C'mon living breathing cartoonists, we're way better than that! BE yourself, be weird odd-ball unexpected quirky subtle insightful artful creative the way only humans can...and tell The New Yorker to sharpen their skills and improve the stuff they're accepting (it's getting pretty thin, compared to 'the good old days"). Don't be "topical", be human!
I will only pay for true artists generated art. It’s affecting artists creativity and unique interpretation of life events. This just makes me sad. What would Charles Schultz think today?
I read Maslin's piece and yours, both very good. Thank you.
Though a hack myself with no hope of turning a drawing into a dollar, I understand the concern. I'm a lawyer (for a living) and soon enough the "profession" be reduced to "curating" contracts of every kind, ordering them up and explaining them to clients. I suppose we'll still get paid but how much?
And yet, AI is charging ahead. Every industry is bought in. Every one. So what are we mere mortals missing? What is not being said? Do the advantages so tremendously outweigh the risks that it is just not relevant to address them? I think that is the most likely explanation.
Consider copyright. Why does it exist? So creators can make a living. Really, in the beginning it was so goods could be traced to their origin in case of defect. And then it served to create monopolies. Victor Hugo made a big stink because his hugely popular books (that kept him very well btw) were being knocked off.
And today? Very few creators make more than a pittance from their work, and a very, very few make millions. Spotify, shame on you and every goddam one of your subscribers and shareholders.
But we all play the game of "quality" and "originality" and "genius" even though copyright serves the .01% and is otherwise the enemy of the independent artist, or if not the enemy, certainly no friend.
Why would I not applaud AI generated NYer cartoons, in itself a hilarious idea? In the stone age when the mag was a truly elite publication masterminded by a handful of geniuses, okay. But now? Really? No. Just no. Nobody f'n cares.
I don't plan on stopping drawing my lame-o 'toons. How bad they are may be my best defence. 😂
It's like the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon. Calvin looks up from his drawing and says to Hobbes, "People always make the mistake of thinking that art is made for them." Sensibly, Bill Watterson made his money and quit.
Recently I read or heard someone talking about excellence (maybe here on Substack) that it comes by way of an addiction to practice. It's the only way you will find out if you're any good.
As i am wont to say to young artists: hone your craft; create, create, create; don't let them find you.
I think you have to say that the future of all of us depends on what we're willing to defend. AI will swamp us all if we let it. The profit motive, greed, consumer capitalism---AI feeds all of them. It's hard to imagine if human beings will have any role to play at all---I keep asking my husband, "Can AI replace these workers? Those workers? Can AI plant the fields, harvest the crops, cook the food? Maybe cleaning toilets will still be available. Fight, you cartoonists, fight!
You both have it so right. As another veteran NYer cartoonist, I couldn’t agree more with your comments about AI and it’s effect on our careers and art. Thanks.
I truly believe “quirky and weird” is the seed from which “being human and not a robot” grows. I’ve been writing books since 2007, and I love mixing metaphors and staying away from cliche (even little ones like “She clutched her heart in terror” or “He demanded too much of me”). Things you’ve seen humans write over and over again as they emulate what they’ve read, and which now are generated from an algorithm based on popular word patterns. If we can stay outside the boundaries of the expected—and take a little blowback for being weird/not saying the expected thing—I think that’s where human-made art in 2025 and beyond lies. 🤎
I love the quote about the dishes and laundry! When I see people or organizations using what is obviously AI images to illustrate an article, I always comment to tell them to use work created by artists, not stolen from them.
Out of curiosity I asked chat gpt to check my last post (accompanying my art). It gave me lots of clever suggestions for clarity and zing. But it completely ruined the whole point and joy of writing for me and felt soulless, empty and depressing. I will never do it again.
The New Yorker used some crassly obvious AI illustrations awhile back. I immediately wrote to disparage these very ugly things and the fools who decided to use them.
That absolutely not what I am paying for.
They are probably still doing it though. Just getting better at it?
Once you start lowering your standards, the bottom falls out. Proofreading, editing, and fact checking are extremely important. Lose that and it’s just another rag on the way to oblivion.
I looked at every sent mail from the last year. Couldn’t find it.
The thumbprint illustrations were primitive basic shapes like spheres and cubes in garish colors you’d only see in a preschool. Like some high schooler’s early efforts.
It stood out from the general caliber of The New Yorker illustration like litter on a posh putting green.
Come to think about it, I didn’t see much of it thereafter.
I deeply sympathize. I'm a writer and even before the advent of AI the world was full of slop novels. Now it's beyond stupid. But I'm a geezer and I don't write for money. You working cartoonists and illustrators are looking at a tsunami of "just good enough" art. I can't imagine what you all can come up with to protect yourselves. We know (some of) the business guys will be sympathetic, but sympathy is all you're likely to get.
276822
Here's the comment I put in Ink Spill:
C'mon living breathing cartoonists, we're way better than that! BE yourself, be weird odd-ball unexpected quirky subtle insightful artful creative the way only humans can...and tell The New Yorker to sharpen their skills and improve the stuff they're accepting (it's getting pretty thin, compared to 'the good old days"). Don't be "topical", be human!
