5 ms·

Art is expression, it exists outside of capitalism and has for thousands of years. Illustration can be a profession. It's not funny seeing seeing artists contex

Art is expression, it exists outside of capitalism and has for thousands of years. Illustration can be a profession. It's not funny seeing seeing artists contextualize art as a purely capitalistic endeavor, it's depressing. Anyway this was inevitable and I called it as soon as artists started demanding their removal from AI image sets, you can't stop some rando with a little money and time from fine tuning existing models on whatever images they want.

ethanbond 3y ago
Art exists at the caliber that it does because people are able to feed their families by developing the craft to that caliber. When art patronage disappears or where it doesn’t exist, the craft doesn’t develop. Sure, anyone can make art. That’s not what’s being discussed here. This is a guy trying to feed his family and a bunch of assholes working to destroy his living under the guise of “art exists outside of capitalism.” Sure art does — but grocery bills don’t.
- scheeseman486 3y ago
  Uh, sure. Every single piece of art that anyone knows by name was created professionally. It was created in order to feed the person who developed a craft to a sufficient level to be noteworthy. Sure, anyone can (and should!) express themselves creatively and yes, that is art. But that’s clearly not what’s going on here, regardless of how dumb anyone wants to play. Yeah, Van Gogh was a real celebrity. edited to add what I was actually responding to
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    I didn’t say they were celebrities? Van Gogh was making art to sell it (unsuccessfully).
    - scheeseman486 3y ago
      By most he accounts he made art for the sake of it, selling works was a means to an end. A single painting sold doesn't make for much of a "profession". That's my main issue with your POV, I think you're projecting your own values on to a lot of artists who don't share them.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        Nope, Van Gogh was always sketching and making art, but he didn't produce any noteworthy pieces until he actively decided to become a full-time artist. He made the decision to become an artist after several failed career paths... that's a hint.
        scheeseman486 3y ago
        It indicates that social safety nets in the 1800s weren't very extant and that dedicating more time to artistic work produces better works. Van Gogh's choice to turn his hobby into a career wasn't their first choice? That's a hint. Cavemen weren't scrawling on walls to pay off their 401ks, there's more to art than commerce.

ethanbond 3y ago

Art exists at the caliber that it does because people are able to feed their families by developing the craft to that caliber. When art patronage disappears or where it doesn’t exist, the craft doesn’t develop. Sure, anyone can make art. That’s not what’s being discussed here. This is a guy trying to feed his family and a bunch of assholes working to destroy his living under the guise of “art exists outside of capitalism.” Sure art does — but grocery bills don’t.

scheeseman486 3y ago
Uh, sure. Every single piece of art that anyone knows by name was created professionally. It was created in order to feed the person who developed a craft to a sufficient level to be noteworthy. Sure, anyone can (and should!) express themselves creatively and yes, that is art. But that’s clearly not what’s going on here, regardless of how dumb anyone wants to play. Yeah, Van Gogh was a real celebrity. edited to add what I was actually responding to
- ethanbond 3y ago
  I didn’t say they were celebrities? Van Gogh was making art to sell it (unsuccessfully).
  - scheeseman486 3y ago
    By most he accounts he made art for the sake of it, selling works was a means to an end. A single painting sold doesn't make for much of a "profession". That's my main issue with your POV, I think you're projecting your own values on to a lot of artists who don't share them.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Nope, Van Gogh was always sketching and making art, but he didn't produce any noteworthy pieces until he actively decided to become a full-time artist. He made the decision to become an artist after several failed career paths... that's a hint.
      - scheeseman486 3y ago
        It indicates that social safety nets in the 1800s weren't very extant and that dedicating more time to artistic work produces better works. Van Gogh's choice to turn his hobby into a career wasn't their first choice? That's a hint. Cavemen weren't scrawling on walls to pay off their 401ks, there's more to art than commerce.