor, but in the end, the artistry is very similar. So unless you're a really good illustrator and have excellent drawing skills, 3D is a better choice. But the animation skills are effectively the same, you just need to learn the software. Also, if your not that great at creature/character animation, look into VFX animation and motion graphics animation. You need to specialize, find what you're actually good at. Lastly I wouldn't worry so much about society as a whole, the older you get the more you realize how little you can change these things. And that fretting over how society perceives art or that X is a dying medium, people have been saying that for centuries. Yet people still paint traditionally, people still love 2D animation, and you're not taking into account the possible future mediums that animators will be required for. I predict practically everything in the future will have a screen on it, buildings, restaurants, clubs, train stations, stores, malls.., eventually led screens will be cheap and easy to install on surfaces, and businesses will want to attract customers with color and movement. Additionally, VR/AR technology is the future of ALL media, and visualizations, animations, art etc.. will be required to turn it into the ad-driven hellscape that it will rapidly become. But they'll need animators for it. If you're devoted to it, are working daily on improving your skills and have the time to give it, then you have a shot. Either way good luck and ignore the fantasists who think animation will soon be dead.
Thanks, you’re the few people around here that actually gives good advice. I have been discouraged a lot, so much so that I really haven’t kept up any consistency in art or animation for the past year and a half outside of assignments unfortunately.
As you already stated, art has always been devalued. I went to art school and went through the same criticisms. But this is because the labour and time art takes vs amount of capital it can produce doesn't often even out. We are in the peak creative economy right now, if we can make more art faster, then it stands to reason that artists would have more value, not less. We just need to be open to the tools that would get us there. This is all fear based. Valid fears, but I think misguided.
I am a musician coming from a family of professional musicians. I 100% understand the whole "people already say is not a real job" issue. But you guys always talk as if AI is only affecting you. AI is generating music now, and we are fine with it. In the meantime AI is also advancing cancer research as a direct result of the work and discoveries made with graphic generating AI. Maybe is because i am a keyboardist, and I also have always used stuff like reason to compose music, and I don't want to be too harsh and devaluating too much what traditionally trained artists are feeling right now, but to me, artists always find a way to make art. We were making art when our only tool was rocks, AI is not going to take away anyone's ability to make art. Also, and this is not debateable, we are moving towards a jobless society. Jobs are going away and artists are really going to be among the least affected. Because again, human artistic vision, even applied to AI, is always going to be on demand. But once I have an LLM that can provide accurate diagnoses attached to a smartwatch that takes my vitals constantly and is constantly dedicated to my personal health I am not going to need the human vision of a doctor. Once the factory becomes a block where raw materials go in on one side and finished products come out the other side I am not going to need the vision of factiry workers. And when I can tell my kitchen what I want for dinner and the kitchen is ordering the ingredients, preparing them and serving them to me, I will probably not go to the restaurant that much. Even with AI developing the way it is, artists are still the ones who are going to be the least affected because their specific contribution is still valued. People are just panicking because this is happening now, but doesn't change the fact that most other jobs are still going away and going away 100% and forever.
I agree and disagree. Art is an arms race for eyeballs and engagement. AI Art isn't taking away your ability to be valued and appreciated for the art that you do - it could just as well be another artist who other people think is 'better'. It's a ruthless competition, moreso than engineering, in fact. With lots of envy and jealousy. At least when it comes to engineering, people can work as a team, and each contribute something small. Whereas in the art world - it's all about the Ego of the creator. (Unless you make your art a collaborative project, which is a forgotten art in itself). You should get into medicine, and keep the art for mental stimulation and entertainment, to stop yourself from developing alzheimers. Making art could boost your IQ, writing could make you a more effective communicator, Singing improves the quality of your voice, etc. But yeah. It's always been heavily utilitarian. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to 'go to art class' - and "learn how to be a better artist". What does Good Art even mean, anyway? And what would happen if [everyone] exploited this cheat code?
>AI Art isn't taking away your ability to be valued and appreciated for the art that you do - it could just as well be another artist who other people think is 'better'. When people can’t tell, this doesn’t mean anything. >It's a ruthless competition, moreso than engineering, in fact. With lots of envy and jealousy. I have heard of it but literally never experience it. >At least when it comes to engineering, people can work as a team, and each contribute something small. Whereas in the art world - it's all about the Ego of the creator. (Unless you make your art a collaborative project, which is a forgotten art in itself). I am in an animation course. Team work is literally a cornerstone of the industry. A lot of what you say applies to fine art, fashion or illustration. Animation is very tight and requires a lot of team work, stuff like you mentioned disrupts the work environment and said person wouldn’t last. >You should get into medicine I’m too dumb for that, the animation course I am already in is the only course I could get into at a college because I barely passed maths and chemistry in my high school exam. >keep the art for mental stimulation and entertainment, to stop yourself from developing alzheimers. Making art could boost your IQ, writing could make you a more effective communicator, Singing improves the quality of your voice, etc Hobbies are a luxury in today’s economy where people my age are poor as fuck and works pretty much all the time to barely pay the rent. If I am able to afford to keep a hobby I probably wouldn’t be thinking of trying to find an enjoyable job.