I will only pay for true artists generated art. It’s affecting artists creativity and unique interpretation of life events. This just makes me sad. What would Charles Schultz think today?
I read Maslin's piece and yours, both very good. Thank you.
Though a hack myself with no hope of turning a drawing into a dollar, I understand the concern. I'm a lawyer (for a living) and soon enough the "profession" be reduced to "curating" contracts of every kind, ordering them up and explaining them to clients. I suppose we'll still get paid but how much?
And yet, AI is charging ahead. Every industry is bought in. Every one. So what are we mere mortals missing? What is not being said? Do the advantages so tremendously outweigh the risks that it is just not relevant to address them? I think that is the most likely explanation.
Consider copyright. Why does it exist? So creators can make a living. Really, in the beginning it was so goods could be traced to their origin in case of defect. And then it served to create monopolies. Victor Hugo made a big stink because his hugely popular books (that kept him very well btw) were being knocked off.
And today? Very few creators make more than a pittance from their work, and a very, very few make millions. Spotify, shame on you and every goddam one of your subscribers and shareholders.
But we all play the game of "quality" and "originality" and "genius" even though copyright serves the .01% and is otherwise the enemy of the independent artist, or if not the enemy, certainly no friend.
Why would I not applaud AI generated NYer cartoons, in itself a hilarious idea? In the stone age when the mag was a truly elite publication masterminded by a handful of geniuses, okay. But now? Really? No. Just no. Nobody f'n cares.
I don't plan on stopping drawing my lame-o 'toons. How bad they are may be my best defence. 😂
It's like the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon. Calvin looks up from his drawing and says to Hobbes, "People always make the mistake of thinking that art is made for them." Sensibly, Bill Watterson made his money and quit.
Recently I read or heard someone talking about excellence (maybe here on Substack) that it comes by way of an addiction to practice. It's the only way you will find out if you're any good.
As i am wont to say to young artists: hone your craft; create, create, create; don't let them find you.
I think you have to say that the future of all of us depends on what we're willing to defend. AI will swamp us all if we let it. The profit motive, greed, consumer capitalism---AI feeds all of them. It's hard to imagine if human beings will have any role to play at all---I keep asking my husband, "Can AI replace these workers? Those workers? Can AI plant the fields, harvest the crops, cook the food? Maybe cleaning toilets will still be available. Fight, you cartoonists, fight!
You both have it so right. As another veteran NYer cartoonist, I couldn’t agree more with your comments about AI and it’s effect on our careers and art. Thanks.
Big fan of your work, Mick.
Thank you for the support.
Dear Jason,
Great piece!
Love this: "The future of our field depends on what we’re willing to defend."
Thanks for sharing!
Love
Myq
I truly believe “quirky and weird” is the seed from which “being human and not a robot” grows. I’ve been writing books since 2007, and I love mixing metaphors and staying away from cliche (even little ones like “She clutched her heart in terror” or “He demanded too much of me”). Things you’ve seen humans write over and over again as they emulate what they’ve read, and which now are generated from an algorithm based on popular word patterns. If we can stay outside the boundaries of the expected—and take a little blowback for being weird/not saying the expected thing—I think that’s where human-made art in 2025 and beyond lies. 🤎
Thank you, Susan. I really hope so, too!
I think it’s fine to be a Luddite. Look what happened to the ones who weren’t . They worked in the dark satanic mills .
I love the quote about the dishes and laundry! When I see people or organizations using what is obviously AI images to illustrate an article, I always comment to tell them to use work created by artists, not stolen from them.
Out of curiosity I asked chat gpt to check my last post (accompanying my art). It gave me lots of clever suggestions for clarity and zing. But it completely ruined the whole point and joy of writing for me and felt soulless, empty and depressing. I will never do it again.
The New Yorker used some crassly obvious AI illustrations awhile back. I immediately wrote to disparage these very ugly things and the fools who decided to use them.
That absolutely not what I am paying for.
They are probably still doing it though. Just getting better at it?
Once you start lowering your standards, the bottom falls out. Proofreading, editing, and fact checking are extremely important. Lose that and it’s just another rag on the way to oblivion.
That’s really disappointing and surprising that the New Yorker would do that. But good work letting them know!
Hi Ali - I'd be curious to see what that art was. Did you keep an example of it you could share?
I looked at every sent mail from the last year. Couldn’t find it.
The thumbprint illustrations were primitive basic shapes like spheres and cubes in garish colors you’d only see in a preschool. Like some high schooler’s early efforts.
It stood out from the general caliber of The New Yorker illustration like litter on a posh putting green.
Come to think about it, I didn’t see much of it thereafter.
Squeaky wheel... grease… etc.
It could take a while but I’ll search my sent mail and see if I can dredge it up.
I’ve been thinking about drawing again but haven’t since my stroke.
I'm so sorry to hear about your stroke, Margaret. That can be so debilitating.
I hope you do get back into drawing again.
I deeply sympathize. I'm a writer and even before the advent of AI the world was full of slop novels. Now it's beyond stupid. But I'm a geezer and I don't write for money. You working cartoonists and illustrators are looking at a tsunami of "just good enough" art. I can't imagine what you all can come up with to protect yourselves. We know (some of) the business guys will be sympathetic, but sympathy is all you're likely to get.