Good analogy, I'd be curious how many people argue that photography being invented was a bad thing, and if at the time it was invented there were essays about how dangerous it was going to be
I'd speculate that when photography was invented, there was some gatekeeper group with a monopoly on it (to some extent true right up until digital photography became common) and so there was less vocal concern because portraiture (or whatever it's called) while evolving, still had some value capture for a small group, while recent image generation has been almost completely opened up, so there are no entrenched special interests that get to profit (and therefore more entrenched special interests whining)
Bollocks. There were consumer photography options widely available for decades before digital photography became available - everything from point and shoot cameras to decent SLRs, with a dozen kinds of film available, all at a price point pretty much everyone could afford.
Disposable cameras were even a thing for a couple of decades before modern digital photography took off...
How things change. It was Kodak that invented the digital camera, but failed to capatalise on it as well as they could have.
The first applications of photography in art were clearly trying to emulate the paintings of the time.
Mobile RN otherwise I could throw a few links.
"Arrangements were made for Daguerre's rights to be acquired by the French Government in exchange for lifetime pensions for himself and Niépce's son Isidore; then, on 19 August 1839, the French Government presented the invention as a gift from France "free to the world"
Can you imagine if a country did this today just for the glory of it?
Something that makes me not fear so much is: corporations and brands are still going to need artistically minded folks to handle media campaigns. Like just because you can make a turn-key website in Squarespace (and even in Adobe now I believe), don't you as a baller corporation still want to hire an expert/ team of experts to handle all that?
Like in the worst case scenario, aren't Art Directors and Creative Directors, Studios and Agencies, and even in-house marketing teams going to be using these AI image generation tools, as part of the process to reach the final images that go live?
Maybe we'll see less illustrators and designers, and more Art Directors (who'd still need to know how to tweak, refine, flesh out the images so they are on point)?
At least that's the way some colleagues of mine view these tools, as something to integrate in the creative process, and not as something that will replace the need for those who are aesthetically minded.
The million dollar question. The only idea that has effective traction so far is that we return to natural media (paint, sculpture etc).
> Like in the worst case scenario, aren't Art Directors and Creative Directors, Studios and Agencies, and even in-house marketing teams going to be using these AI image generation tools, as part of the process to reach the final images that go live?
Our worry is that we will end up training art directors, not artists. The problem will be that everyone thinks that they are an art director. Just like everyone thought they were a designer with the dawn of desktop publishing.
But that's interesting and worth considering: returning to natural media.
This is something I personally feel strongly about, but do not think will find any traction whatsoever given how things are unfolding, coupled with human nature across time, butttttt... I personally would love to see less production of everything. From churning out entertainment, to product updates strategized around planned obsolescence, and even car & bike models that have marginal upgrades where they won't benefit 99% of consumers/ users, and even food that tries to stay relevant with ridiculous versions of itself in the form of new flavors or toppings or whatever.
In some ways, perhaps whatever I'm longing for (less of everything) may sorta kinda maybe somewhat lineup with you and your colleagues wanting to return to natural media instead of digital? Maybe not?
Either way, interesting to consider.
In technology, it’s best to be the one who makes your own technology obsolete. The arts are one of the oldest drivers and consumers of technology.
Commercially, technology needs to amplify the productivity of artists. It should compound the advantages they have over the untrained.
I see the self-service model of illustration and content creation as potentially increasing the demand for skilled professionals. Most amateurs will probably produce generally low quality work, if judged by professional standards. But they’ll create way more of it. Directors (of even small projects like commercials) will draw their own concept drawings and story boards to get their ideas down on the page. But then if they want something cleaned up, or done professionally, they have a much better starting point to communicate with a real artist. Clients will also be able to visually convey some of the edits they would like to see in the professional works.
That is true. Art has survived the invention of the camera obscura, the camera itself, oil painting, offset lithography, in each case managing to consume the tools of the victor.