Photography AI as art

[cliveh]

Digital photography and image manipulation is now a well accepted art form, but should photographic images produced by AI be considered in the same way? I don't think they should.

 

[snusmumriken]

There are no rules for art. If you like to see, or want to have it, that’s one definition. If lots of people feel the same way, that’s another. If art galleries think it’s important, that’s a third. Competitions have their own rules. And investors have other ideas about what is collectible.

I wonder which is more important: who did it and how, or what effect the image (or whatever) has on you the viewer? If it’s the latter, then AI art may do it just as well or conceivably better. But I think in the end AI products will become rather ‘samey’.

A final thought: lots of folk seem to be concerned that AI images will be passed off as artist-generated images. But the thing AI is best at is recognising patterns. So we should give the task of distinguishing AI art to … AI. Seriously.

 

[koraks]

should photographic images produced by AI be considered in the same way? I don't think they should.

They shouldn't automatically be considered art.
They shouldn't automatically excluded from being art.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Digital photography and image manipulation is now a well accepted art form, but should photographic images produced by AI be considered in the same way? I don't think they should.

They shouldn't automatically be considered art.
They shouldn't automatically excluded from being art.

In a word NO, they are not art! They are art wannabes and will never be art. Art is human made, not machine made.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In a word NO, they are not art! They are art wannabes and will never be art. Art is human made, not machine made.

While I agree with you point in principal, that its not photographic art, AI art is actually human art. The program was written by humans.

 

[Sirius Glass]

While I agree with you point in principal, that its not photographic art, AI art is actually human art. The program was written by humans.

And programming which can be artful is not art. I know I have been programming since October 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis days. Since the program is computer logic, it is not are and what it produces is not art.

 

[cliveh]

I think some people here do not understand AI. It is not the result of human programming, but devoid of human intelligence.

This is the position taken by The Royal Photographic Society:-

RPS position on AI

• AI image processing and manipulation has been part of camera and post-processing software for several years.
• The recent development of advanced generative AI tools, where entirely new images or image elements are built at a pixel level using non-photographic processes, moves image-creation from photography to illustration.
• The RPS believes images generated solely via AI are not photography as defined in its Royal Charter.
• The RPS considers AI-enabled algorithmic automation of basic imaging processing (including exposure optimisation in-camera, the cloning of a background, or removal of subject elements), as being under the control of the photographer and represents an on-going evolution of long-standing capabilities.
• The RPS does not endorse the way some AI tools have been trained with datasets of photography without the permission of the rights owner. As part of a vibrant creative community, the RPS will continue to support the artistic, commercial and moral rights of all photographers, artists and creators.
• Establishing exactly what is and isn’t the product of AI will become increasingly hard to discern and will require ongoing consideration, transparency and discussion when reviewing work for Distinction submissions, exhibitions and competitions.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think some people here do not understand AI. It is not the result of human programming, but devoid of human intelligence.

Correct, it uses heuristic method to simulate learning, the uses mechanisms such as rule based logic or inference machines to collect information, organize it, modify the existing rules and then march through the rules to produce a result. No intelligence is used hence the name "Artificial Intelligence". It is all mechanical, not thinking going on.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

A piano is a machine which removes the 'hand of the artist' from the instruments strings through a series of mechanisms which allow people to modulate sound waves. Photographic equipment and processes, both analog and digital, allow people to modulate light waves with intent as well.

Whether they achieve a level to be considered art is a matter of expression, control, and the biases/openness of the listener/viewer.

In other words...it depends.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A piano is a machine which removes the 'hand of the artist' from the instruments strings through a series of mechanisms which allow people to modulate sound waves. Photographic equipment and processes, both analog and digital, allow people to modulate light waves with intent as well.

Whether they achieve a level to be considered art is a matter of expression, control, and the biases/openness of the listener/viewer.

In other words...it depends.

Both examples are products of the human mind, not a computer. You need to come up with better examples and not "but what about ..."s.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think some people here do not understand AI. It is not the result of human programming, but devoid of human intelligence.

This is the position taken by The Royal Photographic Society:-

RPS position on AI

• AI image processing and manipulation has been part of camera and post-processing software for several years.
• The recent development of advanced generative AI tools, where entirely new images or image elements are built at a pixel level using non-photographic processes, moves image-creation from photography to illustration.
• The RPS believes images generated solely via AI are not photography as defined in its Royal Charter.
• The RPS considers AI-enabled algorithmic automation of basic imaging processing (including exposure optimisation in-camera, the cloning of a background, or removal of subject elements), as being under the control of the photographer and represents an on-going evolution of long-standing capabilities.
• The RPS does not endorse the way some AI tools have been trained with datasets of photography without the permission of the rights owner. As part of a vibrant creative community, the RPS will continue to support the artistic, commercial and moral rights of all photographers, artists and creators.
• Establishing exactly what is and isn’t the product of AI will become increasingly hard to discern and will require ongoing consideration, transparency and discussion when reviewing work for Distinction submissions, exhibitions and competitions.

