|
|
|
|
|
by IceMetalPunk
1342 days ago
|
|
> "And if he can't sell it, why would he create it (or at least, why would he publish and market it) in the first place?" And this is the crux of my biggest issue with people who are against AI art. The question "if artists can't make money on it, why would they make or share art in the first place?" is so incredibly depressing, dystopian, and frustrating to me. I understand we live in a largely capitalistic world, for better or for worse (mostly worse), but making a cash profit should not be the primary motivation to create and share art. The joy of creation and aesthetic appreciation should be. Art is only a human endeavor if it's done for intrinsic value or to share an idea or an emotion. Once the main -- or indeed only -- reason for creating something becomes "how many dollar bills will people put in my bank account if I let them see this?", it ceases to be art, in my opinion, and becomes conditioned capitalistic greed. Don't get me wrong, if you make art that people want to pay you for, that's great! But if you remove the paycheck and suddenly can't think of any good reasons to continue creating, then it is my humble opinion that you were never making art in the first place. You were simply chasing currency, the nature of which you almost certainly don't understand anyway. |
|
Overall though, perhaps I've oversimplified. The question I should have asked should have been 'if artists can't make money on it, then how can they afford to dedicate time to developing their craft and producing their art?'
Personally, my suggestion would be something like Universal Basic Income, but there are a lot of people who would be against that.