Doesn’t everyone want to be a creative? Turns out you gotta be able to afford it. I work for a living. If everyone worked for a living, I could afford some time and space to myself to do what I like with it. Unfortunately work supports art and people are trying to pass off their fun time as a contribution so I’m supporting them regardless. I’d rather everyone supported themselves so I can art without anyone else’s input.
Comment on Pika Labs new generative AI video tool unveiled — and it looks like a big deal
PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 8 months agoAll it means is that at art as a career is dead.
Guess we want everyone working in retail or something
Mango@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Muyal@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I don’t like this, because one of the most used arguments in favor of capitalism is supposedly the free market and how you are allowed to make money doing what you like. If now it turns out that only a few things are classified as jobs then… where are the benefits of capitalism?
Mango@lemmy.world 8 months ago
You don’t make money doing what you like. You make money doing what your customers like. If you also like it, then all the better.
Peanutbjelly@sopuli.xyz 8 months ago
That’s already the system outside of creating what rich people want. An entire team of artists creating boardroom directed art is much less art to me than a single creative using AI to bring their personal vision to life.
Hopefully individual artists can do more with these tools, and we can all hope for a world where artists can be supported to have the ability and freedom to create apart from the whims of the wealthy.
Starving artist is a term for a reason. Technology has never been the real problem.
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 months ago
This is honestly repulsive to me. Needing to pay rent doesn’t mean artists stop putting effort and creativity into what they’re doing. If you’ve ever enjoyed a movie, game, or music that isn’t indie produced then you’ve seen the value in what you’re shitting on here, because regardless of how it’s marketed none of that is the vision of a single creative, either. If anything larger projects are often able to catch lightning in a bottle, as many people contribute ideas and spin things in directions that a single person wouldn’t have seen.
And at least they all started from a basic level of artistic vision and competency, and had the integrity to do their own work. If the only reason someone can call themselves an artist is because of AI, they’re not an artist, they’re a plagiarist.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
They aren’t making their own art though, they are making the boardrooms art.
They have about as much say in the creative process as retail workers have a say what gets sold in the store.
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 months ago
They don’t own the rights to it, that doesn’t mean they’re not using the same creative processes to make it. There’s not some switch artists flip to make “fake” art when they get paid.
By this metric the Sistine Chapel isn’t Real Art compared to a 15 year old typing “woman big breasts oily in a bikini on the beach” into the plagiarism machine, because Michelangelo was paid for his work and the Catholic Church came up with the idea for it.
You also seem to have a lot of misconceptions about how media is made. Boards have very little to do with it beyond making sure whatever rules they think make it most profitable are followed, and even that is mostly on project directors to enforce. They aren’t standing over people 40 hours a week, and project directors and individual artists often have a decent amount of leeway. Successful media companies’ boards keep a light touch, both because of unions and because they aren’t artists. There’s no point in hiring artists if you don’t let them work.