I was at the World Horror Convention recently and the subject of 'paint vs pixel' came up in one of the panel discussions - my own feeling is that while the debate focused on the problems of digital art for covers (problems? what problems?) and ended up with several very talented traditional artists raising a whole set of what they saw as problems with using digital art (lack of primacy, problems of uniqueness, preservation of art and also a perceived ability to create with less or even no real talent) all of which I think are fairly easily countered, they seem to have missed the issue that is affecting the careers of illustrators most.
It isn't the rise of digital art - it is the increasing use of stock photography by publishers. This very directly affects illustrators ability to get work and dramatically affects levels of pay in the industry at the top of the scale when the big publishers start doing it in preference to hiring an illustrator. I recently came across this link (below) when reading
http://dragonsfandango.blogspot.com (Vincent Holland-Keen was also at the World Horror Convention):
http://therapsheet.blogspot.com/2006/05/too-much-of-good-thing.htmlIt demonstrates the central problem of using stock images quite nicely. To be fair, some artists do licence their art for multiple uses (Les Edwards, whose work I have admired for years and who was one of the panel at the convention debate on 'paint vs pixel' does this a fair bit). I think it's less that the same image is being used and more a general sense that it is being used because quite frankly nobody cares that strikes me. People use art by illustrators like Les because they love it - it never feels slapped on as something 'that will do' when it is re-used, while this sort of stock re-use does (at least to me). Some discussion started to touch on it here
http://community.livejournal.com/cover_artists/3421.html#cutid1
I am curious to discover what people think (I have cross posted with my own journal).