What confuses me is that AI creation is being called "photography" and it is nothing like photography in any manner whatsoever.
When someone asks me why I am not messing around with AI, I let them know that I am also not messing around with sculpting, watercolor, wood carving, or Batik.
Those are unique forms of artistic expression. I choose a camera and words.
Choosing AI is just another form of expression.
So they should own it and call it what it is: Prompted Digital Art.
Nothing wrong with Prompted Digital Art, but I am not interested in it or painting with acrylics.
Pen and ink does catch my attention every once in a while...
Good to hear from you, Don. I agree, the lingo is still unsettled and it's not photography. I think we'll get there. I suppose some of this AI art is akin to Photo-realism in painting. These pictures feel closer to that.
The interesting thing to me is this is the very first "art" (other than the flirtation with "chance notation" in music at the midpoint of the last century) that the author, creator, or process was no longer a consideration.
Just the artifact itself.
I wonder when someone moves from the chain of artist/skill/development/history/narrative to 'the thing' only - all that matters is the object in their hands - it would be the moment that everything is art because nothing is needed to make it.
(And yes, the prompting, the prompting... well, you can buy a thousand prompts on the interwebs for $20, so that isn't gong to be a factor.)
it is not just photography, it is everything we call "content".
It's puzzling to me why anyone would unsubscribe/unfollow just for having a different thought. It's healthy and progressive to have discussions and debates respectfully. I try to keep an open mind as well. Thank you for sharing your thoughtful insight and ideas.
actually, to think out of the box, to be provoked, to be confronted with new ideas is the very reason why i‘m following you. so do not even think of changing your playing field. you are a drving force in this image creating media world. and thus it is not just a coincidence that boris turned to you when hell did not break lose in march. if people think after a couple of weeks enough is enough and let‘s get back talking about real photography - i get that and honestly, it‘s fine. everyone is different. as far as i am concerned i‘d miss the controversial discussion with you and your followers since we won‘t get this ghost back into the bottle and i personally think inspite or because of all possible dangers as well as opportunities we must confront each other with these tools and the results: for better or worse. Thanks for the ride so far Andy.
Cheers, Tom. I appreciate this encouraging feedback. And fear not — I'll keep doing my thing. I'm open to everything and I'm fascinated with the evolving state of visual culture we're living through at the moment. Thanks so much for reading. Have a great weekend!
Great article. I’ve been messing around with Ai as a designer who has a photography background and it’s been dope because for me it’s a way to start but not the finish line. I bring my ai images into photoshop / illustrator and use the images as a reference for further exploration and when I’m done it looks nothing like the original which I love. I’m writing a newsletter Monday about Ai and how I use it.
Looked at Roope Rainisto’s gallery and the images are interesting and captivating. But the images of disfiguration, deformation and body parts communicate this artists sense of dystopia. That’s understandable in a world that is so drastically deformed and changed from when this senior was a kid. There’s a sense of trying to live with ‘radical uncertainty’, which is the state that every non-human animal lives in. So this mediaum of AI is capable of letting us envision a feral and wild self, or going back to the evolutionary egg..Certainly the usage of AI or any other medium is worth looking at and considering at least the ‘why’.
I don’t share the fascination with the conversation about AI’s intersection with photography... yet. Perhaps some day I will but for the moment I find it all a bit boring, for a couple of reasons: one, nothing I’ve seen that was AI generated looks interesting. It either looks “outrageous” (like the image of three beings in a car that you shared), which is a style that I don’t find visually appealing, or if it’s more “realistic” it lacks soul (which is an expression I like that I’ve heard several people use); and two, because I feel like we’ve been here a few times before and moved through those disruptions intact.
The one thing I DO find interesting is how the discussion has highlighted our continued social acceptance of photographs as being “truthful”. This is a hangover that has lingered from the earliest days of the medium, when it was no doubt seen as a slayer of bias in the existing media of the time. Of course, we should all know by now that photographs represent what their photographers present to us, no differently than etchings & paintings of old, or of course words. “What is truth?” is probably the biggest social question of the past decade and this current obsession with the influence of AI is just the latest chapter.
While the AI rabbit hole doesn’t personally interest me, I appreciate that it greatly interests you. I always find it valuable to keep an eye on the obsessions of those I respect and for that reason I have absolutely no intention of unfollowing you! I’ll just be here waiting for you to come back to your senses. 😆
Thanks so much, Bruce — I appreciate you sticking with me despite our differences of fascination. I'm guessing you've seen Amber Terranova's piece by now. If you haven't and if you still have the stamina for more AI reading, you might appreciate her perspective: https://www.blind-magazine.com/stories/how-ai-imagery-is-shaking-photojournalism/
Thanks, Andy. Yes, I had read Amber Terranova’s piece, but I took the opportunity to re-read it and to look at the images again, more carefully. On closer inspection most actually DO look like (very realistic) illustrations, but not photos. Nonetheless, the technology will get to the point, if it hasn’t already, where in the right hands it can be indistinguishable from a photo. I think the crux of the matter then becomes the ethics of usage, which hopefully we can reach some form of consensus on. But we must be prepared for a world with superior quality fakes. No one knows how we will navigate that yet, but we’ll get there. ✌️
I believe that every new invention comes with inherent problems of purpose. We just need to identify that and resolve how it fits into our tool box or not. Enjoy your approach of an open mind and the newsletter!!!!!!