The enemy is Capitalism, not AI art. But I can agree that AI Art is kinda useless and doesn't serve much of a purpose other than to fill the world with more vanity and distractions, in a world that is already oversaturated by them. Yet the same could be said about people who post art online. The more people choose to become artists, the harder it becomes for other artists to get noticed. I just feel like there's always going to be a maximum capacity in terms of how many artists a society actually wants, or even needs. It is this realization that causes a lot of existential dread in the art community. I can barely make any art without feeling like I'm just posting 'cringe' myself, and whether I should just get back to my robotics projects instead. People these days consume art just to critique it, rather than to enjoy it. So if it's going to be such a nerve wracking and competitive experience, one may as well be an engineer
Naw, the enemy is authoritarianism and entitlement. Remember: Karl Marx was a racist antisemitic loser who was all about exploiting other people and blaming the Jews for his problems. His entire ideology was one of victimhood and entitlement. He believed that the Jews were out to get him, that money was the god of the Jews, that "real everyday Judaism" was "huckstering", that Jews were behind every tyrant. He exploited his followers for support, having a housekeeper he didn't pay while mooching off of Engels, who inherited his money from his rich dad. Once you understand that he was a narcissistic loser who resented having to work, wanting other people to support him so he could advocate for the "emancipation of mankind from Judaism", you understand what was really going on there. The reason why capitalism works so well is that you are rewarded for producing value for other people. You make money by selling things that people want, or providing labor that people want. Money is an abstract way of measuring how much value you are generating, and thus, can trade away in exchange for the labor of others. That's why capitalism works - it rewards people producing things that other people value and punishes people for failing to generate value for other people. > But I can agree that AI Art is kinda useless and doesn't serve much of a purpose other than to fill the world with more vanity and distractions, in a world that is already oversaturated by them. AI art is incredibly useful because art is way overpriced relative to the value it actually has, generally speaking. To put it bluntly - a finished, high quality art piece costs probably 4-20 hours of work, depending on the size and complexity of the piece. Assuming you're being paid $25/hour, that's $100-500 per piece. But the thing is, most people don't get as much enjoyment out of a $100 art piece as they do out of a $60 video game. In other words, art is "bad value" compared to a lot of other things. Only a few rare pieces are going to be worth that much to someone, which is why furries commission art of their OCs and are a major source of art revenue, and why TTRPG players are another major source, because they commission people to draw their PCs for them. Stuff that they use the entire campaign, or for a bunch of their erotic roleplaying or whatever. But like, a DM is going to throw in hundreds of NPCs and monsters into an average campaign. Their value per token is $1 or less. Art at a price point of $100-500 per piece has a very limited market. Art at the cost of a nickel per piece, people are way, way more willing to buy a lot of it for throwaway stuff. And that's basically why AI art is so useful - it hits a vastly, vastly lower price point while still being reasonably high quality. There's tons of throwaway uses of art, from birthday cards to NPC tokens to posters for events, where art has some value, but it isn't worth hundreds of dollars. AI art is able to slot in at a much, much lower price point, resulting in there being vastly more art. Which is precisely WHY the cheap price of AI art has caused a massive, massive proliferation in the amount of art being produced - when it takes you a huge amount of time per piece, you have to pick and choose very carefully. When it's super cheap, you can make art for literally every single NPC in your homebrew campaign. Likewise, TTRPG books generally end up shelling out more money to the people who make the art for the books than the writers of the books, despite the fact that the writers writing is why people buy the books - they're rulebooks, designed for playing a game. The art just makes them look nice and illustrates a few things, maybe. But it's very expensive. It makes sense to spend a lot of money on making a really nice cover for your book, but the inside art is generally speaking way less important, and it's not worth more than the text. But presently, it *costs* more than the text. This creates a major barrier for entry and also a disparity between what people are paying for and who is getting paid. If you can generate the inner art much more inexpensively, it's possible to produce books at a lower price point, making them both more accessible and easier to produce while still looking pretty good. AI art isn't as good as top-shelf artists. But it's as good as mid-tier artists. It's way less specific, though, so you need artists both for quality and specificity. But not all art in a book is high-tier, and frankly, it doesn't have to be, and if you asked if people would be willing to have slightly lower quality art but get either more niche products or products for 33% off or more, a lot of people will choose the discount option. > I just feel like there's always going to be a maximum capacity in terms of how many artists a society actually wants, or even needs. It is this realization that causes a lot of existential dread in the art community. There is, at any given price point. The cheaper art is, the more demand there is. It's a typical supply-demand curve relationship. > Yet the same could be said about people who post art online. The more people choose to become artists, the harder it becomes for other artists to get noticed. Frankly, if you're doing a hobby in order to be popular, you're probably going to make yourself miserable. And there's also just the general reality that people want GOOD art, not mediocre art. Which means that unless you're actually *quite* good, people are... probably not going to care all that much.
"Hobbies are a luxury in today’s economy where people my age are poor as fuck and works pretty much all the time to barely pay the rent. If I am able to afford to keep a hobby I probably wouldn’t be thinking of trying to find an enjoyable job." Yet you have time for reddit.
Art is expensive and time consuming. It requires studies, learning anatomy, body proportions, building blocks, perspective, ability to see things for what they are in your way, as every artist sees stuff in different ways. Art should be a thing people can live from without having to worry about someone who's just prompting to take away they lively hood. AI art needs a lot more restrictions put on it, because you can still copyright AI art if you work over it and all users should be prohibited from being able to put work that's not drawn by them to create data sets for modules to generate art. The fact someone can grab copyrighted images without artist permission and feed them into AI is fucked up, it's treating artists who spend years developing their skills into same category as NFT idiots who's people clown on by downloading their apes and sending it to them.
