> AI is destroying the economics which allowed for a sizable middle class of artists.
I was an art major and switched to CompSci purely for the money.
AI "art" is often slop, but the ability to create something in seconds that used to take months shouldn't be taken lightly. There will undoubtedly be truly creative people who will use AI art as a force multiplier instead of a shortcut, and that is when things will get interesting.
We're already seeing this in software; plenty of people can attest to the fact that LLMs give them the opportunity to write software that they couldn't have written without AI, because their ability to write code wasn't up to snuff.
Some use that opportunity to get their existing work done faster.
But some use that opportunity to create things which were beyond their capabilities, just a few years ago. And when that same mindset eventually becomes prevalent among artists, we will undoubtedly see AI "art" that is truly art.
> There will undoubtedly be truly creative people who will use AI art as a force multiplier instead of a shortcut, and that is when things will get interesting.
No it won't :-/
What someone carefully prompted and refined over and over over a matter of months can be, the minute it is released, cloned in minutes.
Even being good with AI prompting still results in the product having no value to someone looking for the specific aesthetics.
Not only is AI art often slop, it's also often theft. Or maybe even always theft. And it's both of these things that account for this newfound ability to create something normally time-intensive in seconds. Imagine I want to have a world-class painting on my wall: the fastest and cheapest way is to steal one from a museum, especially if I found a way to obscure the act. In the case of LLMs, its obscured by the fact that the model draws from many sources, blending them together in a way that's hard or even impossible to separate. Is stealing a small amount from many more excusable than a lot from just one? I don't see why that would be so. It's the total amount that measures the gravity of the transgression.
"I was an art major and switched to CompSci purely for the money." Translation: Not an artist.
I worked for 30 years as a pianist. The number of programmers who have told me they too are a musician... No- you aren't. And you never were. That's the thing, if you were a musician, you would be playing music. That would be your job.
I mean as a hobbyist, yes, sure, enjoy splashing paint and calling it art, but spending the tens of thousands of hours to learn what music actually is, no, no, no. You aren't. Would you call yourself an architect if you can draw a picture of a building? No, you aren't.
No artist wants to "create things which were beyond their capabilities" with an AI, they want to develop their capabilities to create things beyond who they are now. Art is about discovering the world, yourself, the strange magic of an ethereal plane, some how reached through vibrations.
I don't know. Reading programmers talk about art, as if they are not dilettantes, is always depressing for me.
I agree with some of your characterizations here, but I don’t think it is fair to say that if you are not currently a professional artist, you were never a true artist. People get unlucky, have families to support, etc
Sure, if you devote yourself to art, you commit, and I'm not talking some insulated school environment, to improve and struggle, and then you burn out. Yes, this is a well known path for an artist. They failed, but they are still an artist. They are a failed artist, and this is actually a proud title to wear.
Someone who decides, "I'll be a programmer for money," was never an artist. Someone who studies music in college and does admin for some company is not a "musician" and never was. It is the journey in art that makes the artist, not playing a piece.
Unfortunately art is just like that. The amount of time required in devotion to the skill is truly staggering and humbling. And then, it's never enough.
I don't know.
It is possible to make this commitment while working in some unrelated field, but it takes tremendous will-power. Charles Ives is an example I suppose.
This might be the most pretentious waffle I have ever read lmfao.
You write like the critic from Ratatouille.
So Vivian Meier was not a photographer? The local bands that work day jobs aren't musicians?
Nonsense, frankly. Being an artist is not dependent on monetizing your talent.
There are artists and musicians and photographers, and there are professional musicians and artists and photographers.
What is someone who writes and performs music every day their whole life but bartends to pay their rent, to you? They're not a musician but someone that makes ukulele tracks for corporate training videos is, because the latter does it professionally?
If you are a computer programmer who meets up with your buddies to play every once in a while, no you aren't an artist.
If you are in a band, and you are playing all the time, obviously you are an artist. The job is facilitating you playing. The playing is the focus.
Someone who decides in college, or directly after college, "you know what, I'm just gonna be a programmer." Then touches the piano every once in a while, or plays with his friends every once in a while. I don't call that an artist.
There are so many of these people. They aren't artists. Sorry. Are the smart, probably, are they talented, probably, are they committed, yes to programming.
>you are in a band, and you are playing all the time, obviously you are an artist.
Well, no, it's very much not obvious, you literally just said "you're not a musician, if you were, it'd be your job" but now it doesn't have to be your job, as long as your job isn't programming?