Many artists are ecstatic about the possibilities, while others are terrified. How can an artist earn a living at $500-600 per piece when anybody with a basic computer can produce ten higher-quality artworks in minutes and sell them for $50 each? To be honest, AI art scares me to death. And I believe that many other artists are feeling the same way.
Nonetheless, I see many artists in my country becoming enthused about it. After working so hard to improve their own creative abilities to a comparable level, what they can produce in Midjourney completely astounds them. I can’t blame them. Being an artist is difficult right now.
While the demand for art remains strong, the technical ability required has risen significantly in recent years. Concept artists are already expected to know how to use a wide range of digital tools, such as Photoshop, Blender, Zbrush, and others, by art directors. They also anticipate shorter turnaround times to accommodate the needs for large film and gaming titles.
It’s only natural to go toward the first item that allows you to produce higher-quality work more rapidly. I believe that many of these artists are unaware that they are contributing to the rise in demand. The more artists who use this program, the more sophisticated it becomes, and their skill level increases.
I was feeling somewhat optimistic when I first wrote this article. Even with inevitable advances in AI algorithms, artists would still be required to “curate” the output. This might imply adjusting or combining the findings in Photoshop. It might include entering the necessary project instructions or creating a foundation for the AI to operate from.
But after talking to my friends and doing my own research, I now think the danger is a lot worse than I thought before.
To begin, it is ludicrous to believe that artists are a “required” component of the AI art equation. Many AI artists would consider themselves “curators” or “promptists” at first. Even today, many artists brag about the expertise required to type the correct word prompts to get a certain effect.
However, the notion that AI software needs human input to do this is ridiculous. The ability for AI to provide the prompts required for the artwork is embedded within the programs themselves. And, as more individuals use the program, it learns which prompts will provide the best outcomes.
In summary, AI does not need humans to create artwork. Human creative contribution is only a ruse to help in the refinement of technology that has the potential to completely replace artists. If nothing is done, the best-case scenario is that an artist-AI symbiosis is required to meet the demand for the highest quality professional painting. As we speak, the most flexible artists are adding AI into their process. They already know how to use the program to improve their efficiency and the quality of their work.
As for the rest of us, I anticipate two outcomes.
First, AI-generated art from both non-artists and artists will most likely become common and inexpensive. In most commercial arenas, it will outcompete both amateur and professional artists. If all you want is “excellent art,” it makes more sense to have a robot make it for a small fraction of what it would cost to hire a recent art school graduate.
Second, and here’s the good news for purists, I believe that high-quality handcrafted (yes, even digital) art will become significantly more precious. Not for ordinary commercial endeavors, but as part of an artist’s brand.
Despite the widespread availability of cheaper, even better quality items, oil painters, craftspeople, and ceramicists have not gone out of business. I have a buddy who makes a killing and a respectable life selling hand-crafted animal jewelry. Because people watch her creating them on Instagram, they know her narrative, and she has built a whole brand around it. And they’re prepared to pay more for them. They prefer earrings made by “the girl who creates the earrings” rather than “earrings-to-go.com.”
However, this will firmly place human-made art in the domain of upper-class valuable oddities. It would be very competitive, subjective, and heavily focused on collective perceived value—all of which, in my view, exacerbates some of the worst characteristics of the professional art sector.