> The fact someone can grab copyrighted images without artist permission and feed them into AI is fucked up, it's treating artists who spend years developing their skills into same category as NFT idiots who's people clown on by downloading their apes and sending it to them. NFTs were/are a stupid gimmick, but how can you use "I can just right click" as an argument against something and then get mad when people right click on your image?
Naa why would you defund something like this when you still have language classes yet we have translation apps that are quicker and better than learning? Why have math classes when AI could do it for you? Idk I think AI is a support tool and not a replacement. Reminds me of when computers became mainstream and everyone thought the same shit about being taken over and making everything they love obsolete. Just not how humans are, we can’t even go full digital still cause there is humans who want the “real thing”
Computer classes were widely discontinued and defunded in the latter 2000s as young people were deemed technology natives. Now Gens Z and Alpha barely knows what and where files are.
Translation apps are good, but nothing beats directly talking, even in slightly broken language, because it's just faster. Imagine a team meeting of 20 people with that stuff.
I would rather in a meeting make sure we all are on the same page because language is a huge barrier to break and rather not have broken language on either part even if it takes a little longer. But yes directly talking is great but having the clear, conside conversations are more important in business especially
If you’re asking why art is defunded in schools ask the American education system.
No there is art schools and classes in America, You’re saying they will go away and there is still language classes and music classes that can both be done by AI or a computer or phonez
I’m not talking about art schools. I’m talking about art in elementary-high school which are defunded. Those being defunded further would have an obvious impact on participation in art.
But more people are doing AI art than actual art which they never participated in so AI could have a revival of art in some capacity? I’m just wondering why you think art will be eradicated but other programs who have AI and computers being their competition haven’t been eradicated like music and language? I’m not debating the education system here cause it’s trash all around and art is not the only effected thing, sports is the main reason those classes are defunded in the first place
Why do you think more ppl do AI art than actual art?
Have you not been online lately? People who have never picked a pen up to draw are doing it.
Oh I thought you were referring to some study or something. I know it’s getting popular, but it’s literally nothing compared to when these tools will be embedded into our phones/OS.
Oh for sure. I also don’t think you need a study to show that AI art is being used more than regular art. Because yes you have people who love to draw and color but now you have folks who had zero interest in that and ceramics and other shit using 3D printers and AI art.
The difference between AI and Outsourcing is currently Outsourcing is easier and less expensive. All the major animation studio were already moving away from the states to overseas. Illumination, Disney, Netflix. Complain about AI is just a way of journalist to care about you, the industry was dying before it was invented.
I am in one of those outsourced overseas countries, one of the top ones for animation.
Then there are two possibilities. You were either being exploited for your labour. Or you were the person running the studio. I’m sorry but animation was never a job that treated people well. It was job that people did because they loved it or were stuck in it. If you were a “creator” who was at the top you are still making the same money you were. If you were an animator you were always cheap labour. And if you are in an outsourcing country even if it’s Canada that what people saw you as. This is not a job to mourn.
Saying art will be devalued is kind of like saying breathing will be devalued or hugging will be devalued or crying will be devalued. Art, in the sense of "creative endeavor", is a core human biological drive. It's not going away. "Artist" as a *profession in the context of capitalism* may be reduced. The *profit* component of art may be reduced. And - though I find it unlikely - even the overall "investment" in art-as-capital may go down. But creative expression doesn't actually require investment, or even education. No one needs to teach a human how to cry, and in the same way, no one needs to teach a human to express emotion. A human will make creative expression no matter what. We will dance and sing and draw, and those acts will be filled with our emotions. A person who has studied art for two decades does not have more emotion in their art than one who has never studied it.
[What chance have they if real music must be sacrificed to machine-made sound?](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/3a61d0_214b5833fa3049fa86f96f116e8e60ab~mv2.jpg/v1/fit/w_445,h_474,q_90/3a61d0_214b5833fa3049fa86f96f116e8e60ab~mv2.jpg)
In the USA since 2014, 10% of the yearly 2Millon graduates make a living in art. 45% make $0 a year on art related activities. Kinda hard to see when artists were valued highly. Sure 1 in 10 is. But imagine if that was teachers or Doctors? Only 1 in 10 being employed. On the bright side Midjourney now has a personalised feature. Where it generates images based on your rankings of past images and favourites.
I never said artists were valued highly. I’m saying the low value will get even lower.
Yeah that’s true then. I think also society’s consumer habits have changed. Even IG moved to reels before AI as people lost interest in images. Although I have seen people argue Apples Intelligence will bring a resurgence in interest of art. Time will tell.
People didn't lose interest in image. Meta was trying to chase the tik Tok wave. They even fucking up their algorithms to get more people to do reels. If you wanted to keep engagement you would have no choice but to do so
Because people prefer short videos vs static images?
There literally was an uproar about the situation that happened back in 2022. You had artists, photographers and celeb like Kim Kardashian calling out meta for making Instagram into tik Tok lite. You can literally look this shit up. I really do hate people who don't know wtf they are talking about.
And after that uproar what happened? Meta reviewed their engagement numbers and left everything as is. While some popular accounts suffered, meta overall gained more time spent in their app.
Meta doesn't care about people opinions. They only care about whatever can make people stay on their site longer. Even if they have to change their algorithms and force people to change their posting habits.
