It really saddens me that there's a market for this. Especially knowing from personal experience the prices real art goes for in a traditional market (hint: borderline offensive). Marketers will keep underlining the shiny bits ("artists set their prices"), but in the end the business is farming, not art.
I’m not sure there’s anything intrinsically bad about this kind of service. I asked a friend who does graphics for NPR and the New Yorker whether she feels any attachment to her pieces, and she said it’s just work in the end. Not all software is just made to be beautiful either; for many of us here software is just work too.
I have a feeling art prices (particularly contemporary art) are inflated in part due to their being Veblen goods (high prices make it attractive), or otherwise a vehicle for value retention like diamonds and gold; see price differences between forgeries and the real thing.
And of course, we all know Adolf Hitler was rejected for art school and took a different job instead, and the world might be a better place if this service existed back then.
Sorry, but I'm not following you. Nothing you said after the first sentence proves your point, as I see it.
> I’m not sure there’s anything intrinsically bad about this kind of service
These services of course provide some value: they are easy to find/stumble on, they free customers of excessive choice, allowing them to not be actively interested in art and collapsing everything to simple "choose your style" option, they free customers of direct communications with artists, they arbitrage prices between different geographical markets.
On the other hand, these services compete with traditional artists, they devalue regular artworks in the minds of common potential customers AND further reinforce the thinning of the line between art and prints one buys in a furniture store.
