zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. yunwal+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-12-15 21:35:47
3) The scope and scale of “art” that gets made gets bigger and we still have plenty of pro artists, designers. AKA art eats the world
replies(1): >>yamtad+R1
2. yamtad+R1[view] [source] 2022-12-15 21:45:09
>>yunwal+(OP)
Maybe. But art was already so cheap, and talent so abundant, that it was notoriously difficult to make serious money doing it, so I doubt it'll have that effect in general.

It might in a few areas, though. I think film making is poised to get really weird, for instance, possibly in some interesting and not-terrible ways, compared with what we're used to. That's mostly because automation might replace entire teams that had to spend thousands of hours before anyone could see the finished work or pay for it, not just a few hours of one or two artists' time on a more-incremental basis. And even that's not quite a revolution—we used to have very-small-crew films, including tons that were big hits, and films with credits lists like the average Summer blockbuster these days were unheard of, so that's more a return to how things were before computer graphics entered the picture (even 70s and 80s films, after the advent of the spectacle- and FX-heavy Summer blockbuster, had crews so small that it's almost hard to believe, when you're used to seeing the list of hundreds of people who work on, say, a Marvel film)

replies(1): >>yunwal+4Fe
◧◩
3. yunwal+4Fe[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-20 06:46:49
>>yamtad+R1
> But art was already so cheap

Art is really not cheap. I think people think about how little artists generate in income and assume that means art is cheap, but non-mass-produced art is pretty much inaccessible for the vast majority of people.

[go to top]