Ok but this is also an Ai that I would pay a 10 dollar subscription towards just to not have to hunt down what artists are taking commissions and managing prices and everything within the freelance space. I know it will never happen but God it would be nice not spending 10 hours finding an artist I like who isn't wait listing forever.
art commissioning has always been interesting to me, because i don't understand it. like, not from the artist's perspective obviously, they want to get paid.
personally, i've never thought "i would like some art". i can appreciate and critique art, and i can compare works to give preference to one over another. but i've never been able to describe a nonexistent piece that i do want.
but people have obviously been doing this for hundreds of years. so... am i broken?
Others have mentioned gifts and roleplaying games, but also businesses need art. Clip art, logos, decorative stuff. There’s always something delightful about finding small stores that do window murals, or novelty gas stations, or just stores that take some extra considerations for aesthetic.
Eg - part of Buccee’s is that beaver logo. It would not be the same at all without that logo and the beaver statues.
I was in a similar boat until I found some uncommon style I liked. I still haven't commissioned anyone yet, but that's mostly because I can't seem to find any agreed upon terminology for all but the most mainstream of art styles, let alone anyone that is consistently good
I usually make my own art, but I did commission a unique piece as an anniversary gift once. It was in a style that I can't replicate, featured my and my partner's silhouettes, and was created by a friend.
Otherwise, I don't care much for decorations that aren't practical. I'm more of a "useful clutter" type than a "useless decor" type. Ever since I was a kid, I was confused by the concept of playful-looking decorations that you can't play with, like those silver ball things that my grandma decorated her garden with (what do you mean, "I'm not allowed to throw them"?) That feeling never went away. So as an adult, most "decorations" I own today have other uses, including various "stim toys" that I encourage guests to pick up and play with.
It's quite common with tattoos, right? Unless you're getting flash or "omakase" tattoos, you can describe a concept to the artist and they'll design something for you.
Math, fot the most part, isn't a reflection of human psyche valued for the human connection and a shared soul.
It can be in a lot of places, but usually isn't.
The effort and ingenuity put in to make computers do maths correctly and helpfully is incredible and immense; the way people use computers in original ways to solve incredibly complicated problems is and should be applauded, but the computer also just does exactly what it was told. Given infinite patience and concentration the computer is unnecessary.\
AI art uses already existing art and can't create something original or new. Setting aside the ethics of generators taking credit for work done by others (which is still unethical even outside a capitalist society), it just doesn't create anything interesting or worthwhile because almost definitionally something better already exists.\
Also to counter another argument I have heard before that human artists are 'trained' on other people's art too and often don't credit them. Humans also have innumerable experiences in their life that contribute to everything they think and do which, as chaotic systems go, is pretty good at finding a new path not taken.
Strongly disagree on the "AI art uses already existing art and can’t create something original or new" part. Are collages new? Is new music new if it uses pre-existing chords? Is parody new?
Unless you think AI just copies/pastes existing art like Google image search (it doesn't), the things that AI creates is new.
Yes art should be gatekeep for the wealthy. If you're poor and don't have time to learn how to draw, then fuck you buddy, my elitism is more important than your basic enrichment.
Who exactly do you think is selling commissions? It's not the wealthy conspiring to keep down the working man, it is the working man. It's starving artists who are one bad life event away from financial ruin. If you want art and can't afford $50 (sometimes much less), then maybe go without it. You don't exactly need it to live.
Art should not be enjoyed by everyone, not just the wealthy, but devaluing the skilled labour and creativity of artists isn't how we get to that. My beef with generative AI isn't just the impacts on artists, but also the fact that these systems are reinforcing the same upwards flow of wealth to the ultra-rich. That is to say that AI enriches those who are profiting from depriving many of basic enrichment.
Whilst I disagree with the sentiment of your comment, I appreciate your acknowledgement of access to art as "basic enrichment". That much we can agree on.
You know, it’s not hard if you don’t think art = anime girls or hyper realism. That’s what it seems like all AI bros think art is, though, so that’s why we so often hear this strange non sequitur.
I like how you characterize broke people who can make things as “elitists” against the venture capitalist fantasy that works on plagiarism, and will be yanked from your hands once they stop pretending it can be profitable.
But the whole point is someone has an idea in their head that they want to actualise into reality. They can even spend years learning an artform to be able to produce it themselves, pay for someone else to do it, or they can get a computer to do it. No matter if that's an anime girl or a Cubist landscape or surrealist self portrait. So if someone doesn't have the time to spend learning or the money to pay someone, then either they use a computer or they can express their creativity at all.
I like how you characterize broke people who can make things as “elitists” against
No, you are purposefully misrepresenting what I'm saying. Artists are not elitists. It's people who want to restrict what tools people are allowed to use to create art because they view it as not real or lesser are the elitists.
And no I'm not singing the praises of venture capitalists either, but I can see how imagining that would make it easier to dismiss what I'm saying.
works on plagiarism, and will be yanked from your hands once they stop pretending it can be profitable.
That's the great thing about AI is once it's trained you can just download a local copy of the model and run it yourself and then they can't take it away from you. I have a deepseek model on a raspberry pi to work like an echo, but without giving Bezos all my information.
You can get a free library card and use their computers to access plenty of free AI image generators. So they do not have to pay for anything if they don't want to.
Is your alternative that they should shun AI art and either go without it all together or work more to afford a commission?
In all seriousness though, I wouldn't pay money to look at pretty pictures. If I wanted an image but AI didn't exist, I wouldn't commission anyone. The image that I want just simply wouldn't exist.
The person draws something on computer, uploads picture to the auction house to earn money. After upload computer shows list of people that have similar style of the drawing. All money from your drawing will go to those people.