You are assuming the artist receives the proceeds, rather than the hospital to use for cancer research or treatment.
Unless I missed it, the songs are not being giving by the affected soldiers and the musicians to Songwriting with Soldiers to sell at auction.
An AI "muse" or ghost writer?? I was watching an excellent Bob Dylan documentary last nite. I doubt he would have won the Nobel Prize in poetry if a bunch of algorithms told him how to composer. Isn't that the epitome of "more of the same", and the antithesis or real creativity? But it appears the Soylent Green era has finally arrived, and even the ability to think for oneself is optional.
I expect that the Cancer patients get a lot of enjoyment from participating in a creative process. That is reason enough.
Likewise, many artists take inspiration and reap profits from their subjects and never give a second thought about returning something to therm. I am thinking in particular of those who document the homeless, the addicted and otherwise less fortunate. Not to mention the now-hackneyed Irish Wanderers and Gypsies. When the photographer is from the affected group at least is seems a bit less like exploitation.Where the artist gets the inspiration for a piece is always a topic of interest. Sometimes it’s from an incident in their own life, the lives of others, or an idea arriving out of nowhere, or one lifted from another artist. Now we just add AI to that mix.
Edward Weston wrote that he wanted to produce photographs the "takes one beyond the world we know in the conscious mind" "to make the commonplace unusual." Edward Weston took what ended up taking Pepper 30 all around the house looking for the right light. He ended up putting it in an enamel bowl that engulfed the pepper in soft light. Does that count as manipulation?Edward Weston and Walker Evans, who sought to create images that were honest and unadorned.
Not enough in my opinion. It is said to read that an independent organization is getting the proceeds from the paintings. Many such organizations are scams and don't deserve to be able to operate, much less collect funds using unfortunate circumstances as their lure.
Likewise, many artists take inspiration and reap profits from their subjects and never give a second thought about returning something to therm. I am thinking in particular of those who document the homeless, the addicted and otherwise less fortunate. Not to mention the now-hackneyed Irish Wanderers and Gypsies. When the photographer is from the affected group at least is seems a bit less like exploitation.
Certainly, transparency would help that a lot.And many are worthy, and quite selfless.
So perhaps one should evaluate each on their merits.
We are too.I am sorry I let myself get sucked it to this.
We are too.
None of this has any relation to photography. I am sorry I let myself get sucked it to the discussion.
Where the artist gets the inspiration for a piece is always a topic of interest. Sometimes it’s from an incident in their own life, the lives of others, or an idea arriving out of nowhere, or one lifted from another artist. Now we just add AI to that mix.
BTW, here’s what the chatbot says about the title of this thread:
No, straight photography is not dead. Although there are many contemporary artists and photographers who experiment with various techniques and approaches to image-making, there are still many photographers who value the beauty and simplicity of straight photography.
Straight photography refers to a style of photography that is characterized by the photographer's attempt to depict the subject matter in a straightforward and unmanipulated way. This style is often associated with the work of photographers from the mid-20th century, such as Edward Weston and Walker Evans, who sought to create images that were honest and unadorned.
While there are certainly many photographers today who utilize digital manipulation techniques to alter and enhance their images, there are also many who continue to work in a more traditional, straight photography style. Additionally, there is a growing appreciation for the beauty and authenticity of straight photography, particularly in the context of the current cultural and political climate, where truth and honesty are often called into question.
Ultimately, the popularity of straight photography may ebb and flow over time, but the style will likely continue to have a place in the world of photography for the foreseeable future.
If that had been the first reply in this thread, how many of the 512 other posts would have been avoided?
When we start paying attention to what chatbot has to say, we are all in trouble. We could turn this into a joke, or think it through and see where things are going. AI is no longer a sci-fi joke and some posts here show why.
Well, that Chatbot response isn’t saying anything new, but it is summarising it in a very tidy fashion. So I contend that it is worth paying attention to, and that it could have saved a lot of beating around the bush (in which I admit to having been a participant).
It would be interesting to do a reverse search and find out what it’s sources were.
Guys, forgive me for breaking in on what's in principle a good debate, but perhaps it's best to concentrate AI-specific discussion in the parallel thread on that topic. Many thanks
I understand and agree.@Hassasin I am aware of the context and the differences between both threads. I posted my request in full knowledge of those and in the light of the direction this thread has taken in over the last handful of posts, making them overlap considerably. My polite request is just to avoid too much of such overlap (and in itself, the request was not an opening for a meta-debate on moderating actions).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?