• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

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

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
204,296
Messages
2,866,831
Members
102,215
Latest member
andreberg
Recent bookmarks
0

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
4,061
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
This was posted today on the official Ansel Adams instagram account:

>>>

The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust was established by Ansel Adams to steward his artistic and environmental legacies, consistent with his own ethos and intentions. The Trust did not authorize, endorse, consent to, or acquiesce in the “AI-generated color version” of “Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico” exhibited and offered for sale by Danziger Gallery at The Photography Show presented by AIPAD in April.

This was a substantial editioned offering at a major international sales event. It exploited Ansel’s name, reputation, and his most iconic image, while failing to identify any human artist responsible for its creation.

The Trust was not consulted or notified before the work appeared. Once alerted, we reached out to James Danziger in real time, notifying him of the Trust’s rights, and asking for the work to be removed.

Correspondence shared with the Trust shows that, despite our formal notice, Mr. Danziger subsequently leveraged Ansel’s name, “Moonrise,” and the AIPAD presentation while pursuing a proposed commercial AI colorization venture involving other artists’ estates.

Ansel was an innovator who expanded the expressive and technical possibilities of his medium. He was remarkably prescient about—and excited by—the potential of computers to transform photography. The Trust’s concerns are not about AI or creative experimentation in the abstract.

This is fundamentally about artists’ rights and moral rights—and respect for human dignity.

No one should trade on another person’s name, reputation, and labor for private commercial ends without consent and candor. The unauthorized exploitation of Ansel’s actively stewarded legacy reflects a gross failure of ethical and professional judgment.

Few figures fought harder than Ansel to secure photography’s place as fine art, or contributed more to the cultural conditions that gave rise to today’s photography market. That this episode occurred at AIPAD is especially egregious and disheartening.

The Trust is committed to defending Ansel’s legacy as necessary and will continue to address this matter through the appropriate channels. We are grateful to all who have expressed concern, support, and solidarity.

<<<

Hard to believe that a member of AIPAD had the gall to do this.

The image is still up on the Danziger Gallery web site:

 
I suspect many humans could do a better job.

Kind of ruins the image. Turns it into an iphone grab shot.
 
While what Danziger is doing is probably legal, it is definitely stupid. I wonder how Tod papa george feels about having his prints hang near this piece?
 
While what Danziger is doing is probably legal...

...meaning it might also be illegal. 🙂

Not to mention that, as far as legality is concerned in such matters, there is often an important nuance made between doing it and selling it.

That's going to be one heck of a lawsuit to follow.

...it is definitely stupid.

Couldn't agree more. Stupid and unoriginal. Reminds me of the film colorization fad of the late 80s. The Danzinger folks are as moronic as the imbeciles back then who thought that it would be an interesting idea to have a color version of Citizen Kane... 🙄.

As moronic and greedy, of course. We all know this is just about making money.
 
It's a fun experiment; very interesting. While I find the colors as such quite pretty, it's interesting how the entire composition appears to fall apart here. It makes me wonder whether it would be possible to colorize this image in such a way that color balance, saturation and contrast remain in pace with the original composition, and how that would work.

At a different level, this also raises questions about what's part of an 'image' and what isn't. An image like this has so many connotations attached to it due to its history of publication (not just the image itself, but meta-information as well) that it's virtually impossible to look at it with fresh eyes.
 
Why is it legal? I see a lot of this on YouTube blogs which are creating blogs using AI that copy the likeness and voices of famous people coincidentally doing their own YoiTube blog ( or dead) as if it;s the real thing. I;m often confused which video is the real blog.
 
...meaning it might also be illegal. 🙂

Not to mention that, as far as legality is concerned in such matters, there is often an important nuance made between doing it and selling it.

That's going to be one heck of a lawsuit to follow.



Couldn't agree more. Stupid and unoriginal. Reminds me of the film colorization fad of the late 80s. The Danzinger folks are as moronic as the imbeciles back then who thought that it would be an interesting idea to have a color version of Citizen Kane... 🙄.

As moronic and greedy, of course. We all know this is just about making money.

We’re on the same page. And I’m just going to leave the auto-correct butchering of Papageorge’s name up there as penance for my lazy proof reading.
 
It's not an unpleasing image in itself, the colors are in keeping with the location (not for November, perhaps), but as it is entirely derivative it is an abomination in any context (and all art is to be appreciated only for context and not content in this post-post-modern world) I'm surprised anyone would seriously display this (other than as "look what my IA can do).
Perhaps legal to display, it should not meet the requirement of "editorial use" or the other uses for sale.
 
Makes me want to vomit. Turns a silk purse into a sow's ear, something historically significant into just another 50-cent postcard. I can put up with spoofs, such as "Moonrise over Rolls Royce," but this is just plain trash abuse of the original. Shame on anyone displaying it; a really low class act.
 
I've seen a colorized version of Niepce's "View from the Window at Le Gras," which I thought was rather funny. But this is no joke. Was there a price on it??
 
It appears the plan worked; a lot of folks are talking about him. :wink:
 
I hope Bozo the Clown sues them for impostorhood. Foolish stunts should be left to the pros.
 
Isn’t that considered derivative art? I guess tgat art form only valid if one doesn’t offend Ansel. If the colors were a bit more muted I’d really like it since it looks more like what I saw there with my own eyes.

Now Ted Turner… there’s a Gen-u-whine colorization criminal. Rest his soul.
 


“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

Francis Bacon
 
It's not an unpleasing image in itself, the colors are in keeping with the location (not for November, perhaps), but as it is entirely derivative it is an abomination in any context (and all art is to be appreciated only for context and not content in this post-post-modern world) I'm surprised anyone would seriously display this (other than as "look what my IA can do).
Perhaps legal to display, it should not meet the requirement of "editorial use" or the other uses for sale.

I think the color is all wrong. I might be wrong, but the moon is in the east over the Sangre de Christo Mts. and the setting sun is in the west -- behind the camera, barely illuminating the buildings. First of all, that makes it a MOON SET, not a moon rise, and those clouds would not be in sunset colors - since they are way too far in the east. They should be graying white.
 
I actually once took a very similarly lit shot in the Southwest, also involving lenticular clouds lower down. The sun has to be quite low, with the sky already darkening. Those clouds were brilliant white. Note that the sun in this case is setting from the other direction, not behind the clouds, making their color unrealistic. And of course, this fake is based upon the version of Moonrise involving an intensified neg progressively darkening the sky toward the top, not how the original scene looked.

Where are things going? - ghost writers for novels, pirated music, now a famous photo parasitized by AI to create nothing special, and being sold as a digitally produced print and trying to be sold at a high price; why?? Where is the AA Trust in all of this? I'd think their lawyer would be sending a stern letter by now.
 
That was my first though -- it looks like a sun set, but the sun is setting on the opposite side of the sky.

Completely unrealistic.
 
I was employed at the National Gallery of Canada in the Multimedia Department for more than 21 years, and I can still remember my sense of awe when I first saw one of the original prints of that image.

Colour AI generated image of one of Adams’ finest images? Give me a break willya!!
 
Yeah, thanks for reminding me, Brian. The question would be if they sold and of those or not. That would seem to be the tipping point for calling on the dogs to Sic em. I hope they do get bitten, to send a message.
 
Galleries don’t create art. Who is listed as the artist?

A.I. GENERATED

From the prompt: Make a realistic color version of Ansel Adams’ iconic “Moonrise Over Hernandez”.

Proofed, regenerated, & photoshopped from 11/25 – 4/26.

Printed by master printer Esteban Mauchi

Editions of 10 in 3 sizes - 20 x 24” , 24 x 30”, 30 x 40”
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom