AI Art Doesn't Really Change Much for Artists 2/8/2023
This observation was prompted by a nature journalist, who will remain unnamed, complaining that her work was ripped off by AI. The composition was similar, but the actual things drawn were not the same.
My Observation:
The sad truth is, I could post 2 dozen examples of art strikingly similar to that nature journalist's art that I know were drawn by humans because.... nature journaling is a style, and not one that she originated. And it really rots that that is where we are, but it's true.
I won't search for my own images because, well, it doesn't really matter if the AI uses them or not. You can find hundreds or thousands of samples of art similar to mine in black and white RPG books that are as old as I am.
Companies will always go for what's cheapest. The "best" book covers 5 years ago were all using the same stock art with the same fonts and just minor tweaks in colors. Photoshop destroyed the painted sci fi cover, the painted fantasy cover. Now authors or publishers only get them if they have a strong, strong preference for them.
And that's how art has been since the invention of Photoshop decades ago.
If anything, maybe hand-drawn art will make a comeback merely for combatting AI art. But who knows?
Hardly anyone pays me for my work. 10 years ago, nobody paid me for my work. And it has been rare indeed when I made more on my art than I would if I just went out and flipped burgers.
This is reality.
Fighting against it is futile. In the end you either create because you love to, or you don't. Getting paid to do what you love is a combination of massive effort and even more massive luck, and crying about AI is not going to help win that fight.
Art Career Concerns: Don't Work for Less than Minimum Wage 2/1/2023
This is one of those art career rules that I wish I didn't have to say to aspiring artists, but, alas, it must be said: Don't work for less than minimum wage.
Let me state that "flipping burgers" and scanning groceries absolutely have value. I have done jobs like that and I am not so proud that I would not do them again. Drawing and writing are, in my opinion, much more fun, but despite being a more desirable way to spend your time, they also take just as much if not much more skill than the previously stated occupations.
Stated more simply: If it takes just as much skill to draw a picture as it does to make a hamburger or pull a barcode across a scanner, shouldn't you be paid at least as much?
While there is a complex and nuanced discussion to be made for working for exposure or cutting someone a break for various reasons, those instances are exceptions and should be excessively limited exceptions. Artists work for exposure too often, and 99.9% of the time, that exposure work does not lead to money or real jobs. Believe me when I say that figuring out what "exposure" jobs will benefit you is much, much harder than learning to draw or write well.
So make this your rule 99.999999999999% of the time: If you could make more money in an hour doing a starter part-time job at a McDonald's or gas station or grocery store and you need money, go do those things. Those jobs will pay you more for your time.
If you can't earn more than that drawing, draw what you want for yourself, develop your skills, and invest in your own ideas and properties. Or just draw for yourself for fun. Drawing for less than minimum wage or drawing for free should be for giving yourself joy and investing in yourself and your skills. You should pay yourself and only yourself. It is your precious free time.
I'll said it again one more time. Don't work for less than minimum wage.
Comparing Sequels for Writing Advice 1/7/2023
With the passing of Epiphany, we are finally closing out the holiday season. Virtually every year, I watch Home Alone. It is without a doubt one of my favorite holiday films, and it makes me especially think of the best of my Dad, as his favorite part is at the end, when the neighbor hugs his granddaughter. He points this out any and every time we watch it.
But Home Alone and its sequel, Home Alone 2, are excellent examples of how not to do a sequel.
"But, Presto," you ask, "Don't you like Home Alone 2?"
Of course I like Home Alone 2. And that's the problem. It is so ridiculously similar to the original that it's hard to justify both movies existing. Watch them back-to-back, and you will see the exact same beats and tropes played out exactly the same way. The only differences are:
- The setting.
- The mother's acting is more phoned in and less sincere. (And I can't blame her, because she did the same exact performance in the previous movie. She does sell it well for what it is.)
- The gags are "bigger" and more over-acted.
The first film had everyone acting relatively realistically. There were definite Tom and Jerry or Coyote and Road Runner moments, but on the whole, everyone's reactions -- especially minor side characters -- were believable. But the second film has everyone's reactions dialed up to 12. The hotel workers are straight up buffoons, criminals are much sillier and far less cautious, and the parents are desperately trying to "sell" an honest reaction while having to overlook that leaving your kid at home or the airport twice is... well, seriously, after what happened in the first film, would Kevin's mom not handcuff her and her son together to go through that airport?
Probably most tellingly are the gags, though. Compare the pizza guy in the first film to the hotel workers in the second film. Compare the criminals' caution and behavior. And most especially, compare the traps. There were certainly a number of times in the first film where you would say "Ouch. That probably should have killed them." And there were certainly times in the first film you'd say "That would have broken something, he's should not be getting up." But from the moment the criminals get to the house in Home Alone 2, the fact that they have to "one-up" the first film to keep it "fresh" is glaring. Those first five bricks would have killed Marv. You can go through the film and count time after time that the crooks definitely would have died, but since the film relies on the exact same situations, it has nowhere to go but more absurd. But that disconnect takes the audience out of the film and breaks the "willing suspension of disbelief" that the first film courted so carefully.
As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say comparing the segments of the movies-within-the-movies, "Angels with Filthy Souls" and "Angels with Filthier Souls," is an equally good comparison as a microcosm of both films. If the internet existed when the original Home alone came out, I would have walked out of that film and looked up if "Angels with Filthy Souls" was a real movie. Its dialogue worked and seemed organic, the situation was sure similar to a lot of noir crime movies. It was definitely heavy on the machine gun fire for a movie of the time, but that was really the only "tell" that it wasn't real. "Angels with Filthier Souls," on the other hand, is ridiculously written and obviously dialogued not to seem like a real movie, but dialogued to make the later scene with the hotel workers as absurd as possible. And, yes, the scene with the hotel workers is funny, I'll admit it, but "Angels with Filthier Souls" cannot stand alone as a good homage to old noir gangster films.
The witty writing, leaning into coincidence (because the writers must!), and emotional highlights save Home Alone 2 and make it solidly good. The acting makes it good. Kevin, the mom, and the criminals are still great actors and pull some great moments out of an essentially rehashed script. The bird lady, the store owner, and the moment at the end between the mom and the cop in the patrol car are the fancy new icing on the same old cake that save the movie and make you want to rewatch it. If the first film didn't exist, I have no doubt that Home Alone 2 would be as popular and nearly as beloved; it's a good film. But the original film does exist, and is better, and if you watch the films back-to-back, it is blinding that it's the same car with a different coat of paint.
So what should you watch to compare a good original film and sequel? I think the very best examples are Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgement Day, with its subtle genre shift (sci fi horror to action adventure), significant passage of time, and evolved characters, and Alien and Aliens, with its dramatic genre shift (horror to action) and entirely new -- save one -- cast of characters, and its ability to build on and up with Ripley. I'm sure there are other good sequels, but those are the absolute standouts in my mind.
So give them all a watch, back to back, and take notes. It can only help your writing.
My 2023 New Year's Resolution 1/4/2023
So 2022 came and 2022 went. I don't know if I made a 2022 New Year's resolution, but I'm sure I didn't achieve it if I did. This is OK, however, because when January rolled around last year, my new daughter was two months old, and extremely young children are all-consuming of time.
But she's walking and starting to talk now, so I need to get my act together and get back on track. So 2023's goal is to be more effective.
Younger me would make a list of things I want to do, but older, wiser me knows that I don't need a list of things that will make me feel bad when I don't achieve them. I am interested in building good habits, in being more efficient with my time when I have a free 10 minutes here or there.
But I also don't want to make a list because what I actually accomplish surprises me. The year I started doing Incorrigible IMPS for a Tabletop RPG magazine (Bexim's Bazaar), I had wanted to publish a book or two. But I ended up doing a lot of artwork for that magazine instead. What I'm saying is, the act of actually doing stuff and getting anything done is more important to me than whatever it is that I actually accomplish.
If I can get back into the habit of drawing or writing every day, even if it's just gesture practice and a blog post, then I am on the path to being a more effective person and developing the skill of being intentional with my time. And that especially is important to relearn after all I could manage to do most days in 2022 was hold a baby and watch too much YouTube. (In the very early months, I was able to do a lot of reading, which was great. However, once your kid starts kicking your arm and trying to steal the book, watching TV becomes your main option.)
So that's it. I'm going to try to do more in 2023. What? Doesn't matter. But if I write and draw a little each day, work on my website here, edit or format something there, then maybe I'll have something decent to show you by the end of the year.
Art Career Concerns: Self Employed or Work for a Company? 1/3/2023
It's the age-old dilemma. Every artist wants to draw what they want, when they want. But getting people to pay you to draw what you want to draw, as opposed to what they (the commissioner) wants, is a pretty steep hurdle.
So if you want to make a living as an artist, you are probably looking at either working a "regular" (non-art-related) job full- or part-time job while you draw what you want on the side and try to build your side art gig into a full-time business OR you are looking at working full- or part-time for a business that needs your artistic skills. And while the former can be fulfilling, it very likely it will not be drawing the subjects you want to be drawing. BUT it will be stable work.
The very boring truth is this: A lot of this decision comes down to making at least minumum wage and having health care. Health insurance is a racket. You don't need it until you need it, and when you need it, it is too late to worry about getting it. You will have a lot of options. Maybe you can stay on your parent's health care longer (you should toss them some money for the extra expense if you do). Maybe you marry someone with a stable job who can put you on their health care.
Maybe you are making enough money from your art that you can buy your own health insurance, or you may want to consider using a service that negotiates with health care providers for you and whose members share the cost of bills from a pool of monthly contributions.
Likewise, you want to be making at least minimum wage. If you aren't pulling in enough money to make ends meet on your own personal projects or commissions, you'll want a "regular" job or art job with a company.
Art jobs with companies take all shapes and sizes. Some are "cool" (but still work drawing what someone else wants!) like storyboards for movies or character designs or 3D renders for video games. Many "cool" art jobs like comic books are by commission and won't net you health care or paid time off. Others are jobs like page layout for magazines or pamphlets, web design, typography, making maps, designing advertisements, designing clothing (which is often not as exciting as it sounds), etc.
And many of those art jobs don't pay as much as, well, a ton of non-art jobs. High-paying, high-demand jobs like coding, software development, financial managers, dentists, radiologists, electricians, plumbers... a great many jobs will likely make more money than you. If you can manage to put in 40 hours a week, get your benefits, and save up all that extra cash, you would be in a good position when you are ready to make the jump to full-time, self-employed artist.
My point is not that one option is better than the other. You definitely need to look at your life, your lifestyle, your resources (including what family is willing to help you with, your savings, etc.) to figure out what is best for you. But it is important to understand the pros and cons and weigh them carefully before making an important life decision, especially if you are considering going to college for art.
And whatever your decision, have a plan, have goals, be as prepared as possible, and try to stay healthy, which is sometimes counterintuitive to the routines and personalities we have as artists.