I’ve asked an artist if they should be worried about the newest generative AI capabilities. This is his (translated) response:
> Artists? Pencil laborers, more like.. I am in favor of using AI in visuals. It will eliminate a lot of mere decorators, and won’t even slightly affect the artists. I hope AI as a technology has the same effect on the world of ART as the invention of photography had: it got rid of a lot of empty landscape copiers. Impressionism was born shortly after that. See, I believe many cursed photography, but Monet never saw it as a problem.
> I hope AI as a technology has the same effect on the world of ART as the invention of photography had: it got rid of a lot of empty landscape copiers
I like this analogy. Maybe this time around is different, but I like to hope it's not.
The anti-AI discourse is almost identical to anti-photography diatribes from more than a century ago.
Artists will also learn to use AI to make art. I don’t mean slop, which is low effort stuff and I tend to use that term regardless of whether AI was involved. I mean real art where the AI is used with painstaking care the way a photographer uses their camera.
What it will do is it will spoil it for 99% of small time artists that still managed to make a living out of it. It will drown audience with slop and make them not care for new releases even more.
That "artists" idea is that the Monet's will survive, but art is not a rat race where just the Monets need apply. A healthy art scene needs all kinds of creators, at different levels, and needs to be able to sustain a decent above-average quality chunk of them. Not just the Monets.
Not to mention it seems like the pretentious artist in the discussion sees themselves as some outlier Monet type that will be fine.
Claim: What it will do is it will spoil it for 99% of small time artists that still managed to make a living out of it.
Why: It will drown audience with slop and make them not care for new releases even more.
Claim: That "artists" idea is that the Monet's will survive, but art is not a rat race where just the Monets need apply.
Why: (because) a healthy art scene needs all kinds of creators, at different levels, and needs to be able to sustain a decent above-average quality chunk of them. Not just the Monets.
As for the last claim:
Claim: Not to mention it seems like the pretentious artist in the discussion sees themselves as some outlier Monet type that will be fine.
Here's the why behind that (since I didn't elaborate as I find it self-evident):
because he says he's fine with AI, because AI will sweep the art scene from lesser artists and lives the Monets and real artists. Either he claims that he is one of the lesser artists that's OK for AI to sweep away, or he implies that he's one of the good ones that would be fine. The latter sounds far more plausible.
The "phrased slightly differently" is the why. It's not circular, it's one step further, e.g. "why would it spoil it for small time artists" "because it will drawn the audience with slop".
You just keep questioning at the next level, like a small kid asking "any why would it do X", "because Y", "and why would it do Y". Ultimately you'll reach asking why the Big Bang happened or something.
What you're ask for seems to be "ultimate causual mechanism". That's not how arguments work, this isn't Physics. The reader needs to apply their thinking to the implications of extra slop production, for example.
If they don't believe that AI will produce extra slop, I don't know what to tell them.
> Why: It will drown audience with slop and make them not care for new releases even more.
why do you think this is the case though? vs people being more excited to get art made by small artists because they arent ai slop.
tbe small artist opening their stufio to sell prints has always been about the experience of visiting and talking to the artist, not the piece of slop that you end up buying
He would certainly reply that his paintings weren't valued so highly for their functional purpose before.
If AI art doesn't impinge on your friend's business, it's because he was selling art for art's sake rather than (as the majority of artists do to make a living) creating art to fill a functional need. The latter is what photography and AI impact.
> Artists? Pencil laborers, more like.. I am in favor of using AI in visuals. It will eliminate a lot of mere decorators, and won’t even slightly affect the artists. I hope AI as a technology has the same effect on the world of ART as the invention of photography had: it got rid of a lot of empty landscape copiers. Impressionism was born shortly after that. See, I believe many cursed photography, but Monet never saw it as a problem.