I'm an amateur musical artist and writer of literature, and while I agree with you on the importance of the creative act - fundamentally speaking, I've come to accept that my music practice, like a good diet and exercise routine and spending quality time with loved ones, is just something I have to do if I want to be truly happy - I disagree that artifacts don't matter.

I think that in my case, and I suspect the case of many of people, one of the most rewarding things is someone connecting with a piece that I made and having it greatly improve their lives. I can understand wanting to optimize the process of creating artifacts in order to have more people thanking you for making their day/week/month/year with your art ^_^

The road to mastery, while yes there is that whole spiritual journey aspect of mastering yourself via mastering a craft, is also supposed to end in a place where you have the skills to give joy to people via your art. Via making something that they'll love, be it a painting, a song, or some software.

Wanting to optimize this not only makes sense, but is probably part of the process of mastering the craft. It is for me in any case, I do give a fair amount of thought to how I can improve my creation velocity when I make music, drawing inspiration from artists like JuL and Lex Luger who are known for their ability to rapidly compelling new tracks.

You're on point.

A good exercise anyone can do is to question why X or Y artists became a reference at a certain time.

You end up finding out it was about: the historical context, cultural disruption, influence during or after their life, consistency in pursuing their artistic expression... the list goes on.

In some cases the final outcome, the artifact, is "cool" on its own without the context, but in all cases, it's the artist that makes their body of work valuable and "cool".

Technology at the service of artists has played its role in new media and different ways to work with it, but it's mainly as a tool.

I think you might be missing my point. It seems like you're arguing "being an artist is not becoming obsolete because...". I'm saying that OP is not making the claim that artist's are becoming obsolete. The OP's artist friends are making that claim. Not OP. So the frustration here is a little confusing to me.

But to address your claim, I disagree that the entire purpose of art is individualistic honing of craft. That's a very romantic view of art which I imagine many artists would also disagree with. There are many reasons why people create art. One is for the individual honing of craft. One is as a means to communicate. One is as a means of making a living. One is catharsis. Another is to bring about change. And there are many more. Most artists likely have a cocktail of these reasons as to why they are artists. My guess is professional artists _do_ want their art to pay the bills, and might not be able to practice their art if they had to spend 40h a week doing something else to pay their bills. So I understand their concerns that being a _professional_ artist _who can support themselves from their art_ might be becoming obsolete.

I do agree with you that I don't fully understand the purpose of OP's proposal to teach them the internals of how AI models work. I would understand teaching them AI artist tools like Adobe's AI integrations -- since these tools could potentially give them a competitive edge over other artists, which would help them be able to continue working in the field they love. And like you said, artists might not have a great love for the more corporate gigs that pay the bills -- where that individualistic expression is greatly diminished anyways -- so that might be a prime opportunity where an artist could use AI to help support themselves so that they can then spend time creating art they care about.