Was there really an apprentice level for digital artists before AI models? I know somebody who does a lot of digital art as a hobby. They have spent years and years working on stuff for their own enjoyment, and to hear them tell it they're only now reaching the point of marketability.
What's the market for mediocre art today? I long ago worked on tech for magazines, which would sometimes use adequate commissioned art to jazz things up. But that was before the rise of vast stock art collections that were instantly accessible. Looking at some popular web-based magazines, it seems like the still commission the occasional original illustration, but that it's mainly stock photos or photo-composite illustrations.
Learning to play an instrument, to draw, sculpt or basically anything is hard, or at least it takes time.
There was never a market for mediocrity... but people will happily pay for exposure (to play in a bar, rent a space as a gallery and so on).
The problem is that even for good art it's hard, and it has always been. The rise of accessible stock art doesn't help, and AI will not.
Still one point is important: if you want to create something new, and not reassess (derive) the same thing, I guess we (human) have still a place. At least for now.
I don't know about digital art, but centuries prior, traditional artist training followed the apprenticeship model just like any other trade at the time. Leonardo da Vinci walked this path.
And less than a century ago, scores of people drew background images for Disney animated feature films, with the better ones getting allowed to draw main characters, and the best having final say in accepting or rejecting drawings.
I guess the same happened with those creating and animating 3D models for the likes of Toy Story.
Sure, but we're talking about the near-future impact of AI. My point is that I don't think this is going to make much of an impact on available apprentice positions. I'm not worried about da Vinci; he won't be harmed by this.
What's the market for mediocre art today? I long ago worked on tech for magazines, which would sometimes use adequate commissioned art to jazz things up. But that was before the rise of vast stock art collections that were instantly accessible. Looking at some popular web-based magazines, it seems like the still commission the occasional original illustration, but that it's mainly stock photos or photo-composite illustrations.