The NYT laying off half it’s art dept as they ramp up the use of A.I. tools is 100% related to UArts closing due to a “steep drop in enrollment.”
Regardless of A.I.’s actual capabilities the story being told to (and accepted by) business leaders is damaging the perceived value of the visual arts.
The important part is that visual arts NEVER had a perceived value, except by the people who aren't jumping on board the AI bandwagon
It's why they are so eager to go to AI: they NEVER felt that visual arts were worth paying for, so they see this as a final out for not paying artists
I often ponder if I were an 18 yo today, would I choose an arts major as I did? Frankly, I wouldn’t know what to answer. Many things that made sense in the 90s no longer do now. But even back then arts were sneered at as a career so… whatever I guess 🙃
Even before AI art, getting an art or illustration degree was really expensive and not the path to good finances. Some of us got lucky, emerging from art school when there was real demand for people who could draw- but even then it wasn't reliable. It's a lot to spend for low money prospects later.
not disagreeing with the gist here, but when it comes to U Arts never underestimate the power of general mismanagement as opposed to current-moment miscalculation. Just what I gather from what I've seen around.
I'm as upset as anyone about NYT laying off it's art department (such that it was) However I think Uarts is actually closing because it's a bad school and people don't want to pay a huge amount of money for a subpar education.
The suits at the New York Times don't seem to understand that I only have a subscription to their paper because their people can make things that I can't. If they replace those people with a software tool, I don't need a subscription anymore. I might as well get the software, and do it myself then.