But in the end, photography didn't cause the death of visual arts, there's still people impressed by handmade portraits, due to the difficulty of it compared to just snapping a picture, and photography's contribution to art didn't result in the art scene losing its soul. After all, look at these photographs of flowers that make you think of penises.
353693.jpg
10-color-mapplethorpe-flora-900…
10-color-mapplethorpe-flora-900…
@guizzy @nosleep @why You are saying that photography diminished it by some degree. It didn't destroy it because there are things that artists can make that you can't photograph, that's still going to be true with AI, can't make it generate birthday party photos that actually happened or recreate an exact image that an artist has in mind (unless we get brain-implants), but it's still going to affect it greatly
I'd expect it to get applied to mass media way before its applied to this kind of thing. I'd honestly be surprised if pop-songs and crime shows and whatever aren't to some degree AI-generated already
Look at the affect CGI had, people don't even realise it because it's so unimaginably good. Did you know most IKEA catalog images are 100% CGI? Most people don't
Or shit like this https://youtu.be/R1-Ef54uTeU?t=88
When painting of good artistic merit actually was replaced by photography, it was replaced by photography of good artistic merit.
@guizzy @nosleep @why That's subjective to you, recreating things accurately takes great skill and still produces something equally pretty, which is why it was an industry, people made a living by just drawing portraits of people, much rarer now
I don't know anyone that does portraits but I know at least two people in my town that have sidejobs taking photos for IDs and schoolbooks and such
Only for those who traced over photographs and hid it. Just like a movie that claimed to use exclusively practical effects but actually used CGIs would be.