Their position does not say that it's devoid of human intelligence. In fact, it says the opposite. See the fourth point.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Interesting video clip on the mechanics of a piano key...point being...machines can make art when controlled by an artists intent.

 

[cliveh]

Their position does not say that it's devoid of human intelligence. In fact, it says the opposite. See the fourth point.

Good point and I will ask them about this.

 

[cliveh]

Interesting video clip on the mechanics of a piano key...point being...machines can make art when controlled by an artists intent.

What has this got to do with the original question?

 

[awty]

People manipulate their environment and themselves in the pursuit of perfection and end up being like everyone else. Expressions of their shopping.
I prefer making things by hand and appreciate others who do the same. Flaws are part of the process, humans are flawed and should be accepted for it. It makes you unique.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Interesting video clip on the mechanics of a piano key...point being...machines can make art when controlled by an artists intent.

Most art has machine parts whether it's the oil painter's brush, the ballet dancer's slippers, the singer's recording device, or the photographer's camera. I believe art is defined by the veiwer. If it creates a spiritual or emotional response to the viewer or listener, it's art. With this definition, art could be created by anything including a computer program. The question is whether that's computer art or photographic art. I feel it's the former. To be photographic art, you need a camera that records an image of an instant in time.

 

[MattKing]

"The RPS believes images generated solely via AI are not photography as defined in its Royal Charter."

That's the long and short of it as far as I'm concerned. They ain't photographs, no matter what you want people to think they are. A photograph is defined as an image made by light acting upon a light-sensitive medium. In no way is light ever involved in the making of an AI image.

Now lets discuss the definition of "photograph" again. Or the definition of "Art". Those discussions have always gone so well before now .
AI generated images are a relatively new thing, and various parts of the world always struggle to deal with new things.
There is probably more to glean from a discussion about what might be gained from the technology, and what it might jeopardize.

 

[koraks]

They ain't photographs

But that was/is not the question. The question is if AI generated imagery can be art.

Besides, the vast majority of photography isn't art either. What gives?

One of the nice things about AI generated/assisted art is how it gets people all fired up, apparently. "L'origine du monde" all over. Interesting times.

 

[BrianShaw]

Interesting video clip on the mechanics of a piano key...point being...machines can make art when controlled by an artists intent.

… even a player piano, albeit with a bit less expression.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Now lets discuss the definition of "photograph" again. Or the definition of "Art". Those discussions have always gone so well before now .
AI generated images are a relatively new thing, and various parts of the world always struggle to deal with new things.
There is probably more to glean from a discussion about what might be gained from the technology, and what it might jeopardize.

What is to be gained is that it will make many activites more productive and less costly as less workers will be necessary. That will jeopardize those very same worker's jobs.

Sort of like the tractor did.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Establishing exactly what is and isn’t the product of AI will become increasingly hard to discern and will require ongoing consideration, transparency and discussion when reviewing work for Distinction submissions, exhibitions and competitions.

This is spot on.

Anybody using Lightroom today is, to some point, using AI. Adobe sent a newsletter this morning regarding their new AI features:

New in Creative Cloud.​

Create faster with new AI features in Illustrator, Premiere Pro, and Lightroom, powered by Adobe Sensei. Collaborate with your team with Share for Review in Photoshop and Illustrator. And make standout content quickly with Adobe Express.​

See full link here.

The question will be at which point an artistic creation using AI actually becomes a product of AI. It won't be an easy one to answer.

 

[Helge]

One interesting use of transformer networks would be in the use to remove grain from scanned film, so low contrast micro detail can be pulled up.

We know it can be done, because the human brain can look through grain (we can pretty clearly see what is grain and what is picture information), we just can’t abstract it out perfectly.

Algorithmic and rule based attempts to do this has always run into problems with manufactured detail and much less than perfect delta of the grain structure.

A well taught transformer network should be able to do as well as any human, likely better.
Providing a good high resolution scan of course.

What would that entail for film when you can suddenly boast super high resolution that is easy to use?

 

[Pieter12]

AI imagery requires input, either created by or initiated by humans. AI merges elements of existing imagery (that was created by humans for the most part) for the creations. Art can be nothing more than an idea, does not even have to exist, as conceptual art. John Cage's 27 minutes 10.554 seconds is another example.

 

[Helge]

AI imagery requires input, either created by or initiated by humans. AI merges elements of existing imagery (that was created by humans for the most part) for the creations. Art can be nothing more than an idea, does not even have to exist, as conceptual art. John Cage's 27 minutes 10.554 seconds is another example.

Isn’t there a limit to how far you can take “found object” art?
Marcel Duchamp took it to its logical conclusion I’d say. Didn’t stop other people.

Of course AI art and computer generated art is not a new thing at all. There is countless very interesting examples since at least the fifties.

Only this particular style is new, and its ability to get a little too close to home for some artists liking.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Now lets discuss the definition of "photograph" again. Or the definition of "Art". Those discussions have always gone so well before now .
AI generated images are a relatively new thing, and various parts of the world always struggle to deal with new things.
There is probably more to glean from a discussion about what might be gained from the technology, and what it might jeopardize.

AI images can struggle all they want. In fact I will not even pretend to care if they drown.