I heard about C2PA and I don’t believe for a second that it’s not going to be used for surveillance and all that other fun stuff. What’s worse is that they’re apparently trying to make it legally required. It also really annoys me when I see headlines along the lines of “Is AI the end of creativity?!1!” or “AI will help artists, not hurt them!1!!” or something to that effect. So, it got me thinking and I tried to come up with some answers that actually benefit artists and their audience rather that just you know who.

Unfortunately my train of thought keeps barreling out of control to things like, “AI should do the boring stuff, not the fun stuff” and “if people didn’t risk starvation in the first place…” So I thought I’d find out what other people think (search engines have become borderline useless haven’t they).

So what do you think would be the best way to satisfy everyone?

  • SloughTattoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m an artist - I tattoo, do freelance illustration and produce handmade pottery. My husband is also a tattoo artist. My entire income is made through art.

    I have stopped attempting to draw coloring books - AI “prompt artists” have taken over and are pumping out grayscale coloring books at extremely low prices. Not a high income producer for me in the first place, but the entire field is falling apart.

    Tattooing is a different story - I use AI to produce references regularly. Not full drawings, just references I can use to create my own drawings. Pottery remains unchanged.

    The obvious difference is the type of art. The further it moves from a drawing, the better the outcome when AI is involved from my POV.

    To be honest though - how many of you actually have real artwork in your house? Not prints - actual handmade art. Art has been struggling for a long time now - it has little value to the average consumer. Mass production has made it a throwaway product. Most ceramics are made by machines now - vases and “paintings” and dishes are all isles in a home goods store, stamped out and inked by a machine. Most professional artists are employed by companies, not off selling their art. I don’t really need to spell out what will happen when the company gets a hold of a free program to replace their artists.

    There isn’t a good outcome for artists here - consumers want cheap art. Companies want cheap artists. Artists want living wages and for a lot of us that means not making a living off of art already, because the wealthy class that has luxury money to spend on handmade and original art is shrinking as we speak.

    At least - it is here in America.

    • sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      it has little value to the average consumer.

      The average consumer can’t afford it. I can’t afford to pay a living wage for 40-80 hours worth of work to put on my wall.

    • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m happy to say I have real art in my home, but now that I’m thinking about it… if I didn’t live with an artist, there would be a lot less of it.