Danziger Gallery Exhibits "AI-generated color version" of Ansel Adams' "Moonrise, Hernadez, New Mexico" at AIPAD

[Alan Edward Klein]

You see, Alan, I don't think any of that is relevant. I don't disagree with it. It's just not something I find particularly useful when discussing this particular issue. As you could read from what I already wrote, I agree with @retina_restoration above and with what the Aipad said they were undertaking in the post by @warden. The colourized version that's been printed and shown and priced so high doesn't stand on its own as a distinct artwork - it's not distinct from Ansel Adams' original. I mostly would just think anyone who bought it got hoodwinked.

Collectors who have money and invest in art don't want to make their own color print. It has little value. The Danziger name on it will give it higher future value over a colorized version from an unknown photographer. I just checked, and here's Danziger's price schedule. He's only making so many copies, raising the future value of each. I don't know the actual sizes. A collector buying an $80K BW version from Danziger with an Adams signature may not think twice to purchase a small colorized version for $6K. Or maybe Danziger will throw it in for nothing as an inducement to buy the expensive BW version. Art is a business after all.

• Editions: The work was offered in three different sizes, with each size limited to an edition of 10.
• Pricing: Depending on the size tier, the prints were priced at $6,000, $8,000, and $10,000.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think a third party should be stationed directly in front of the colourized exhibit selling t-shirts with the colour photo on it for $5. That would make more of a statement.

When my wife and I left the Louvre after seeing the Mona Lisa, the original, she insisted we stop at the museum's store and buy a photo of it. It's now hanging on the wall in our house. (I think it's tacky, and I wanted to hang one of my photos, but there you go.) Not everyone can afford an original Adams. Shouldn't the not-so-rich get to enjoy an Adams at a reduced price 70 years after his death?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Curious. Has any photographer here who sells their BW work at, let's say, art fairs and online ever thought of colorizing their BW photos and offering to sell both BW and color versions of it? Or selling their original color photos converted to BW? How about a diptych including both versions? Danziger may have started a trend.

 

[Carnie Bob]

Curious. Has any photographer here who sells their BW work at, let's say, art fairs and online ever thought of colorizing their BW photos and offering to sell both BW and color versions of it? Or selling their original color photos converted to BW? How about a diptych including both versions? Danziger may have started a trend.

Yes its called Kitch.... I think it will catch on.

 

[Don_ih]

The Danziger name on it will give it higher future value over a colorized version from an unknown photographer.

So, AI counts as a "known photographer"? That's what colourized the photo - not a person.

How about they colourize an unknown photo by an unknown photographer and try to sell that for 6, 8, or 10 thousand dollars? What if that's what they'd done instead of choosing one of the most famous photos in history?

 

[BrianShaw]

He probably burnt through a bit of ink and paper in the few months he worked on the project. I also imagine that many of us might disagree, but that would be what the buyers are paying for with both eyes open.

He states that he used a Master Printer to produce the prints. That can't be inexpensive. We have alleged Master Printers on this forum. I wonder if they'd be willing to estimate the printing cost, including all of that pre-work that's often mentioned...

 

[retina_restoration]

Curious. Has any photographer here who sells their BW work at, let's say, art fairs and online ever thought of colorizing their BW photos and offering to sell both BW and color versions of it? Or selling their original color photos converted to BW? How about a diptych including both versions? Danziger may have started a trend.

Lets hope not.

 

[Don_ih]

He states that he used a Master Printer

Yes. Master Epson. It's not like someone etched a set of lithography stones.

Actually, we have a genuine master printmaker here who could produce exactly the prints being sold. We can ask @Carnie Bob if there's room for profit there.

 

[retina_restoration]

Art is a business after all.

• Editions: The work was offered in three different sizes, with each size limited to an edition of 10.
• Pricing: Depending on the size tier, the prints were priced at $6,000, $8,000, and $10,000.

I'm betting that people who bought this POS will find that a year or two from now, those prints will have nearly zero value. Money down the AI toilet.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes. Master Epson. It's not like someone etched a set of lithography stones.

Apparently you don't read or understand the ramblings of our resident Master Printers...

 

[Don_ih]

Apparently you don't read or understand the ramblings of our resident Master Printers

I take very seriously the capabilities of @Carnie Bob - so he's the one I'd ask.

 

[retina_restoration]

I wouldn't dare suggest that a print technician didn't apply considerable technical knowledge and skill to the process of making the color print in question. But what I do question (and have serious doubts about) is whether the whole colorizing process added value to the image (and print). Frankly, I don't think it did — I think the whole endeavor was simply an opportunistic money grab, but my opinion isn't significant.

