|
|
|
|
|
|
by erispoe
1378 days ago
|
|
|
People who buy art do not buy it because of the technical execution. You may need to execute a piece in some way to get a desired effect, but the technique is the mean not the goal. This is not to take away from the achievements of AI. It's that creating pictures adhering to a prompt with some degree of creativity is very little of what art is. Maybe it will replace some part of commissioned illustrations where the artist's name does not matter (e.g. some avatar pic?). We still value, financially, some material goods for much more than they cost to produce. Or for much more than their almost identical mass-produced counterparts. |
|
|
I mean, it's the majority of commercial art - you get a prompt from the client, you maybe flesh it out in a few different directions with sketches, then you refine a final piece. And AI is incredibly good at this process - instant results, infinite patience, and it's free. A very hard combination to meet.
Calendars, book covers, video game assets, green screen backgrounds....
Even in a case like video game animations, where the AI can't build every frame, it can still give you a good reference photo. From there you just need a cheap artist to fill out the frames - a huge cost savings, and a big blow to the artistic community.
Where do you get started as an artist, without any of those? Obviously, Fine Arts isn't nearly as effected, but how do you get your start when you can't build a name from your cool book covers, or get famous off Magic: The Gathering card illustrations?