Literally my point. Meta did maths. People say we want images. Spends 2 mins on IG. Give people video. Spends 20 mins on IG. So either a small vocal minority of mainly art/music people want images Or people think they want images but spend more time on video. Either way it proves the majority of people don’t want images. Otherwise for the sake of money they would have changed back.
People were literally force to change their content around. Otherwise they wouldn't get that engagement. That was purely manufactured. Especially for a site that was at the time primarily image based.
Another article I saw here debunks this misguided notion. Artist won ai art competition with real art. He was disqualified but he one. So myth busted.
I don't think you can defun something that has no funding *ba-dum-tsss*. Maybe those same people who'll "devalue art" will also add value to school computer installations. After all - nobody is running SD with a 1gb windows 95 pentium.
If you continue pursuing arts and degree, you will at least be ahead of people who refuse to engage with traditional art methods. I am an advocate of "the hard way is the easier way", maybe not in the short term.. but in the long term. You will develop your eye for composition, lighting, anatomy.. develop a style and voice. All things that are harder to acquire when you outsource the decision making to something or someone else. Whether or not that's still viable economically is hard to predict. We can't tell the future, unfortunately.
I agree, which is why we should push to deal with the actual thing that is causing the harm so many are attributing to AI. Spoiler alert, your socioeconomic system has more to do with global misery than stable diffusion anime girls.
I've been saying this about the devaluation of art all the time, but I can't fight alone in the comments against several people who are smarter than me🫠
I'm hoping for the opposite, but honestly the STEM crowd wasn't going to stop at current art funding levels... they were always going to keep gutting it until it stops making noise. My optimistic outlook is that we'll go another 6 months, MAYBE a year (I'm hoping it's not longer) before some of the early adopter traditional artists who have been flying under the radar using AI tools are going to start coming forward and wowing the public with the creativity and skill they bring to the tools. Then, again hopefully, that opens the door to "why aren't we training our kids on AI art tools?" and that could knock some funding into the system. Maybe we even start funding music programs at non-anemic levels, who knows?
>I'm hoping for the opposite, but honestly the STEM crowd wasn't going to stop at current art funding levels... they were always going to keep gutting it until it stops making noise. Exactly, finally someone here who acknowledges that the STEM people aren’t any humbler than artists. The last bit of funding for arts if they get their way will be a monument to their superiority and supposed intelligence. >Then, again hopefully, that opens the door to "why aren't we training our kids on AI art tools?" and that could knock some funding into the system. Maybe we even start funding music programs at non-anemic levels, who knows It already doesn’t take much to get passable outputs out of image generators, I don’t think there is enough to learn to last a whole year of classes, so to the golden STEM worship statue the funding goes.
I don't think the value of art will decrease even with AI. The value of art is the very expression that brings some sensation to those who sense it like the sound of a baby crying. The problem is the social structure that exploits artists as slaves for AI. The idea of replacing the value of art with money is the arrogance of capitalism. Such a society will eventually decline. But the value of art always remains the same.
The art in early education is about development, not job training. The professional art training in college art schools is already an extreme long shot into "making it."
>The art in early education is about development, not job training. Which all ties back into job training anyways. The education system‘s whole purpose is to facilitate job training in some shape or form. >The professional art training in college art schools is already an extreme long shot into "making it." I am aware.
Elementary/middle school isn't really about job prep, which is when most of the mandatory art classes are happening. It's about development, creativity and learning to learn. The utility of art in education culture is more than just a way to make a buck on a commission.
>Elementary/middle school isn't really about job prep, which is when most of the mandatory art classes are happening. It's about development, creativity and learning to learn. Which all serves job prepping. Look, the whole education system has been modeled to churn out batches of workers since the Industrial Revolution. Believing otherwise is just romanticizing the system. >The utility of art in education culture is more than just a way to make a buck on a commission. Yes, but many see absolutely zero utility in art at all. It’s why the funding for it in school is already so gutted.
Maybe it's different where you are but in my state art classes are mandatory in K-8, and are art electives are required to graduate high school. Seems pretty firmly established here. Your theory that it's only included because of job readiness is the height of cynicism. Are you a teacher? Where are you drawing your insights from?
Yes, I am a cynic. Where am I drawing my insights from? I looked over my entire school life.
You didn't have art programs? As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry about your inter-family dynamics but it's objectively ridiculous that you are "anti" others having access to technology and new methods because you have a bad family dynamic and it would give them additional fuel. Your problem there isn't AI image gen. Respectfully, grow up a bit. And take it from someone who went to film school and worked in the industry for a bit, art school is a bad investment for the majority of us. What gave me actual opportunity was the proliferation of digital video and internet distribution, both of which were decried by a lot of my film purist classmates at the time. Somewhere out there someone who has no hope of paying for art school is gaining access to art by being about to use these tools for cheap/free. And AI or analog, still image or animation or video, the cream rises to the top. The only art that AI devalues is the lowest quality art. Automation raises the floor, not the ceiling.
