To this day, I still struggle to explain the difference between an illustrator and a designer. Even after I’m done, I get the feeling people aren’t quite sure where the line actually is-especially when they wrap up the conversation with, “So… who does logos, then?” Well, you see…
This post started as a tangent to the previous one, but it outgrew its original intention, so expect a few minor callbacks.
A Matter of Perspective
This confusion reminds me a lot of the current debate surrounding the legitimacy of using AI, especially in creative work. As you’ve probably noticed, there are two loud, opposing camps, split over the ethics of training artificial systems on publicly available internet data, taken without the creators’ consent.
Artists warn that AI will render them obsolete. Futurists argue it’s a necessary, inevitable step toward progress.
I find both of these sides wrong. The 'necessary good' argument usually drifts toward the idea that society will simply move past art altogether, since everyone will soon have the tools to generate it. Meanwhile, the 'starving artists' argument reminds of the panic surrounding the invention of photography in the 19th century. The real answer lies somewhere in between and, more importantly, in the fact that both sides misunderstand what the other believes art actually is.
The Devil in the Details
The Futurist lumps every form of visual creation into the same bucket. Painter, illustrator, designer, concept artist - these are all synonyms for one thing: drawing, or simply the ability to hold a pencil. From that perspective, AI makes pencil-holding obsolete, and therefore replaces 'the artist'.
The Creative, of course, understands the difference between these roles, but also understands that the Futurist doesn’t. For quite some time now, Creatives have depended on Futurists for work. During the tech boom, Futurists flooded the internet in search of opportunity, and with them came a sudden, massive demand for visual content. Websites, games, apps, movies all needed designers, illustrators, and concept artists. And so began the era of “fine-tuned” portfolios. The era of hustling.
Artist 2.0
An artist is only as good as their audience. Do good work, and you’ll eventually build a following and a sustainable income. But freelancers don’t have the luxury of waiting for an audience to form. They have to sell their work before the audience exists.
So we replaced audiences with likes and followers. We paid for ads with questionable claims. We invented narratives about ourselves. You weren’t as strong as your work - you were as strong as your story. All in an attempt to catch the attention of a client whose story wasn’t all that different from yours.
The Best Illustrator vs. The Best Writer. The Best Concept Artist vs. The Best Game Developer. Hustler vs. Hustler.
This isn’t always the case, but when it is, that’s where AI enters the picture. Sometimes a project doesn’t need the best artist. Do you hire someone subpar? Sketch something yourself? Or let AI handle it? Sometimes a creator doesn’t want to reinvent anything - they just want to visualize an idea and make a living. Sometimes you just need to close the gap and get the project shipped.
As long as low-stakes projects exist, there will always be demand for low-effort creation. No hustle, man...
Why Is This Good?
People often worry about AAA companies using AI to mass-produce trash content trained on stolen work. Sure, let them! We already complain how everything looks generic and trashy. At least now it’ll be on paper. They just shouldn’t be surprised when their $500M game fails at launch or thir movie flops. If Epic sells me an $80 game generated by AI, they’re not getting my $80.
Unless I’m also getting an artistic discount for teaching their model how to 'draw' on ArtStation.