 

[BrianShaw]

The notion of added-value is interesting yet may not totally be applicable. That was not the goal, as stated by the "creator/marketer". As long as we're speculating, let me speculate that if anyone actually bought one they'll subsequently market it as "the infamous image and print that sparked international discussion and outrage on numerous online photography forums" to get some value added benefit.

 

[Milpool]

Whenever you read “master printer” anywhere, you know what kind of nonsense you’re dealing with.

He states that he used a Master Printer to produce the prints. That can't be inexpensive. We have alleged Master Printers on this forum. I wonder if they'd be willing to estimate the printing cost, including all of that pre-work that's often mentioned...

 

[retina_restoration]

The notion of added-value is interesting yet may not totally be applicable. That was not the goal, as stated by the "creator/marketer". As long as we're speculating, let me speculate that if anyone actually bought one they'll subsequently market it as "the infamous image and print that sparked international discussion and outrage on numerous online photography forums" to get some value added benefit.

Ugh.

 

[Vaughn]

When my wife and I left the Louvre after seeing the Mona Lisa, the original, she insisted we stop at the museum's store and buy a photo of it. It's now hanging on the wall in our house. (I think it's tacky, and I wanted to hang one of my photos, but there you go.) Not everyone can afford an original Adams. Shouldn't the not-so-rich get to enjoy an Adams at a reduced price 70 years after his death?

Buy one of AA's calendars -- ya get a dozen cheap...

 

[warden]

A well-known photographer I know who is represented by Danziger just left because of the Ansel Adams appropriation and colorization. It hurt doubly, his photos had been appropriated by Richard Prince in the past.

Not surprising. It sucks to learn that while your gallery owner/agent isn't representing Richard Prince, they are trying to become him. Appropriating an established artist's work for your personal gain seems incompatible with representing artists, but that's just me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Master printers" in inkjet are dime a dozen. In terms of one's who have really mastered it, I can think of only two or three I personally know, and they all did better work in a color darkroom first. That's just marketing hype, just like the misleading classification of "archival pigment print" is, when an ordinary inkjet is in play.

In an extreme case, a week's worth of work might be involved. Months - for thaaat? - ridiculous. Maybe Ai was taking a nap most of the time. It certainly doesn't look like they spent much if any time actually studying New Mexico light, hoping to see similar conditions.
As a colorization, it's a stereotyped concoction.

I'm beginning to think of art projects which re-appropriate the effort of others in this manner as basically "chop shops", analogous to those involved in the theft and resale of auto parts.
"Moonlight facilitating a New Mexico catalytic converter heist".

 

[tcolgate]

It seems that at least one artist has parted ways with the gallery in question. Jim Krantz, who knows a thing or two about work being abused.

Representation — Jim Krantz

www.jimkrantz.com

 

[Craig]

2026-70=1956, so anything from artists who died in 1955 or earlier should be free of copyright, right?

I believe the exception is if the work was done for the Crown, and then copyright never expires. For example, if a cinematographer was hired by the NFB to make a film, the Crown will hold the copyright forever.

 

[MattKing]

I believe the exception is if the work was done for the Crown, and then copyright never expires. For example, if a cinematographer was hired by the NFB to make a film, the Crown will hold the copyright forever.

Perhaps because, notionally, the Crown doesn't "die".

 

[Arthurwg]

Can't this whole thing be viewed as a joke, satire, parody or something...humorous? That's how I feel about the colorized version of Niepce's "View from the Window at Le Gras."

 

[BrianShaw]

Can't this whole thing be viewed as a joke, satire, parody or something...humorous? That's how I feel about the colorized version of Niepce's "View from the Window at Le Gras."

IKR... even Serrano's controversial photo didn't seem to rile up this much ire, and resentment, and hatred.

 

[acrobatic_citron]

I believe the exception is if the work was done for the Crown, and then copyright never expires. For example, if a cinematographer was hired by the NFB to make a film, the Crown will hold the copyright forever.

This changed in the UK in 1988

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why would a joke be commercialized in a manner stepping toes on not only the sensitivity of others, but potentially affecting their entitled heir income too? It feels like commercial piracy because that is what it is. Why else would he have editioned it, and attempted to sell multiples? How can you edition something that is a mere artificial step away from someone else's original? It's hardly "transformative" - it's just a crass inkjet tweak - but I guess that nuance would have to be decided by a lawsuit. The ire of public sentiment, and of loss of representation of certain others of repute, is probably a stronger rebuke anyway.