@condret

I was speaking to it as a whole. Just $0.02, so ignore if you like. Basically just making the point that AI generated art is only a threat to people who make art which is easily digitised.

For example live performers aren't likely to be threatened, nor other art styles like dance, sculpture, theatre, etc. It's really only certain kinds of music, fiction, poetry and visual art which are likely to feel any pinch from AI.

In any case, the monetary value of `high art` is mainly to use as a tax free store of wealth for rich people. Buying paintings and prints on the street corner is a whole other game. People have been digitising that for ages before AI came along. A buddy of mine years ago would digitise his art and print it on canvas to make $. But then he'd get Asian tourists who'd snap a high def photo and go home and plagiarise it en mass.

As to people who do it purely for profit, I agree. Oscar Wilde said it well.

"A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or a dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an artist." -- Soul of Man under Socialism, 1891