[neom]

The reality is that most artists need to engage with economic situations to survive and continue making art. I would say I think it's important to recognize "art" is wide and means lots of things to lots of people. For example I would put gfx in a "creative science" more than a "creative art" - for example. Never the less, the reality is that most artists need to engage with economic realities to survive and continue making art, if you blame the tool, you're not a very good artist. you raise a good point about supply and demand, it's something I've seen reshape creative fields multiple times over my career, I've consistently found that the artists who thrive are the ones who adapt their tools while maintaining their creative vision, rather than letting the tools define their art.

[greentxt]

Jeff Koonz thrives, invents tools to produce new works, and will not be replaced by an LLM. Art is wide, and it should not be reduced to a few Koonz'.

[neom]

I actually specifically did well-ish in art also because I invented my own tools, if you look at the Cinevate Brevis, those ideas came out of my program. The image was soft, it leaked light, you got CA like crazy, awful tool, but I managed to create some amazing images with it and people really loved my art, I never cared that the existing tools didn't cater to my art, I didn't care my tool sucked, my art was my art, it's art! I sold a lot of commercial work too using that tool, but to me that wasn't my art, maybe I'm an artist doing that work, but that wasn't my art. Jeff didn't say well I can't make my art fuck the existing tools, he made his own. But I was never going to be economically comfortable doing art, I was never a good enough artist, hence I switched to tech. Being an artist is hard, and just because someone fancy themself an artist, doesn't mean they are.