I think it’s awesome to be curious and learn about AI. Whether any of us likes it or not, it’s here. Why not try to make the best of it? Same with NFTs. Hopefully experimenting and learning puts artists in a better position to shape the future of these technologies for the better.
While I’m certain that AI has a future of some kind, I won’t be pursuing it. I think many of the AI images are interesting and worthy of display, and the technical problems with it will probably be worked out eventually, but it simply doesn’t satisfy any of the reasons why I went into the arts and why I make pictures. To that end, I don’t resent AI, and I don’t care if you or everyone else loves it. I’m a real person who uses art to express myself in the real world. I believe the real world deserves to be looked at by real people, no matter how great our machines become. And I choose to do my own work and collaborate with like-minded artists.
As it should be. And this is why I don't fear that AI will destroy photography. Many of us love practicing photography and will never stop doing it. Thanks for reading, Jeff!
AI is great for creating surrealist dreamscapes and nightmares. When looked at for what it is, a complicated machine that has been taught to match complex words with images and return reasonable approximations, it is truly incredible. But its about as similar to a dog as a pet rock. We bring meaning to it, or in the terms of “studium & punctum”, engineers have built something that can copy studium, but once again viewers bring the punctum themselves. You see depth because you are looking for depth and you want to find it. Thats not a bad thing… but as a tool its more like a dazzling kaleidoscope than a camera.
Perhaps you'd write an essay about this, Shane? You obviously know the scene well and understand the formal and aesthetic differences between these forms. I'd love to read that!
What confuses me is that AI creation is being called "photography" and it is nothing like photography in any manner whatsoever.
When someone asks me why I am not messing around with AI, I let them know that I am also not messing around with sculpting, watercolor, wood carving, or Batik.
Those are unique forms of artistic expression. I choose a camera and words.
Choosing AI is just another form of expression.
So they should own it and call it what it is: Prompted Digital Art.
Nothing wrong with Prompted Digital Art, but I am not interested in it or painting with acrylics.
Pen and ink does catch my attention every once in a while...
Good to hear from you, Don. I agree, the lingo is still unsettled and it's not photography. I think we'll get there. I suppose some of this AI art is akin to Photo-realism in painting. These pictures feel closer to that.
Agreed.
The interesting thing to me is this is the very first "art" (other than the flirtation with "chance notation" in music at the midpoint of the last century) that the author, creator, or process was no longer a consideration.
Just the artifact itself.
I wonder when someone moves from the chain of artist/skill/development/history/narrative to 'the thing' only - all that matters is the object in their hands - it would be the moment that everything is art because nothing is needed to make it.
(And yes, the prompting, the prompting... well, you can buy a thousand prompts on the interwebs for $20, so that isn't gong to be a factor.)
it is not just photography, it is everything we call "content".
And so it is.
It's puzzling to me why anyone would unsubscribe/unfollow just for having a different thought. It's healthy and progressive to have discussions and debates respectfully. I try to keep an open mind as well. Thank you for sharing your thoughtful insight and ideas.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Thanks for reading, Nadia!
actually, to think out of the box, to be provoked, to be confronted with new ideas is the very reason why i‘m following you. so do not even think of changing your playing field. you are a drving force in this image creating media world. and thus it is not just a coincidence that boris turned to you when hell did not break lose in march. if people think after a couple of weeks enough is enough and let‘s get back talking about real photography - i get that and honestly, it‘s fine. everyone is different. as far as i am concerned i‘d miss the controversial discussion with you and your followers since we won‘t get this ghost back into the bottle and i personally think inspite or because of all possible dangers as well as opportunities we must confront each other with these tools and the results: for better or worse. Thanks for the ride so far Andy.
Cheers, Tom. I appreciate this encouraging feedback. And fear not — I'll keep doing my thing. I'm open to everything and I'm fascinated with the evolving state of visual culture we're living through at the moment. Thanks so much for reading. Have a great weekend!
I guess so. I'm here to stay! :D
Great article. I’ve been messing around with Ai as a designer who has a photography background and it’s been dope because for me it’s a way to start but not the finish line. I bring my ai images into photoshop / illustrator and use the images as a reference for further exploration and when I’m done it looks nothing like the original which I love. I’m writing a newsletter Monday about Ai and how I use it.
