With all the fuzz about IA image “stealing” illustrator job, I am curious about how much photography changed the art world in the 19th century.

There was a time where getting a portrait done was a relatively big thing, requiring several days of work for a painter, while you had to stand still for a while so the painter knew what you looked like, and then with photography, all you had to do was to stand still for a few minutes, and you’ll get a picture of you printed on paper the next day.

How did it impact the average painter who was getting paid to paint people once in their lifetime.

  • Mothra@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Comparing the emergence of photography to that of AI is a bit like comparing a nuclear explosion to an all-out nuclear world war. There are magnitudes of difference. You can say, humanity didn’t get wiped out because of nuclear bombs or power plant failures so far. But what would you think if everyone today starts nukeing their neighbours?

    Photography made an impact, but not like AI. You need to take into account that technology, goods, and resources moved at different speeds back then. Today, anyone can access a camera. And AI for that matter. Back then, it required a certain status, having money to purchase it, learning how to develop the photos, etc. It was a gradual change, not one that swept the rug under everyone’s feet.

    And yes, painters did lose part of their jobs as portrait painters, but not too much because those who could afford a portrait to begin with, were the wealthy. And the quality of a photo, then, wasn’t always better than a painting. Which meant the wealthy still commissioned art for one reason or another.

    Art gradually shifted towards printing and advertising, so taking all these factors into account, you could say that only portrait painters suffered less demand, but art overall was getting more and more commercial for other reasons.

    AI in contrast just popped out of nowhere a couple of years ago and keeps perfecting itself at an incredible rate. It’s so broad it what it can represent that it will affect all sorts of artists, not just this one specific subset.

    • OmegaMouse@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thank you for this comprehensive response. Out of interest, do you think that certain artist jobs/genres will survive? For example, I would imagine that humans can innovate better than an AI trained on existing data. So perhaps we’ll see a shift towards more human-created modern/post-AI art?

      • Mothra@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s difficult for me to make a prediction like that. I figure the next generation of artists- which we’ll see mature in some 20 years- is going to be nothing like what we’ve seen so far. I believe having actual skills in art will become irrelevant and outdated. It will survive, the same way we still have people enjoying horse riding and archery but it won’t be a determining factor on art as a final product.

        Humans will surely be directing the way art evolves but AI will do the heavy lifting. Considering we have technology capable of putting thought (and I mean brain activity, not words, but actually thoughts) into images and words, it’s just matter of time before art becomes something anyone can produce just by thinking about it.

        The problem for me isn’t so much copyright or how it will evolve, but this sudden transition phase which will drive to extinction the process of art as we know it. Well established artists today are probably going to stay the same, and the new ones as I mentioned will grow up with these new technologies so that won’t be a problem, long term.

        My concern goes for artists who just got started and who can’t embrace AI as part of the process. It’s gonna be rough. It’s like asking someone to stop listening to their favorite music and switch to some new genre they have no love for. Considering artists are usually more sensitive (psychologically) than people without artistic inclinations, I’m worried for their mental health, not just the financial. AI is damaging the sense of self worth of many talented people and that’s going to have consequences.

        • OmegaMouse@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I feel like people will still continue to draw/paint etc. for the enjoyment of it but perhaps it will be a less viable career choice. Current artists will feel more and more pressured to incorporate some level of AI generation into their process, before they become overtaken by those who have adapted. That could start out as people using AI generated textures or backgrounds within their art for example.

    • Vlyn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You forgot a massive step in-between: Digital art / Photoshop.

      Which already vastly sped up art creation and made it easier (when you can just use special brushes instead of having to spend hours doing a pattern by hand).

      And even though it’s a lot easier, you still need artists to produce proper products. Good artists and designers will keep their jobs in the foreseeable future, while more simple one-shot works can be done by AI.

      • Mothra@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I really hope you are right about the last paragraph. About the rest, I didn’t forget, I didn’t mention it as it’s not what OP made the comparison to.

        But you make a good point about digital art creating more disruption to the status quo than photography did. However, AI is still an on steroids comparison if you ask me. You still need to invest a massive amount of time and practice to get good at digital. Creating a whole image can take hours , days, months. And if you don’t understand what makes it look good, it won’t. This is not the case with AI. You don’t need art skills. It helps if you do, it gives you more control to manipulate a result, but the quality you get from the beginning is on another level.

        • Vlyn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You only get good quality if you use the right model, the right keywords, the right negative prompt, the right settings, … and then it can still be pure luck.

          If you see a high quality AI image that actually looks good (not just parts of it, but the whole composition) then someone probably spent hours with fine-tuning and someone else spent weeks to customize the model.

          And even if you’re good at that, you’ll never get exactly the image you had in your mind. Especially as most models are heavily biased (You can create a portrait of a busty beautiful woman, but the second one you create probably has a very similar face).

          This might get better relatively fast, but right now AI art is not a replacement for good artists. Especially if you need more than one image with consistency between them.

          It’s more like a superpowered Photoshop where you can mess around with and get cool results, just that instead of filters or a magic stamp you generate the entire image.

          Super cool tech, but of course artists feel threatened. Except the popular ones who already drown in commissions.

          • Mothra@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I get your point, but the rate of improvement is jaw dropping. Two years ago you wouldn’t be getting these results. In two years from now, I’ll be able to add something like a rough sketch or perhaps two images to be used as reference for pose or light or color palette, add what I want in words, and get the results. And the images of course could be pinched from anywhere. Sure, your idea may not be replicated fully but you would be very close. And more often than not, people don’t have a clear cut idea of what they want before making art, and/or they’re open to changes on the spot, accidents, etc. So that doesn’t really make a difference in the argument.

            I don’t think there has ever been any other tool that progressed faster than this. I’d be really surprised to see it plateau as it is right now. That’s the threat yes.