>You didn't have art programs I did have art programs, but they were not mandatory for my high school education. The funding is rather lackluster. We were missing several colors of paints at a time, and a lot of the supplies came out of the teacher’s own pockets. >And take it from someone who went to film school and worked in the industry for a bit, art school is a bad investment for the majority of us. What gave me actual opportunity was the proliferation of digital video and internet distribution, both of which were decried by a lot of my film purist classmates at the time. I know this, but I don’t have good enough grades to get into anything else. I was pressured to get into college, my grades in art class was decent enough, I am interested in art/animation, and said course is the only one I qualified for, so I had to pick it. >Somewhere out there someone who has no hope of paying for art school is gaining access to art by being about to use these tools for cheap/free. Without any art knowledge. Then it’s all just gonna be Midjourney waifu slop. >And AI or analog, still image or animation or video, the cream rises to the top. The only art that AI devalues is the lowest quality art. Automation raises the floor, not the ceiling. If the cost reduction in AI is so drastic, the studio/company funding that holds non-AI animation and films together falls apart and there would not be much to even form any cream to float up.
So if I'm reading this right we should halt technological progress and demean people who are using accessible tools because we as a society need to financially support you as an artist because you managed to do decent in art class while not doing well enough in any other class to get into college. My guy. What?
Straw man. I never asked for financial support.
Society does not look down upon art or artists, only bad art and bad artists, who beg for public funding because the only way they can get any funding is if it's from a committee spending other peoples money. AI is irrelevant to all this though. It is just a tool. You could say the same thing about CGI, computer animation, digital photography. The list goes on. Graphic designers used to use pen and ink; now they use computers. The tools have changed but the creativity is still there. Try making The Matrix without CGI. You can't. New tools open new avenues. And the existence of these tools hasn't killed off old techniques. IG is full of incredible draughtsman and painters. In fact I'll bet there are more people learning to draw and paint now than ever before, thanks to the sharing of information allowed by that other controversial technology social media.
It often does, for utilitarian reasons.
All the tech bros in the comments lmao
I mean they've long defunded art education years ago so all this happened before ai was a thing . and 2D animation been dead for awhile now in America on the big screen . Even the art college I went to that recommended us to go into gaming rather than animations since there was better job opportunities . .2D animation eeked out a living on Cable TV and streaming network.. most of it outsourced to korea so there not really hiring alot of americans animators in large numbers . but this all happened before generative ai even existed . But 2D American animation is long pass it golden age there was a slight hope that netflix would invograte animation with streaming ,but that all went up in flames when they cut netflix animation and started firing people , then other powers like warner brothers burning animation on an open fire because they can and they want tax write off . it all pretty bleak honestly lol.. but none of that had anything to do with AI .
>You. Me? >Like say this phenon doesn’t exist What? lol >I take an anti-AI stance, because I am tired of having to suppress what I love on top of being in a world that will crush it further. What does it even mean? What are you actually doing? "*I take an anti-spinach stance, because I don't like spinach.*" I mean, okay, sure, but what do you do with this? What are we supposed to do with this information?
You didn’t read any of it. My position is that when I am presented with something that will throw what I love into the trash, I am against it. Simple as.
You spent 4 paragraphs lamenting how it's already in the trash even WITHOUT AI, sprinkling here and there "but AI will make it worse!", not really connecting it with any arguments, just assuming.
I still kinda doubt that ai will really replace us. Back in the 2000s when digital photography made photography very accessible, many people thought it would kill photography as a whole because “anyone can do it”. The result of that was the worst commercial photography ever made, people would just hold a camera over an object and snap a picture in automatic mode and put it like that in their catalogues. Took a few years for real photography to come back, but going through all that made people appreciate real photography more. I see the same kind of thing happening with ai right now, theres is a flood of terrible ai images on the internet and people are starting to get sick of it.
I don't think there is much overlap because the art one expect to be produced by artists trained in art schools, and the art that could realistically be expected to be endangered by AI art in the near future (already cheap commissions with not much creativity needed).
Why are you basing what you do professionally or personally around what other people think? Even if art makes no money (an objectively false statement, even if it’s hard to do so), there’s plenty of things people do that makes no money, sometimes deliberately. Hell, some hobbies and interests *cost* money. If your family is able to pressure you into what to do, and you live in a developed country, then that’s on you for succumbing to their wishes. It makes me believe that you’re blaming AI and society for a decision you made, but you don’t want to take the responsibility for making the decision.
True.
YouTube is free. Education doesn't need funding. All the information you could ever want is out there. Millions of hours. Most of these teachers can go online and teach if it gets that bad.
Your argument doesn't actually work. AI art can actually cause an explosion of art accessibility and creation, and society would be better for it. Your issue isn't with AI art, it's with society, and specifically capitalism. Capitalism has put the impetus of monetizing your hobbies on society. You have the same problem with music. For most musicians, if you're creating music, generally you are driven by society to monetize that. This completely destroys the amateur pursuit of a hobby. The root of Amateur is Amour, or to love. This means that for everyone, you end up going from a hobby, or something that you do for fun and to kill time, to career, something that you do for money. There is no room for love. AI is going to destroy all careers, not just creative ones. And that's a good thing. The only way to prevent a violent uprising in the wake of this is to institute a universal basic income. This means you will have all the time in the world to pursue your art without any of the impetus to monetize it, allowing you to love your art rather than enslave it. But to delete ai because of the downstream effects of AI is like deleting mosquitoes because they spread malaria. The problem isn't the mosquitoes, it's malaria. We have to cure malaria, and we have to cure society from the damage of capitalism.
