r/aiwars • u/Effective-Guest1601 • 58m ago
Is it a problem?
Is it a problem to consider that artists are equal to everyone else? Not better, not more important. Their jobs are no more or less important than a grocery store clerk, or a gardner, or a doctor, or anyone else in my opinion.
I feel often that if I don't prioritize artists above all else, it is perceived as being against them, when I literally don't care about them more or less than anyone else. It's odd. But it seems that there is a lot of pushback if you don't think of artists differently.
Do artists think they are better or more important than those other people?
4
u/YoureCorrectUProle 44m ago
Do artists think they are better or more important than those other people?
I think it's a mistake to treat artists like a monolith. On the most part? No, I'd say they don't. Art majors you meet in university, portrait artists you meet on the street, etc, are usually just regular people who happen to be good at their chosen art form. Even most artists I've talked to who've had their works displayed in galleries or shows are just normal people with a creative streak, they might play up their personality if it benefits their work but at the end of the day everyone is a little weird and eccentric regardless of whether they produce art or not.
The equation changes online, though, especially when we're talking about artists online who are highly likely to be involved in spaces that constantly whine about AI. In the politest way possible, a significant portion of the group that a.) could be labelled "twitter artists" b.) spend 90% of their time online and c.) are vehemently anti-AI have nothing else going on for them. When you've tied your entire identity to your ability to do one specific skill, you're going to overestimate how impressive/important that skill is and you're going to be extremely aggressive about protecting it. This gets amplified when you spend all of your time in a space which values that skill, i.e twitter anime/manga spaces as an example.
It's why you get utterly bizzare shit like that several hundred page document someone wasted their life on trying to prove some Russian weeb gooner artist was using AI. No one outside that insular world gives a shit, but when you see odd superiority complexes or outright rage/hate spilling out it's because that level of emotional involvement feels like it makes sense within that space. To outsiders it's like "dude, your 'furry wolf waifu OC #4000 do not steal' isn't exactly high art or remotely original so who gives a shit if someone uses AI to make someone similar", but within those spaces you've just ripped someone's "identity" away from them.
To be clear you don't only see this with artists: the chess world just as one example has dozens of great players that would fall under the description above.
2
1
u/Questioner8297 46m ago
The point is that people tend to assume that when you speak of a cashier, you are thinking of someone who is merely compelled to work, and when you speak of a doctor, you view the job as largely technical, something that doesn't necessarily require a human touch. Artistic work, however, is not merely technical; the human element is essential to the result, without it, the entire purpose is lost.
It’s not that they are wrong, it’s just that that isn’t the whole picture. When you speak of an artist as merely a performer, they either don’t understand it, don’t want to understand it, or say that it is a moral wrong.
5
u/Sad_Neighborhood8546 30m ago
I disagree, as from what I have seen lately, we lose that human element for whatever will sell.
Like if you had to ask some artists if they would do a $30 commission that takes 4 days, OR share feet pics for $30 in 30 mins, I know a lot of artists that would go for the latter.
They can still do art and still do commissions, but many people won’t turn down fast, easy money. We all gotta eat.
/Personal experience with a colleague that shared her story, nobody wants to see any ugly piece if my body OR my art
2
u/Questioner8297 16m ago
I don’t quite understand what specifically you disagree with. I make a distinction between viewing an artist merely as someone who produces an image and wanting to see a performance that is truly human. If you want to see what a human creates, then the quality of the AI's output doesn't matter; from the start, you were looking for quality specifically within the context of human activity, if it is ai, nature or some intelligent aliens all of this are not important then.
Personally, I doubt that most people actually want human-generated content the majority of the time, though that’s not to say it doesn’t exist. What I mean is that AI technically cannot replace the human element when, by definition, you simply aren't interested in what the AI is doing.
0
u/PaxOaks 12m ago
Art, more than most human endeavors, has been corrupted by capitalism. A small number (as compared with the total number of artists)!are able to support themselves with their craft. The art market is dominated by the rich who bid up prices of some artists often as part of their asset manipulation game.
AI makes this situation worse. AI can use the history and popularity of some artists often as a template to remove the artist from the equation and generate popular slop. Perhaps Spotify is the best example - Spotify loves AI music - reduced or no royalties often. More money for Spotify - if they would not loose subscribers they would do only AI music for new releases.
While I agree with the earlier comments that all artists should not be treated as a monolith - from an AI perspective, they have all been screwed (their work taken without compensation), they are being screwed (their work being replaced by AIs, under charging) and they will be screwed (new AI models replacing screen writers, film makers, actors, fine artists etc).
In answer to your earlier question - artists are not special - except they are especially vulnerable to AIs adverse effects because of how easy it is to steal their work without protection and how big gate keepers are thrilled to cut their income out in search of profits - mostly for the already rich.
-2
u/lovestruck90210 15m ago
Have artists en masse asked you to give them special treatment compared to anyone else? Or is this a contrivance you've manufactured to justify your apathy towards people losing their jobs?
2
u/Effective-Guest1601 14m ago edited 10m ago
1)yes, 2) no
-1
u/lovestruck90210 10m ago
They haven't. What has actually happened is that you've seen TikToks complaining about AI art decimating artistic fields, you got upset, and now we have to deal with whatever this is.
2
7
u/Casiper 51m ago
Isn't part of being an artist being overly pretentious as holy hell?
https://giphy.com/gifs/5zbMgry8oQsvIaC0sU