Quote:
Originally Posted by kkc
I'm not sure if it's a complete, absolute equivalence. For sure artists need to be paid and can sell their art (or a piece of it) multiple times, and we'll always need to find ways to fund academic study. But just because somebody is trying to profit on something doesn't make it a generic product to be sold, which is what I mean when comparing goods to art.
|
All very poetic, but most of the applications discussed for AI-produced imagery seem to be things liked advertising graphics and similarly disposable incidentals, which are presumably “goods” rather than “art” by your definition. Even RPG illustrations, which might at their best invoke some kind of intense emotions, are frankly more likely to serve as didactic illustrations, low-level mood-setters, or space fillers.
If you’re going to appeal to artistic ideals as a reason to reject AI-generated illustrations, you’ll have to face the fact that a lot of the time, art directors don’t really need “art”, they just need pictures. Though it’s nice when game illos achieve a bit more than that, it’s rarely mandatory.