I know a lot of people who do art for a living. They are basically treated like shit by capitalism. Nobody respects how much time, effort and training goes into art. Art is fucking hard. You get paid next to nothing for it.
Unless you sell your soul to work in advertising/marketing. Then you get paid only slightly more than nothing. You are also now expected to churn out a fuckton of art each day if you want to keep your job. Enjoy watching everything unique, creative and special be sucked out of your art by higher-ups that demand safe, soulless corporate art. Enjoy being told you’re expendable and easily replaced so you work an extra 5 hours unpaid that night. Working conditions in some advertising agencies are close to resembling sweatshops with how they exploit their junior artists in particular. I knew someone that used to work 7 days a week, even though they weren’t paid on weekends. They worked until midnight (unpaid overtime) only to start again at 8am the next day again. That’s how ‘competitive’ the industry is. They eventually had a nervous breakdown and changed careers.
Art being some bourgeoise thing where a beret-wearing snob sells a photo of piss for 5 trillion dollars is not the norm (as funny as that would be). The norm is backbreaking work for very little in return, like every other job title that isn’t CEO, Manager, or Landlord.
So yeah, even though I’m fascinated by AI art and don’t think it would necessarily be a bad thing if it was being used in a socialist setting, I think artists have every right to be upset that tech bros are finding a way to suck even more life out of art.
In short, creatives get treated like shit. Thinking art isn’t real work is chud-level shit.
Artists make the silly gay comics I read :chavez-salute:
You WORK for a living, or you OWN THINGS for a living.
Is this an absolute rule? No, of course not. But it’s gonna point you in the right direction far more often than not…
Algorithmically generated images are interesting. In an ideal setting, it allows for artists to supplement their work, freeing them to put time and attention where they like. Under market conditions, it’s going to produce some absolute garbage that’s also ludicrously overvalued. And that’s funny.
“Do art” is too broad a category to be meaningful. Also don’t take shots at my piss photo exhibit that represents literally years worth of work (piss)
“Do art” is too broad a category to be meaningful
what is a category you would find narrow enough to be meaningful? what inferences can you make about the author’s intended meaning of “do art” based on contextual clues in the rest of the post? please write 150-300 words and include proper citations in MLA formatting.
MLA formatting
:gulag: Posts by the Chicago Gang
but uh it is a bit broad, because owners and bosses can be involved in creative processes and clearly don’t have the same conditions & stakes as their employees. “Proles ‘doing art’, as their primary job” would probably be the most unambiguous way to put it. So like a director or producer, while involved in creative decisions, their primary job is organization of artists and managing/owning capital
Art is one of the main things that makes this shithole worth living in. Imagine if we outlawed all music tomorrow. Think of all the industry halls that play radio all day to keep the workers sane, think of people in their offices, think of people at the dentist, in a traffic jam, etc… It’d be bloody barbarism.
It’s not my revolution if I can’t dance.
Art being some bourgeoise thing where a beret-wearing snob sells a photo of piss for 5 trillion dollars is not the norm (as funny as that would be).
Yup. An artist with a commercial empire is a businessperson first and foremost, however they choose to style theirself. Booges like to play pretend at being artists, farmers, and reusable rocketship designers but all they know how to do is eat shit and tweet
it’s crazy how a lot of people’s public image of the art world is andy warhol or jeff koons or some insane shit like that. from that angle i can see how people think art is bougie nonsense, but the reality is that these are capitalists masquerading as artists. indeed, the question is real—can true art even exist in a profit-driven economy? does capital not pervert the very art it claims to create?
