this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2026
1160 points (98.5% liked)

Memes

17352 readers
1443 users here now

Post memes here.

A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.

An Internet meme or meme, is a cultural item that is spread via the Internet, often through social media platforms. The name is by the concept of memes proposed by Richard Dawkins in 1972. Internet memes can take various forms, such as images, videos, GIFs, and various other viral sensations.


Laittakaa meemejä tänne.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 65 points 2 days ago (3 children)

AI art also helps keep starving artists unfed

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 24 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Making it as an artist was always difficult, because the way artists are paid under capitalism favors giving all the money to a few big artists, who ironically aren't necessarily even that good.

My goal all through junior high and high school was to become a comic book artist. I'm still sad I never made it because I missed out on the opportunity to help Stan Lee achieve a net worth of $70 million.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

I hate Matisse but apparently just because they use his trash to money laund he's some sort of genius.

[–] Nangijala@feddit.dk 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

More like, it favors giving the money all the people who make a living off of what the artist produces.

Its like a factory. The artists are the workers at the bottom who actually produce and make the art work. Then there are the managers who promote the art and their bosses who sit at the top, running the factory. It is always those who benefit off of other people's hard work who get to enjoy the fruits of other people's labor.

Artists are why publishing houses exist and the reason why editors have a job in the first place, but it is the editors who drive nice cars and live in nice houses while the artists who draw and write the very books the publishers sell, get to enjoy getting paid so little that they can't make a living off of it.

If you look in places like the animation industry, you can point to any of the big animators who helped make Disney big in the 90s and you will see that none of them can get work. None. New animators have no chance. Artists who have been in the business for 20 or 30 years, who are responsible for the movies that defined a generation are jobless and if they get a job, it is the kind of entry level gig that you'd normally only give to a recent graduate.

Illustration had been fucked for decades. They are getting paid the same as in the 80s, but not adjusted for inflation. More often than npt they get offered jobs for exposure and when they land gigs that pays, it will be two months work for one week's pay. Asking for more money is not an option. There are no unions. All they can do is work faster to maybe make the low pay worth it. Meanwhile their editors live in gleaming mansions.

You might end up being one of the lucky few scammers in fine art who become rich people's favourite, but that is a completely different world from the commercial art industry. People work themselves into early graves. There's a reason why Berserk's crestor died in his 50s.

Back problems, wrist problems, eye problems, weight problems. And these are passionate souls, which is why it is so easy to take advantage of them and their skills. Most people in the animation industry burn out before they're 40. You don't see many middle aged artists in the industry today. Some end up teaching. Most leave the industry all together when those who benefit from their hard work has sucked every bone dry.

The higher ups get fat bonuses. They live the great life. Not a creative bone in their body, but they make a living on the piles and piles of passionate souls who will be eaten up and spit out with nothing to show for it.

That is the life of the artist.

The very, very few ones who rise to the top are often those who have a rich family member or spouse to finance their artistic endeavors. Illusteators, painters, authors, animators, you name it. More often than not, the ones who do well and are successful, have no real financial problems in their lives because their loved ones got them covered.

It's easy to make an amazing piece of art when you don't have to worry about money.

[–] Sergio@piefed.social 2 points 2 days ago

Artists are why publishing houses exist and the reason why editors have a job in the first place, but it is the editors who drive nice cars and live in nice houses

I agree with most of what you said, but I think most editors don't make that much. It's the corporate heads (i.e. the editor's bosses) who get paid - the MBAs who've been put there to squeeze maximum profit at minimum cost.

[–] gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

yeah sure, even with companies, the owner of the company gets all the output that many people helped produce; but typically, a worker would get at least $5k /month as wages instead, depending on where you live of course (cost of living), but sth like that.

now, show me one small artist on the internet who makes $5k /month from commissions. meanwhile big studios make millions. my point is, income is even more unequally spread for artists than it is for factory workers.

so i don't really think of the "art market" as especially keep-worthy to sustain the livelyhood of small artists, because that's not really a way to make a livelyhood to begin with.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah, like the Renaissance before capitalism! Let me check my notes, oh, uh, looks like "all the money to a few big artists" was the thing then as well.

this_engine_is_a_capitalist.jpg

[–] RandomHugs@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

a few big artists, who ironically aren't necessarily even that good.

I get your point and all, but I just had to ask - how do you define and separate 'good' from 'bad' art, though?

I agree with you though, the traditional art world is no different from any other industry under capitalism. It's filled with sharks, ass kissing and networking. Most either come from fame, and/or from a wealthy family who's willing to support them. It's more important to be a driven entrepreneur with good social skills and the right connections, than an artist.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

how do you define and separate ‘good’ from ‘bad’ art, though?

It's partly subjective. Think the quality of the craftsmanship. For example, for paintings, whether the perspective makes sense. Or the shading. Or in literature, whether the story in internally consistent (I think the term is verisimilitude). Of course, all rules have exceptions.

[–] RandomHugs@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

My god, finally. Someone on Lemmy solved the question that has been asked for centuries.

[–] OleFoFa@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Hey, that's not all it does! It uses all the water so they remain unhydrated as well! As well as all the electricity to keep them unpowered, and ruin the sleep for everyone within a 60 km2 square radius, so they also are being kept unrested. Jeez this is the dumbest timeline. By a lot

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

60 km2 square radius

Dude here lives in a 6D space.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No that'd be 60km² hexagonal radius, right?

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Afaics they measure the radius of the ‘area’ in km^4^, and I assume the ‘surface’ is one dimension lower than the total dimensionality of space.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago

Yeah I'm just kidding around.