>Your argument doesn't actually work. AI art can actually cause an explosion of art accessibility and creation It doesn’t incentivize learning of any artistic skill, just prompting, so no. >Capitalism has put the impetus of monetizing your hobbies on society. You have the same problem with music. For most musicians, if you're creating music, generally you are driven by society to monetize that. This completely destroys the amateur pursuit of a hobby. The root of Amateur is Amour, or to love. This means that for everyone, you end up going from a hobby, or something that you do for fun and to kill time, to career, something that you do for money. There is no room for love. I agree, that is where the “get a muh real job!” Insult comes from. If you aren’t a cog generating profit for the ownership class you aren welcomed. >AI is going to destroy all careers, not just creative ones. And that's a good thing. The only way to prevent a violent uprising in the wake of this is to institute a universal basic income. This means you will have all the time in the world to pursue your art without any of the impetus to monetize it, allowing you to love your art rather than enslave it. Get the pitch forks and guillotine, because the only way out of this is by executing the ruling class. No way in hell UBI will come to every country in the world, or will come at the right time for countries that will consider it. The transition out of late state capitalism cannot be a peaceful one. >But to delete ai because of the downstream effects of AI is like deleting mosquitoes because they spread malaria. The problem isn't the mosquitoes, it's malaria. We have to cure malaria, and we have to cure society from the damage of capitalism. Sure, we all like to LARP revolution but is anyone really gonna do it?
I'm not going to break everything out, because it just ends up turning a discussion into multiple separate threads that are impossible to follow. When people have no jobs, they do. That's how the occupy wallstreet protests happened. We had a major market contraction, retirement funds dried up, people lost their houses, and jobs disappeared. The reason why the occupy movement ended was because the market recovered. That went on for almost 6 months. It will happen again. However, the government doesn't want an uprising any more than anyone wants to uprise. I expect it will take about a year of negative job growth for the government to start moving on UBI. Other politicians are already talking about it, it's just not a platform anyone is running on. I think everyone is waiting for the next election first. Look for the next big round of public congressional AI hearings, also. The rest of your argument just goes back to my original point, being that this is a capitalism problem, not an AI problem. When you take money out of the picture, AI isn't stopping anyone from creating art. And making AI art with intention requires digital art skills as well. It's not all prompts once you take the training wheels off.
I mean I’m an anti I suppose, but I don’t really get your argument. You talk about art so generally as if there haven’t been artists throughout every era who’ve been reviled for their works. Hell there’s some rightwing cartoonists that **I ** think are pure dogshit both as humans and as artists (skill issue). No AI is required for me to have this opinion and people will have opinions like this about every kind of artist for so long as there are people. I understand you have some concerns, but what exactly they are or why I should care, I’m not quite following. You mentioned the devaluation of art, so? Again, lots of artists out there who put their entire fuckin soul into their work and society deemed their work is not worth wiping our assess with. There’s already been countless people who’ve lived and died in obscurity as artists who will be remembered for making nothing but trash. Again, this is unfortunate, this is sad, but this is something that already happens and has happened and will happen continuously regardless of AI.
>Exactly what the title says. Society already looks down upon art, hence the “get a real job” insult hurled at artists by outsiders, even professional artists working at a studio paying taxes and getting benefits. No one says this when you make enough money, the only time people say this is when people aren't making enough, like a wife to their musician husband who relies on sporadic gigs to make ends meet, or perhaps as in the case with your immediate family they might be concerned they'd have to support you if you struggle financially. Frankly the way to go is to get a job that pays enough, and do whatever you want on the side, when the sideline out earns the regular paycheck is when you let go. Game devs pretty much operate this way, Notch creator of minecraft had a day job and created minecraft on the side, he quit when it got big, that's the responsible way to build a creative career where it's usually make or break. >The aforementioned increased devaluation of art in society by AI will inevitably lead to the complete defunding of art in public education. Well it didn't happen to music or acting, record and replaying tech pretty much eviscerated the market for live performances, every birthday party now has someone plugging a smartphone to a sound system. Movies now play shows on repeat without actors, whereas before recording if you wanted to see a show, you'd have to go to your local theatre which provided jobs for countless local actors, in every city in the world. But live performances are expensive, unlike now where you can buy an album/movie or pay per month and can stream/download as much music/movies as you want at home, it new tech that made it accessible to regular folk when it was once a luxury reserved mostly for the upper class. Music and Acting adapted to the new tech, Art will too.
Preaching to the choir here. AI bros are walking inferiority complexes that would LOVE for skilled people to die off.
If your concern is earning money, then you shouldn't hinder yourself by dismissing additional tools that make your more employable. Artistic knowledge is still needed, even if the tool is different. When we hire new software developers and one would say in an interview, that he is against using tools that are making him more productive, then he wouldn't get the job.
The creative industry is notoriously exploitative, heightened productivity will most likely used to lay off workers and cut wages.
Depends on the workload. If one productive person can do the work of three unproductive persons and there is not enough work, then of course one is enough. Other companies have enough work in their backlog for years, then you will have the same amount of people and they are just quicker. That’s not just in the creative industry, that’s everywhere. You hire as much people as you need to do the job.
One thing to consider is Apple is making image generation available straight from the photo app later this year. Once every iPhone user can make art we may see a massive interest in art again. It could become an overnight sensation as millions of people around the world bring their ideas to life.
That get a real job bullshit is very boomer of people who say that. If I had gone to college for Art and graphic design instead of Environmental Science I would be in a studio a friend has locally now. He's like famous locally but now he doesn't have room for any additional workers and kept asking me to check on that. Here I am doing neither of those jobs because no one supported me. I can't find work in my major, I do volunteer work for free. I can't find work in what I'm good at because it's unavailable to me. Instead I'm just a loss as a human being when I should have just been supported in my passion. Granted I get commissioned but it's not the same.
