The question has never been whether people want it. I think it’s pretty clear they do. The problem is whether people want to spend the time in money, or skill, to get it.
I would love to be able to paint sci-fi pinups. But do I want to trade 10k hours of other stuff I’m already better at to do it? Once I painted them, would I truly love the work, or would I just see all the imperfections and be grumpy about it?
Artists have it hard. They spend unending hours on their passion and, in the end, see everything through a critical lens. And when they spend a month of time on something amazing, no one wants to trade a day of salary to own a copy, or a month of salary to own the original.
AI is so wildly popular because it’s cheap, and through the lens of the consumer (read untrained eye), the best of it evokes emotions they get from a piece that would go for hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The true fucked up part. If the courts all say NFG, dump all your diffusion models that are full of copyrighted material. They’d just go back and commission artists in distressed places and rebuild the models from properly purchased material and we’ll be right back where we are.
Still image diffusion isn’t even expensive to run,
AI is so wildly popular because it’s cheap, and through the lens of the consumer (read untrained eye), the best of it evokes emotions they get from a piece that would go for hundreds or thousands of dollars.
I just went to an art museum that had a bunch of Van Gogh’s sunflower pieces on display, and I can assure you, AI art will never be able to invoke the kind of emotional response as I got from looking at those paintings. I’m not an artist, I haven’t taken an art class since high school, so my eye is pretty damn untrained. But even I can appreciate the history of the pieces, the artist behind the work, the headspace he was in and how it affected the finished piece, the extreme conditions he had to overcome just to finish some of the pieces. That’s a huge part of what evokes emotion in an art piece - knowing the story of the art and the artist. And that’s something AI art will never have.
AI art is cheap, sure, but it’s hollow, and people will always be able to tell that.
Have you considered the end result is not the purpose? The doing of art is what gives it meaning, to the artist and the viewer. It’s what makes it satisfying, even if it didn’t turn out how you wanted exactly.
The end result is what other people see and what gets you paid. That’s why people want to do it via AI.
Personally, I could sink 10k hours into whatever visual art and I’ll never be good at it. I don’t enjoy it either. I can only hire an expensive artist or use AI if I want something made. Since using AI art sucks, I’ve opted not to continue work on the video game I started work on. An alternative is to pay for asset packs from a studio that sells them, but then it’s just an asset flip.
The question has never been whether people want it. I think it’s pretty clear they do. The problem is whether people want to spend the time in money, or skill, to get it.
I would love to be able to paint sci-fi pinups. But do I want to trade 10k hours of other stuff I’m already better at to do it? Once I painted them, would I truly love the work, or would I just see all the imperfections and be grumpy about it?
Artists have it hard. They spend unending hours on their passion and, in the end, see everything through a critical lens. And when they spend a month of time on something amazing, no one wants to trade a day of salary to own a copy, or a month of salary to own the original.
AI is so wildly popular because it’s cheap, and through the lens of the consumer (read untrained eye), the best of it evokes emotions they get from a piece that would go for hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The true fucked up part. If the courts all say NFG, dump all your diffusion models that are full of copyrighted material. They’d just go back and commission artists in distressed places and rebuild the models from properly purchased material and we’ll be right back where we are.
Still image diffusion isn’t even expensive to run,
I just went to an art museum that had a bunch of Van Gogh’s sunflower pieces on display, and I can assure you, AI art will never be able to invoke the kind of emotional response as I got from looking at those paintings. I’m not an artist, I haven’t taken an art class since high school, so my eye is pretty damn untrained. But even I can appreciate the history of the pieces, the artist behind the work, the headspace he was in and how it affected the finished piece, the extreme conditions he had to overcome just to finish some of the pieces. That’s a huge part of what evokes emotion in an art piece - knowing the story of the art and the artist. And that’s something AI art will never have.
AI art is cheap, sure, but it’s hollow, and people will always be able to tell that.
Have you considered the end result is not the purpose? The doing of art is what gives it meaning, to the artist and the viewer. It’s what makes it satisfying, even if it didn’t turn out how you wanted exactly.
The end result is what other people see and what gets you paid. That’s why people want to do it via AI.
Personally, I could sink 10k hours into whatever visual art and I’ll never be good at it. I don’t enjoy it either. I can only hire an expensive artist or use AI if I want something made. Since using AI art sucks, I’ve opted not to continue work on the video game I started work on. An alternative is to pay for asset packs from a studio that sells them, but then it’s just an asset flip.
I’m in a business that has a lot of artists. These are observations I make.