|
|
Tuesday 7th of July 2026
Art without algorithmic assistance. A challenge for few.
No. You're not being replaced. You just need to separate the wheat from the chaff
There's a reality that many detractors of technologies that affect art don't understand: They're already using algorithmic assistance with a Wacom stylus. That's undeniable, and no matter how much they tell me "AI is shit," I can only add that in truth, an artist is capable of using physical elements for their work. The plastic stylus came with a cost: It took tools away from people, it flattened them.
In many cases, modern artists don't realize that the type of tools they use is for pop art aimed at mass consumption rather than for creating "masterpiece" level art. And that's because there are two types of art: the one used whimsically and the one used in a calculated way to sell.
The use of Wacom almost always falls into the second category. The fact that this has been the case for a long time now is nothing new. A logo or design created by hand or using the tools that have existed since the late 90s is now—paradoxically—seen as a great manual work.
This is where I want to pause and set aside whether it's physical or not, and focus on what really maintains value: Art created with an intention beyond the conceptual always has value from the moment you can sell a fine art print. That's clear. But if it's made for an industry, then it falls into the abyss of being replaceable by an algorithm that simply imitates that at zero cost.
The reality is that you can continue creating unique pieces and their value will remain the same or even increase, because AI has created a total fatigue of plastic and "extra glossy" images flooding the web—thanks Meta for your shitty tools. In truth, the generic AI that everyone uses for the modest sum of $20 is starting to reach the average user, the user who thinks "with this I can skip the designer." But that's not an implicit reality. It's a perception of the AI user without much gray matter to boast about.
The artist will always win this race, because the machine generates images with a genuinely generic look, useful for illustrating nonsense but not precisely for trusting it with the cover of an asset you consider sellable.
Recap: Is it dead? Did it lose value? NO, absolutely not. It simply requires something that art never asked for: educating the consumer to understand the difference.
The key isn't to say "this ruins me" and expect it to disappear, because that's not going to happen. The idea is to be reactive and show people that real value comes from fully understanding what's being illustrated, why, and ultimately, that if it's not done right, money leaks away.
It's not a game for the average consumer. We all had to re-measure the audience we sell to. But the key idea—and this shouldn't deceive you—is whether you're replaceable or not, because you're not. It just becomes even clearer who your client isn't.
If someone illustrates everything with AI, either it's enough for them, or they wouldn't buy a decent piece anyway. You also can't put all your faith in digital art if it's done generically, because the endless asset and cheap art sale sites literally created a flood and it's already a commodity if not done with genuine artistic talent.
Bottom line: The issue isn't whether it's worth it. It's who buys it. And who buys it is the same as always. It's just that seeing so many people putting on an abysmally grotesque display of "creation" makes you think it's a mass murderer of artists, even though this is simply one more illusion among the many that social media generates by flattening and standardizing critical thinking.
Advice from a marketer with a lot of experience: Know your audience, and no strange artifice will be able to replace you.