>>4366258The only real way to make money with any art is to make it a service, not a good. Selling something as a good places most of the emphasis on the value of the final product alone, which is almost always 0 in a world where basically any art piece can be copy-pasted. Services are still kind of difficult to replace, especially when they're tied to a place and time.
Event photographers don't "make photos," they "provide memorable media coverage." A photo of some dancer isn't worth much, but if I take it at an Italian culture festival for the local Italian social club, that's got extrinsic value; it's a unique time and place that cannot be replaced. Attach your work to a place, time, event or brand (preferably a rich one), and that brings in extrinsic value that makes up for the near-zero intrinsic value.
I come from the music world and we've known this for centuries. Basically all pop - and even classical - music is the same. Pop music labels know this but have realised that as long as their music is attached to a strong enough character, they're golden. This is even true in the classical world. All the best composers in the world are attached to films they scored for. Hans Zimmer is a genuine innovator but there's actually a lot of other composers like him. Same with John Williams, most of his Star Wars score was deliberately derivative, but the context he wrote it in is irreplaceable.
