Digital film vs. Analog film isn't the same. Both are still created by humans.
What I'm proposing is AI digital images will make hand-done oil paintings more sought after. Who wants to buy art from a machine? Fine art is quite a different market than stock photography. Yes AI has replaced stock photos in my newsletters. It will not r…
Digital film vs. Analog film isn't the same. Both are still created by humans.
What I'm proposing is AI digital images will make hand-done oil paintings more sought after. Who wants to buy art from a machine? Fine art is quite a different market than stock photography. Yes AI has replaced stock photos in my newsletters. It will not replace real paintings I hang in home.
As a counterpoint - as recorded music became cheaper and cheaper via streaming/piracy, concert tickets and merch have skyrocketed and price. And I'd argue that seeing a musician live, which has skyrocketed in price, is analogous to purchasing a real oil painting in a world of digital images.
So let's say at an art festival, artist A offers lovely oil paintings of birds. Artist B has equally lovely AI generated prints of birds, but is selling them for less than half the amount of what artist A charges. I don't think buyers would refuse to buy the AI art, just because it is AI. If they like it they will buy it, leaving artist A with fewer sales, and artist B with higher profit margins.
Reproduction prints of original artwork often sell 10x or more frequently, compared to the number of original pieces sold by the artist. Price is definitely a factor.
High end established artists and musicians might be ok, but I think this could affect us average artists profoundly. Additionally, music has become so cheap, that musicians *must* repeatedly go on the road to make ends meet, because they can't make it on streaming platforms.
Artist B, like Francien in my article, has taken advantage of new tools to produce a new type of work, but it still her work, ultimately conceived by a human artist. So she’s added an additional way to make money to her options. That is also an option that is also available to artist A.
Has artist B done anything wrong, or is artist B being savvy?
As an aside, in my experience, original buyers generally don’t buy prints, they are different makers mostly. So in your example, I would have purchased from artist A.
> Has artist B done anything wrong, or is artist B being savvy?
It depends how you look at it.
As I argued above, the AI models have been trained on someone's images, perhaps even yours. Without your knowledge or consent. I have never heard of an artist who had been paid royalties for the **novel** use to feed the AI. Had this been the case, AI would not have reached marketable viability as quickly as it did. That's a fact.
Who owns the resulting AI, then? Have the original creators gotten their share of ownership in the AI? Why not?
Ask yourself this question and you'll know where this is going.
Digital film vs. Analog film isn't the same. Both are still created by humans.
What I'm proposing is AI digital images will make hand-done oil paintings more sought after. Who wants to buy art from a machine? Fine art is quite a different market than stock photography. Yes AI has replaced stock photos in my newsletters. It will not replace real paintings I hang in home.
As a counterpoint - as recorded music became cheaper and cheaper via streaming/piracy, concert tickets and merch have skyrocketed and price. And I'd argue that seeing a musician live, which has skyrocketed in price, is analogous to purchasing a real oil painting in a world of digital images.
So let's say at an art festival, artist A offers lovely oil paintings of birds. Artist B has equally lovely AI generated prints of birds, but is selling them for less than half the amount of what artist A charges. I don't think buyers would refuse to buy the AI art, just because it is AI. If they like it they will buy it, leaving artist A with fewer sales, and artist B with higher profit margins.
Reproduction prints of original artwork often sell 10x or more frequently, compared to the number of original pieces sold by the artist. Price is definitely a factor.
High end established artists and musicians might be ok, but I think this could affect us average artists profoundly. Additionally, music has become so cheap, that musicians *must* repeatedly go on the road to make ends meet, because they can't make it on streaming platforms.
Artist B, like Francien in my article, has taken advantage of new tools to produce a new type of work, but it still her work, ultimately conceived by a human artist. So she’s added an additional way to make money to her options. That is also an option that is also available to artist A.
Has artist B done anything wrong, or is artist B being savvy?
As an aside, in my experience, original buyers generally don’t buy prints, they are different makers mostly. So in your example, I would have purchased from artist A.
> Has artist B done anything wrong, or is artist B being savvy?
It depends how you look at it.
As I argued above, the AI models have been trained on someone's images, perhaps even yours. Without your knowledge or consent. I have never heard of an artist who had been paid royalties for the **novel** use to feed the AI. Had this been the case, AI would not have reached marketable viability as quickly as it did. That's a fact.
Who owns the resulting AI, then? Have the original creators gotten their share of ownership in the AI? Why not?
Ask yourself this question and you'll know where this is going.
Spot on, @artsy_gal. Spot on.
> I've seen and experienced this trend first hand. Will history repeat itself?
Yes, it will. It already is....
For most creators out there, it's time to figure out what to do instead.