This is a hundredth time in history when technology progressed and artists had to learn new ways to make money. I've learned art in art school - none of the jobs that my art teachers had in their youth are relevant right now. The tools, the pricing, the workflow, the clients requests and expectations are all different. You can keep some of the skill, but you still need to learn and adapt to the new reality. Sometimes it takes 5, sometimes 15 years, but the job of the artist is always transforming.

The illustrator from the article is probably drawing in Procreate with an Ipad. Probably doing her promotion on social media and doing business with her clients remotely. All of those are recent technological advancements that appeared in her lifetime and completely outperformed the previous way to do commercial illustration. Illustrators that worked before that had to learn those new ways, or lose their jobs. This happened dozens of time in history. Now is the turn for current illustrators to adapt.

But none of that addresses fundamental changes to the market structure. How can a beginner artist possibly get traction in a marketplace where people only pay for premium names or pay dirt for beautiful art that's 90% of what they want. You said yourself most clients are willing to settle if the price is right, and you can't really beat free.

When we get to $0 for any possible artwork of any quality - yeah, it's game over for everyone, the end of the industry. Right now we are far from it, thankfully. AI still can't produce usable commercial quality files. Most of them are simply not good enough, and even those that look kind of good have to be fine-tuned and reformatted by a human artist. Which takes real skill and effort and costs money.

And until someone does any job for some amount of money, a beginner can start his career by doing the same job for less money. This will still be the case no matter what technology comes next.

Something very similar to what happened to working musicians when we developed the technology to record and replay their performances.

Now there are a lot less people playing live music.

That's funny to think about: if music playback technology didn't exist, every cafe would be in need of a mediocre guitarist.

They don't. They will either need to find a way to stand out in an increasingly competitive market, or get pushed out of it. That's how all labor markets work, but creative fields are especially cutthroat and very few people get to do art as their full time job.

Same problem for wheelwrights and loom weavers and chimney sweeps. Occupations go obsolete, people have to adapt. There is nothing special about artists in that regard, if technology supersedes them then they'll go away and people will have to do other things.

This doesn’t directly answer your question, but when I was in university about 20 years ago, I was in a digital arts program, but I focused on algorithmic art and using programming to generate images. I came to the realization that "style" doesn’t matter, and the body of work I produced really looked quite different from one project to the next. I could generate countless numbers of images in a particular style but then moved on. The art in my case was thinking of style as parameters and certain constraints.

> But none of that addresses fundamental changes to the market structure.

There is no fundamental change. Only an incremental one.

Even if AI-generated imagery takes over the market for “drawings in the style of someone else”, these AIs will still need to be trained and operated by human beings. It will not bring the cost to zero, it will just lower it — which already happens continuously in all markets due to human ingenuity.

Your profile states your a logo designer. With regards to your above post "Now is the turn for current illustrators to adapt."

Are you happy for me to feed that in to an AI generated feed and and generate logo's based off your illustrations, post them online to be sold? How would you feel? How would you adapt from that?

I am not happy or unhappy about it. I just don't have a moral problem with it.

I did the same thing to get into the logo industry. In the process of learning I've analysed hundreds of logos made by other artists. I've tried hard to understand how they work, copy the best practices and styles and do the my best effort so my logos could be as good. I've trained on this dataset and got to be successful enough to become a part of it.

I don't have a moral problem with AI doing the same. It will probably be hard to compete with it, but for now I manage. If I won't be able to compete anymore - I will adapt and apply my skills elsewhere.

If that is the main issue, why are artists hiding behind the pique that "when I create art, it is full of soul, experience, blood and sweat" Just say that you need a way to make money and these models are replacing us.

Because that argument is as old as the written word, and it works exactly as well now as every time in the past (not at all).

Every job being automated requires its own "we're unique" pitch to get any pity points.

I wonder how many illustrators already lost their jobs once clipart took off starting in the 90s.

Many newsletters/newspapers of bygone era had an artist/doodler to do little sketches which got replaced by clipart in many cases.

I dislike the drift this "need to work for food" phrase that I'm hearing so often. Job automation never reduced our ability to produce food. The harvest is not in any danger, not even if we suddenly produce twice the art with the same amount of work.

Hi. I'm a professional artist. I have a lot of friends who are also professional artists.

Most of us live in cities, and go to the store to buy food. We have specialized in being good at making images, which we trade for money, which we can trade for other goods and services such as "food" or "entertainment" or "rent". Some of us are doing well enough to have room for a garden, and the time to tend it. This is by no means the majority.

How many of your peers would know one end of a modern combine harvester from the other? Probably very few, if you live in the city.

It's not about food production, it's about capitalism.

If artists could simply ask for food and be given it from the overflowing cornucopia, then yes, this wouldn't matter and in fact would be a net benefit.

Unfortunately though, artists must sell their art to get money, then exchange that money for food. Now, if a robot produces free art that's almost as good, most of those buyers won't pay those artists anymore, and the artists will starve (or stop being artists).

I do believe that job automation will quickly eliminate scarcity for basic life necessities, while also displacing more and more jobs in our economy, and that therefore UBI or some equivalent will be imminently necessary - but that's a much larger topic