I look forward to reading that post. Cheers, Temi!
Thanks Andy! Keep up the great work loving how you’re exploring this with more depth!
✌️📸
Dude, enjoy looking if you like, but it’s machine generated clip-art.
Cheers, Steve.
Looked at Roope Rainisto’s gallery and the images are interesting and captivating. But the images of disfiguration, deformation and body parts communicate this artists sense of dystopia. That’s understandable in a world that is so drastically deformed and changed from when this senior was a kid. There’s a sense of trying to live with ‘radical uncertainty’, which is the state that every non-human animal lives in. So this mediaum of AI is capable of letting us envision a feral and wild self, or going back to the evolutionary egg..Certainly the usage of AI or any other medium is worth looking at and considering at least the ‘why’.
Well put, Erika. Thanks for reading and for this thoughtful response.
I don’t share the fascination with the conversation about AI’s intersection with photography... yet. Perhaps some day I will but for the moment I find it all a bit boring, for a couple of reasons: one, nothing I’ve seen that was AI generated looks interesting. It either looks “outrageous” (like the image of three beings in a car that you shared), which is a style that I don’t find visually appealing, or if it’s more “realistic” it lacks soul (which is an expression I like that I’ve heard several people use); and two, because I feel like we’ve been here a few times before and moved through those disruptions intact.
The one thing I DO find interesting is how the discussion has highlighted our continued social acceptance of photographs as being “truthful”. This is a hangover that has lingered from the earliest days of the medium, when it was no doubt seen as a slayer of bias in the existing media of the time. Of course, we should all know by now that photographs represent what their photographers present to us, no differently than etchings & paintings of old, or of course words. “What is truth?” is probably the biggest social question of the past decade and this current obsession with the influence of AI is just the latest chapter.
While the AI rabbit hole doesn’t personally interest me, I appreciate that it greatly interests you. I always find it valuable to keep an eye on the obsessions of those I respect and for that reason I have absolutely no intention of unfollowing you! I’ll just be here waiting for you to come back to your senses. 😆
✌️
Thanks so much, Bruce — I appreciate you sticking with me despite our differences of fascination. I'm guessing you've seen Amber Terranova's piece by now. If you haven't and if you still have the stamina for more AI reading, you might appreciate her perspective: https://www.blind-magazine.com/stories/how-ai-imagery-is-shaking-photojournalism/
Thanks, Andy. Yes, I had read Amber Terranova’s piece, but I took the opportunity to re-read it and to look at the images again, more carefully. On closer inspection most actually DO look like (very realistic) illustrations, but not photos. Nonetheless, the technology will get to the point, if it hasn’t already, where in the right hands it can be indistinguishable from a photo. I think the crux of the matter then becomes the ethics of usage, which hopefully we can reach some form of consensus on. But we must be prepared for a world with superior quality fakes. No one knows how we will navigate that yet, but we’ll get there. ✌️
I believe that every new invention comes with inherent problems of purpose. We just need to identify that and resolve how it fits into our tool box or not. Enjoy your approach of an open mind and the newsletter!!!!!!
Totally agree on the toolbox metaphor. Thanks for reading, Frederic!
I think it’s awesome to be curious and learn about AI. Whether any of us likes it or not, it’s here. Why not try to make the best of it? Same with NFTs. Hopefully experimenting and learning puts artists in a better position to shape the future of these technologies for the better.
That's how I feel — There's room for everything. Cheers, Tim!
While I’m certain that AI has a future of some kind, I won’t be pursuing it. I think many of the AI images are interesting and worthy of display, and the technical problems with it will probably be worked out eventually, but it simply doesn’t satisfy any of the reasons why I went into the arts and why I make pictures. To that end, I don’t resent AI, and I don’t care if you or everyone else loves it. I’m a real person who uses art to express myself in the real world. I believe the real world deserves to be looked at by real people, no matter how great our machines become. And I choose to do my own work and collaborate with like-minded artists.
As it should be. And this is why I don't fear that AI will destroy photography. Many of us love practicing photography and will never stop doing it. Thanks for reading, Jeff!
Loving these AI/photography posts!
Thanks for reading, Rachel!
AI is great for creating surrealist dreamscapes and nightmares. When looked at for what it is, a complicated machine that has been taught to match complex words with images and return reasonable approximations, it is truly incredible. But its about as similar to a dog as a pet rock. We bring meaning to it, or in the terms of “studium & punctum”, engineers have built something that can copy studium, but once again viewers bring the punctum themselves. You see depth because you are looking for depth and you want to find it. Thats not a bad thing… but as a tool its more like a dazzling kaleidoscope than a camera.
Perhaps you'd write an essay about this, Shane? You obviously know the scene well and understand the formal and aesthetic differences between these forms. I'd love to read that!
You've revealed something here. AI is inspiring artists in a way that the 24 hours news cycle can't and never will.