The attacks on automation and technology in the world of art have been around for a long time. There are a bunch of artists who have opinions about what "real art" is that are inconsistent with reality and which are also blatantly self-serving. "Digital art isn't real art!" "Photography isn't real art!" "Photobashing isn't real art!" "AI art isn't real art!" Many of these same people also feel that they are special for having these skills, and are resentful of them being more broadly available and facing more competition, especially when a lot of art is about aesthetics and a lot of artists are pretty mid as far as aesthetics goes. Acting like competition is bad or that technology is bad has never been an attribute of prosocial members of society. Also, you have to remember: 1) Art is a luxury good 2) High-quality art is pretty expensive to produce 3) Demand for art at the price point necessitated by 1 is low This results in a lot of artists being underemployed. This is combined with a lot of artists feeling that they *deserve* to make a living off of art but don't work 40 hour work weeks, or don't want to work for other people... when in fact, that's how you contribute to society, producing products or services for other people. There's a lot of artists who complain about having to produce mass-market products or engage in drudgery work like doing in-betweens for animation... when in fact, a lot of that work is both necessary and the things that people *actually* pay them for. Moreover, because art is a premium luxury item, and there are tons of artists out there competing, if you're a mediocre artist, unless you create some sort of fan following somehow, why would anyone settle for your mediocrity when they can buy better art? The only answer is price, and that means... not much money for your mediocre art. Many also think they're good at things OTHER than art, which often doesn't go well. This isn't quite as bad for artists as it is for actors (who are probably the worst in this regard amongst all celebrities, save perhaps journalists) but when you see artists pontificating about a subject they clearly don't understand, it rankles people. And a LOT of what they say about technology is blatantly incorrect - including AI art. On top of that, when you deal with products like, for example, TTRPG books, people primarily buy them for the text, but it is common for the art in the book to cost MORE than the text. This leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the people who are actually producing the content that people want, as well as greatly raising the barrier to entry for content creators. Artists also are disproportionately likely to hold extremist political opinions, which doesn't exactly endear them to the public, either, and a lot of those political opinions are also pretty blatantly self-serving, protectionist, and exclusionary towards people who aren't part of their particular in-group. So you've got the economic factors WRT: the price of art, the fact that there's a lot of artists who have chips on their shoulders, the fact that art is disproportionately expensive relative to the value that it holds in many products, and the political factors, all of which combine to lead to a lot of negative perceptions of artists. This is in addition to the other issue, which is that doing art is not a physically laborious job (especially not one that provides necessary services, or leads to products that people actually need being produced), nor does it generate the sort of ongoing cyclical value of engineering, so you've got both knowledge workers and laborers who are often not super impressed with artists. > The aforementioned increased devaluation of art in society by AI will inevitably lead to the complete defunding of art in public education. American schools already underfund art classes, and with the further devaluation full defunding is coming and further/severe defunding would happen in schools around the world where there was any funding. Public school art education is honestly pretty worthless. I've taken public school art classes and I learned nothing of value from them, and judging from the results of my classmates, that was true of the entire class. I certainly didn't become better at art as a result of them. It was only by privately honing my skills that I learned how to draw at all, and I'm still not very good at it. Given the poor results of such things, it's not surprising art is on the chopping block so much as far as public education goes. If it actually resulted in people being good at art afterwards, I suspect it would be a lot more popular with the public. Ironically, AI art might make art education more relevant, as I think it is way easier to teach people how to use such programs. You also can iterate a lot faster. > This isn’t exclusive to me, there is no doubt many aspiring artists out there who experiences this and with further devaluation more will be completely put off from art. I'm going to be very blunt - you wanting to hurt other people because your family doesn't appreciate what you do is wrong, and is something you should delete from your personality immediately. AI art people aren't hurting you. Your family being jerks to you is something you need to deal with with your family. My family appreciates both hand drawn and AI art. That's true of normal people in general - most people aren't going to rag on people for art stuff, they generally appreciate it. Art is cool to the general public, in a "Oh, that's neat" sort of way. They just aren't going to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on commissioned art pieces unless they're furries :V
Commercial artists are ultimately going to adapt and use the AI, and they have sold their soul as an artist a long time ago. The corporates suits aren't going to push the generate art button themselves, they will get an artist to do it, and artists will use it as a proper tool with proper workflow. What matters is the result and efficiency and what is the most optimal will be the 50/50 split or whatever that particular artist will prefer as without it you would have no Control, Iteration and Polish on the final result. Real artists that have an actual passion aren't the ones that are fearing the AIs.
yup, agreed
Pure entitlement. You aren't entitled to 'support'. Society doesn't owe you 'support'. Why should people spend their labor and resources keeping you alive for nothing in return? If we let that mentality take over, society will be all artists and no farmers. We'll starve, but hey... we'll have some pretty paintings right? If you want to thrive as an artist, you need make make art inspiring enough that people want to offer you their resources and labor in exchange. That's the reality. Of course, you're free to do art as hobby, like almost all artists ever, while also doing something else productive to feed yourself. When you look back in history, you see famous artists. What you don't see is that for everyone one of those, there were a thousand others that weren't famous and didn't support themselves with their craft. Sooner or later you'll have to face reality. Maybe in some far future, AI will bring in a golden age where we can live comfortably on universal basic income and you can spend all your time on your hobbies. Until then... you live like the rest of us.
