I personally find the fear some artists have over being replaced to be fairly silly. The fact that art of realistic objects, people, and landscapes is still fairly popular even after cameras have become widely available shows this whole thing is overblown. And don't get me started on the whole "soulless" bullshit.
Sure, marketing is always relevant. Everyone knows what McDonalds is but they still spends billions in advertising. But if there isn't any discernible difference between your art and the janky AI art currently being shit out, then you're a shit artist. Sucks you had to find out from me but there it is. If there is a discernible quality to your art, then that's going to be a point of difference for an artist and why people are going to seek you out and promote you.
When I say marketing I don't mean just commercials and what we normally associate with advertising. Marketing can be as simple as Apple choosing to go with a white earphone cord over a black one for the intent that it stands out more.
It is also the way you explain why your product is good, as in if you can properly convey your technical specification so a layman can understand them you'll sell way more than someone similar who just throws some technical jargon at the customer. Something like a game demo for example is to give people an idea of how the game plays and is a way to market that medium of art.
Sometimes it can even swing things in super subtle ways. The Bolsheviks in Russia were the smaller more radical party but their name derives from "Bolshoy" which means big and their opponents were referred to as "Menshiviks" by them which means lesser than. Just that naming convention made people side with one party over the other because of the perception of what it was.
Marketing in many cases is more about how you express yourself than tricking people into buying something.
I personally find the fear some artists have over being replaced to be fairly silly. The fact that art of realistic objects, people, and landscapes is still fairly popular even after cameras have become widely available shows this whole thing is overblown. And don't get me started on the whole "soulless" bullshit.
Before the advent of machine translation, interpreters and translators used to have some form of space to make a living. It wasn't much but they could make it. That was blasted away throughout the mid 2010's because as someone else said, big dick commission work is one thing and they do come but once in a blue moon; What they counted on to pay the bills were the constant flood of little-time job offers.
My one positive comment on this is I hope it puts the endless swarm of pajeets shitting out corporate "alegria" manblobs out of work forever.
I personally find the fear some artists have over being replaced to be fairly silly. The fact that art of realistic objects, people, and landscapes is still fairly popular even after cameras have become widely available shows this whole thing is overblown. And don't get me started on the whole "soulless" bullshit.
Apt comparison or not but GMOs beat the fuck out of organic crops yet the organic food market is a quarter trillion dollar a year business. The only artists going out of business are the ones that will fail to adapt (AKA the ones that are bitching the loudest about this).
Yeah, there will always be a healthy market for things made with older methods. Two examples to come to mind are music from vinyl records and antique firearms.
This is all neither here nor there. Until the AI can make furry fetish porn of your OC fucking a Navi, seething Predditor/Deviantarts will be able to supplement their disability checks for BPD with those sweet $40 commissions. Right now all the AI does is questionably use a blend tool to past together furry porn that somebody already drew.
This is why it can't do hands, btw, and that will never and can never be fixed. The whole thing is a rain puddle people are pretending is an ocean and the real revelation is just (as someone mentioned) showing arrogant twats exactly how little the plebian really care about or notice details. Something any actual artist has known all along. It's the main thing we pompously bitch about. One person in 50 even at a gallery show knows an objectively good from bad piece (and that there is indeed an objective good and bad). That people think this AI crap is even kind of passable just demonstrates this fact. It is all laughably bad and freakish but that goes over a lot of people's heads. I liked the Star Wars characters on trail cams iteration better, which is the exact same tech.
Now at some point in the future, if society survives, there might be a system that can actually pull from some database and create pieces from scratch using knowledge of anatomy and algorithms about how cloth folds and so on and make soulless but maybe realistic art. Some far-advanced extension of CG animation, maybe. But vtuber fanart collages being posted right now aren't even close. What it is doing though is make retards trying to sell jars of piss for $75,000 have at least a slightly harder time justifying it. BUT I THOUGHT ANYTHING CAN BE ART??
Art, like most industries, is an ever-changing landscape - and like with every other industry that's faced technological innovation you need to either adapt or die. AI-generated artwork's an inevitability and it'll only become more prominent as the technology becomes more advanced and the quirks get ironed out.
The only morally questionable part I can see right now is using previously published art as reference without the original publisher's consent, but even then the machine's just using that material to 'learn' like a human artist would learn techniques from copying existing art.
In terms of the Kiara/Calli posts I can understand why they'd want to keep the tag to human-drawn art both because it's an unexplored territory legally and they probably just want to highlight artists in their community, but the moral outrage going on is just the next round of manufactured social media outrage.
In an effort to bridge the gap between subjects, I wonder if the possibility to utilize AI generated art as the models for future vtubers will become the next evolution of the medium. I don't know how the tech works when it comes to creating a vtuber model that makes expressions and what not. But I'd imagine a rigger would still need to be hired to set up all that to get it working.
Apt comparison or not but GMOs beat the fuck out of organic crops yet the organic food market is a quarter trillion dollar a year business. The only artists going out of business are the ones that will fail to adapt (AKA the ones that are bitching the loudest about this).
That's because organic crop only eating proponents think GMOs will fuck you up because a GMO banana has chemicals in it or whatever, and their is a very notable push by people obsessed with health to tell shit like this to scare people into thinking hard about "muh chemicals" in GMO crops. I remember trying to propose that producing GMO fish to try and stave off fish extinction while meeting market demand in things like Salmon was the future of the fish selling market with how things are going, and people thought I was a lunatic because I was proposing to eat some frankenfish monster with three eyes or something. GMO scare is a thing for some people, that's why organic crops sell the way they do.
If you can spin true or even false narratives for why eating GMOs can kill you/make you sick/give you autism/etc then you can shill your organic food business to success. That is not market adaption in the way I think you're trying to say it is, that is propaganda that is true or false depending on what sources you pull from as I've seen studies say GMOs do nothing or they'll very slowly fuck you up.
I don't really understand why people get so butthurt over AI generated artwork. Yeah I do understand the implications of it. It is quite impressive to see what AI can do and unfortunately tools such as these will inevitably be used for nefarious deeds. However, as I see it...
No, it won't replace organic artwork. And even if it can replicate or emulate organic artwork (such as anime girls) generated by genuine artists, it cannot rival nor fully emulate an artists' own style, creativity, or genius. AI cannot and will not be able to fully emulate an artist's identity and character. There will always be a demand for fleshbag artists because AI can only do so much.
No, it won't kick you out onto the streets. Like I said, there will always be a demand but I think you're doing something wrong if you end up being one of hundreds or thousands of the standard or dare I say, generic anime artist or furry artist. And while it isn't often wise to rely solely on one source of income, maybe you should try other avenues? Not necessarily a career switch but try other specialties such as concept art, background landscapes and scenes, sci-fi vehicles and machinations, and so much more.
And no, it ain't gonna make anyone rich either. Either you get called out as a fraud or you end up being mobbed to oblivion by equally oblivious and volatile people. I mean, we've seen how NFTs went. It will be the same result.
AI won't threaten your livelihood or undermine your skills and abilities as an artist (or any professional, licensed or otherwise for that matter). And if it does, you might as well rethink your life decisions. Besides, it's just a tool. And as with any tool, you can either use it to explore the limits of artificial intelligence in the realm of art or use it to chase clout and indulge in validation to make up for your genuine lack of artistic skill.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
