[vouaobrasil]

The problem is, society is set up now so that the ONLY thing people CAN do is go after money. It was pushed hard in that direction by tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook because they wanted to maximize pure short-term profit by sucking life out of people.

There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it. Now, AI has set up the ultimate PRISONER'S DILEMMA (game theory) situation where everyone needs to jump on the frenetic race ot the bottom to get their work recognized.

[eightysixfour]

> There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it.

Source? The “starving artist” trope has existed a lot longer than the tech conglomerates.

[poopbutt7]

> There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it.

Honest question, is that actually true? Historically, professional art always struck me as the domain of the rich, the starving artist, or the person taking commissions for the rich.

[chefandy]

You can currently. You've always been able to.

I have a friend that is a workaday oil painter. He went to college for oil painting, got good at painting seaside vistas, and sells them steadily. There are also all manor of other commercial artists. Concept artists, illustrators, graphic designers, animators, composers, musical instrumentalists... they are artists who make a living from being artists. They get artistic satisfaction from their work just like a developer gets creative satisfaction from writing code for a living. They put their heart and soul into the things they create even if it might end up making them, or even other people profit. Art doesn't have to be some magical personal journey completely divorced from the prospect of money to be art. I'll bet that nearly every single musical artist you like made the majority of their work to sell it and make money. That does not make that work worse or less artistic. If you removed the things in our lives we get artistic enrichment from that were created to sell, it would be a pretty stark landscape.

I see a lot of people who generally haven't done artistic things meaningfully grappling with the "what is art" question for the first time, and making a bunch of sweeping declarations that make them feel better about riding this wave. If you're someone who has put a bunch of years, educational dollars, and effort into becoming an artists, some group of software developers "explaining" to you what "real art" is can be pretty infuriating. I was a developer for a decade-- I know this hubris from both sides. It helps when you're plowing into a new problem space to make it better with code, but when you start using those generalizations to deem someone and their life work as worthy or not, it's obnoxious, counterproductive, and generally completely inaccurate.

[pphysch]

Sorta. Being a small time musician was a sizeable industry before the invention of the playback device.

But still, it was commodity "art". The restauranteur wanted you to play the classics, not your creative original "nonsense".

[RetroTechie]

There have been times in history (middle ages? Renessance?) where some artists were sponsored by rich person.

Rich person for whatever reason, thinking it worthwhile to pay for artists' expenses. Or house them, buy their works etc. So that artist could create art.

Modern day equivalent would be Patreon. But back then, usually 1, maybe a few sponsors. Or 1 rich dude sponsoring a small ensemble of artists. Just for... dunno. 'Social credit' / personal glory? Art lover? Bragging rights? Some kind of platonic or romantic relation between artist & sponsor? To leave something behind?

[vouaobrasil]

Well, as a case in point: people can make money from YouTube and writing books now...that may indeed be a thing of the past if a person is not willing to use AI. But even if not, some people were definitely able to make money out of being an artist in the past, like people who painted other people's portraits.

AND, if you read about the history of photography, some people were definitely able to make money out of taking people's portraits. That was still the case until advanced technology came around.

But I do agree with your point: not everyone was able to do so.

[eightysixfour]

> AND, if you read about the history of photography, some people were definitely able to make money out of taking people's portraits. That was still the case until advanced technology came around.

People still make money from taking people’s portraits… and those people took money from the portrait artists who used to travel and paint portraits.

Artists almost always reject technology that makes what they do a commodity, which makes sense, but the reality is that art that lasts is usually something which comes into existence when the previous art gets commoditized. IMO, when the artists freak out it is because we have made a new technology that is actually disruptive.