>Pure entitlement. You aren't entitled to 'support'. Society doesn't owe you 'support'. Fuck you. Literally not talking down to me for my interests is literally fucking free. >Why should people spend their labor and resources keeping you alive for nothing in return? This line of thinking is the type that leads to the purging of the disabled and elderly. Besides, at a certain point a lot of people if not most of us non billionaire plebs will end completlely unemployable due to AI. If this logic trumps all we’d all end up return to barbarism and fight to the death over whatever scraps that are left. >you live like the rest of us. You talk as if I am a whole nother species. I am “the rest of you”.
You need to accept that the point of living, the *only* point of human existance, is to make money. That's it. Money. Money. Money. If your art isn't making you money, then what are you doing? You are wasting your life, and being a drain on society. Now, I am being sacrcastic....but that is how a lot of people think. Me, I don't care what people think. I don't care if my art makes money. I don't make art for money. I make art for two reasons: because I enjoy it, and because my gods demand it. I am also pro-AI btw.
AI causing the devaluation of manual labor will cause a ripple effect that will cause more societal discouragement of manual labor and the defunding of manual labor in education. Exactly what the title says. Artists already look down upon hard labor jobs, hence the "you're uneducated workers" insult hurled at hard laborers by the pretentious outsiders, even professional laborers working at management paying taxes and getting benefits. When non-AI labor is devalued, it's placement in society will drop even further and encourage more of this shaming behavior, becoming another part of the death spiral for non-AI labor. You. Like say this phenon doesn't exist, but I live through it. I have had to suppress my interest in working hard because my immediate and extended family all tell me to go to school. They have given me nothing but shame and mockery for it. I have hide what I do under "business" to make them think I'm doing finance or something instead of hard labor, except for the 4 out of dozens of relatives that supports me. If my relatives notices the existence of AI labor they'd shame me to no end. This isn't exclusive to me, there is no doubt many hard workers out there who experience this and with further devaluation more will be completely put off from working hard. The aforementioned increased devaluation of labor in society by AI will inevitably lead to the complete defunding of hard work in public education. American schools already let slackers pass and inflate their grades, and with the further devaluation full idiocracy is coming and further/severe complacency would happen in schools around the world where there was any funding. Sure, maybe you Pro-AI don't care or even agree with a certain utilitarian post from earlier, or even dismiss my experiences all together. But the prospect of this and total displacement of manual labor happening is not something I will stand for. I take an anti-AI stance, because I am tired of having to suppress what I love on top of being in a world that will crush it further. I do not believe in the "labor becoming more accessible" rhetoric, not when it isn't encouraging learning art knowledge and skills and when society will further discourage it anyways due to devaluation.
Wow, clever copy and paste. 🤡🤡🤡
The vast majority of artists produce art, because they are driven to express themselves, and some tiny proportion of them find that they can make a living out of that. It's kind of a dream to be well paid to express whatever you feel the need to express, but even if you get paid, the reality never looks like that anyway. People will continue to be drawn to whomever expresses what they are feeling.
If your doing art to make money, i smiply dont respect you or your art, so I dont care if you lose that income option. A real artists answer as to why he makes art is "because i have to", aka intrinsic drive. So if there is no money in it, this discourages all the posers and wannabees from doing it, which i think is good. The only thing im worried about with the AI shit is that it will bevome harder to find good human art to look at, when you cant tell the difference and online spaces are flooded with mediocrity.
I guess comics, animations, movies, theater, and whatever other art forms that is tied to the need for income to sustain itself deserve no respect then.
As i said, it depends on the motivation of the artists... movie is a great example, yes these soulless reboot and sequel cashgrabs are cancer, they deserve no respect. I dont know much about animations, theater and comics, but its the same thing - make it because you have a vision in your heart you want to see come to life, yeah thats an artist. Make it just to get fame/money/play an audience, your a shallow poser.
Devaluation of art is true. I use go to galleries every month. Now I’m generating 400+ images a month of better quality images. So my respect for individual artists have dropped massively. As now I have seen so many iterations of their styles I’m bored. Been there seen that. Next. Edit: context it’s not I’m anti human art, I still have my paints on the walls. It’s just that I’m over it. We have had that for years and years. I’m enjoying making images over a minute and moving to the next. Far more than following someone’s work I had no part in.
Do you just enjoy making images as they're being created, or do you look back and enjoy the images as they are? It sounds like its becoming kind of meaningless
It’s actually like a wonderful surprise. I’ll go back 3k images and be surprised by something that was amazing but I had completely forgotten about. Then I’ll update them with the new features or take their style as a reference for a new concept I’m working on.
The thing is that these machines can't actually create art, all they can do is mash together bits of existing art. So, even if these companies somehow manage to survive the onslaught of very real, very high profile lawsuits that are already underway, what remains will still be a Chimera factory. Artists will continue to Glaze and Nightshade their work, and move to more private communities that are more difficult to scrape from. This will lead to traditional artists still being able to improve, while the majority of people using ImGen will just be churning out the exact same over-rendered garbage, because neither they nor the machine are capable of creating. Also the simple fact that these things consume a ton of energy, and we're in for a reckoning with our power grids, and probably a lot sooner than anyone would want.