[fnovd]

There is a difference between "making money and making art" and "making money by making art". No one is entitled to having other people value their artistic output. I would argue that art created for the marketplace is less creative than art produced by a human's need to create for creation's sake. It's not un-artistic, but it is the kind of art that an AI can make better, faster, and cheaper.

[CatWChainsaw]

Optimizing/maximizing the output of art is an awfully mechanical way of looking at ART.

[krapp]

Give an example of a work of art produced by a human's need to create for creation's sake alone, and not at all for the marketplace, that outclasses any classical works of art, music, literature or anything else that the creator was paid for. Michaelangelo didn't paint the Sistene Chapel ceiling for free. The Rolling Stones and the Beatles didn't perform for free. Shakespeare didn't write for free. That indie band you like so full of passion and verve would probably kill to be able to at least make ends meet on tour, because if they don't, they just break up and get "real" jobs. Even Banksy sells his work.

All art is work. Any art worth doing is work. It's time and experience and probably student loans and equipment and people. And under capitalism, work must either be done in the service of profit or else it doesn't get done. To expect artists alone to suffer for the purity of their craft and do everything they do for free is perverse.

Although you are correct - AI will put a lot of those people out of business. But not because they let themselves be tainted by commercialism. Rather the opposite, because commerce no longer finds value in the artist.

[fnovd]

Simply look at the career of Van Gogh or any "Bohemian starving artist". Listing only the most popular, most influential artists proves my point: for most people art is an untenable career. In that regard AI, has virtually no impact on those who want to create. They will find a way to make something unique and valuable or they will fail like millions of artists already do in the world we have today.

There are many artists in my family and all of them have day jobs to support their creative passions. Mosts artists fail to make money; it really should go without saying that not everyone can be Helen Mirren or Paul McCartney. If requiring a day job makes you give up art, you probably didn't have the drive to create anything people really wanted. For most artists creation is a need, not something that is pursued for monetary reasons. Everyone tries to make money on their art, but again, even without AI the vast majority of artists fail to do so.

[krapp]

>Listing only the most popular, most influential artists proves my point: for most people art is an untenable career.

That wasn't your point. Your point was that no artist who makes a living with their art can be considered a "true" artist. I pointed out popular and influential artists because the quality of their work, despite having been being done by working artists, disputes your thesis that no art done for money has real value.

>In that regard AI, has virtually no impact on those who want to create.

AI has already been used to steal the commissions of working artists and fabricate CVs, and plenty of jobs are being outsourced entirely to AI. I guarantee you the artists who lost that work have plenty of passion for their craft.

>Mosts artists fail to make money; it really should go without saying that not everyone can be Helen Mirren or Paul McCartney.

Why are you trying to equate working artists with celebrities. Most working actors aren't Helen Mirren or Paul McCartney. Most writers aren't Tom Clancy or Stephen King. You've never heard of anyone working in VFX, or many people involved in comics or game art.

Again, you just keep restating your argument, but never proving it. Why are none of these people real artists, and why do none of them deserve to make a living? Why are the only "true" artists your friends who make macaroni collages or paint portraits on the boardwalk, and not the people who had the commitment to master their craft and do it full time?

>For most artists creation is a need, not something that is pursued for monetary reasons.

Here's the flaw in your reasoning, you assume that artists who work for a living are only interested in monetary gain. For the vast majority of working artists, creation is a need, and that's why they pursue a living at it. You seem to be assuming the only artists being replaced by AI are low-talent bottom feeders, but markets aren't optimizing for talent, they're optimizing for cost and replacing their entire creative pipeline with AI where feasible.

A lot of modern creative work involves years of effort, material, and investment. Small bands can't tour if everyone also has a full time job, and they never charge for tickets and only ever give their music away for free. Indie game studios couldn't publish games that way. A lot of art just ceases to exist when your only option is to squeeze it in during free time when you're already working 40, 50 or 60 hours just to feed yourself.