I definitely feel more empowered, and making imperfect art and generating code that doesn't work and proofreading it is definitely changing people's lives. Which specific artist are you talking about who will suffer? Many of the ones I talk to are excited about using it.
You keep going back to value and finances. The less money is in it the better. Art isn't good because it's valuable, unless you were only interested in it commercially.
> Art isn't good because it's valuable, unless you were only interested in it commercially.
Of course not; I’m certainly not suggesting so. But I do think money is important because it is what has enabled artists to do what they do. Without any prospect of monetising one’s art, most of us (and I’m not an artist) would be out working in the potato fields, with very little time to develop skills.
I disagree. It will be better because it's driven purely by passion. Art runs in my family even today, I am fully aware of its value as well as cost. It is not a career and artists knew that then and now, supplementing their decadence on expression of value through film purchases, luxurious pigments, toxic but beautiful chemicals, or instruments that were sure to never make back their purchasing price. Someone (not my family) made Stonehenge in his backyard but it had no commercial value, it still is a very impressive feat and I admire the ingenuity. Art without monetary value is always the best, and previous problems such as film costs and paint prices are solved digitally, so the lack of commercial interest shouldn't hurt art at all.
Commercial movies have lots of CG, big budgets and famous actors while small budget indie movies have been exploding despire their weaker technical specialities. Noah's ark was made by amateurs while the titanic was made by experts.
You keep going back to value and finances. The less money is in it the better. Art isn't good because it's valuable, unless you were only interested in it commercially.