3 ms·

It's hard to do art when you don't have a roof over your head. It takes a long time to master an art. Time that could be used at work instead. If doing art is

It's hard to do art when you don't have a roof over your head. It takes a long time to master an art. Time that could be used at work instead. If doing art is no longer a viable career path then only the children of the rich will be able to pursue it.

giantg2 3y ago
That's basically how it is today. Making money off of art seems to be primarily driven by networking. So the rich are already more likely to break out in the business since they have connections. I don't think I know any middle or lower class parents encouraging thier kids to pursue music or art as a career.
SoftTalker 3y ago
Art has never really be a viable career path except for the exceptionally talented and lucky few. With YouTube and other social media, it's probably never been better. I'm not interested in AI art, and feel that the defintion of art should be "created by a human" but I'm sure many don't care.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Whether something is "art" or not is kind of separate from whether it can be sold as a product. I would love it if software could generate, for example, an infinite number of episodes of my favorite TV show from the 90s, so long as the generated stories/plots were convincingly indistinguishable from the "genuine" show with real actors. Does that count as Real Art™ according to the art police? Who knows? Would I buy it? Yes.
- fhd2 3y ago
  That sounds like a fitting definition of art. I do think it is a viable career path though: Maybe you won't make things with 100% freedom 100% of the time, but you can apply the skills built for your art in profitable endeavors. I know a few artists making their living as designers for example. I don't think I know any _rich_ artists that aren't incredibly talented and/or lucky, but it's not about being either rich or poor. Now with LLMs recycling existing content, less of those skills might be needed so there is a risk that it _will_ become about being either rich or poor. That, I find tragic.
- digging 3y ago
  > Art has never really be a viable career path except for the exceptionally talented and lucky few. Yes, and also, I think it's a larger group than you're thinking. Photography is art. Tattooing is art. There are probably a lot more working artists than you think there are. It's true that for most artists, art isn't economically sustainable, but there's a spectrum; Billie Eilish is at one end and a software engineer who sketches their own D&D characters on weekends is at the other.

giantg2 3y ago

That's basically how it is today. Making money off of art seems to be primarily driven by networking. So the rich are already more likely to break out in the business since they have connections. I don't think I know any middle or lower class parents encouraging thier kids to pursue music or art as a career.

SoftTalker 3y ago

Art has never really be a viable career path except for the exceptionally talented and lucky few. With YouTube and other social media, it's probably never been better. I'm not interested in AI art, and feel that the defintion of art should be "created by a human" but I'm sure many don't care.

ryandrake 3y ago
Whether something is "art" or not is kind of separate from whether it can be sold as a product. I would love it if software could generate, for example, an infinite number of episodes of my favorite TV show from the 90s, so long as the generated stories/plots were convincingly indistinguishable from the "genuine" show with real actors. Does that count as Real Art™ according to the art police? Who knows? Would I buy it? Yes.
fhd2 3y ago
That sounds like a fitting definition of art. I do think it is a viable career path though: Maybe you won't make things with 100% freedom 100% of the time, but you can apply the skills built for your art in profitable endeavors. I know a few artists making their living as designers for example. I don't think I know any _rich_ artists that aren't incredibly talented and/or lucky, but it's not about being either rich or poor. Now with LLMs recycling existing content, less of those skills might be needed so there is a risk that it _will_ become about being either rich or poor. That, I find tragic.
digging 3y ago
> Art has never really be a viable career path except for the exceptionally talented and lucky few. Yes, and also, I think it's a larger group than you're thinking. Photography is art. Tattooing is art. There are probably a lot more working artists than you think there are. It's true that for most artists, art isn't economically sustainable, but there's a spectrum; Billie Eilish is at one end and a software engineer who sketches their own D&D characters on weekends is at the other.