Photography AI as art

[Algo después]

...here, several scientific illustrations made at a time when the photographic camera did not exist. Is this art? No. But neither can we fail to recognize the technical singularity with which they were made. So the question is not whether the A.I., drawing or the photograph is perse art but with what intention it was made.

Micrographia (1665), Robert Hooke.

Micrographia, or, Some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses ?with observations and inquiries thereupon /by R. Hooke ... : Hooke, Robert, : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

 

[Pieter12]

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

Very soon, you will not be able to tell if an image was generated by AI. Either people will accept the images at face value or become skeptical about all imagery unless they make it themselves or witness it being made.

 

[awty]

The market will dictate the value of Ai. If people prefer to watch Ai generated art of dead performers or artists instead of something new then it will succeed.

 

[Pieter12]

The market will dictate the value of Ai. If people prefer to watch Ai generated art of dead performers or artists instead of something new then it will succeed.

Already happening and people are fine watching dead performers captured on film right now and have been for a very long time.

The biggest issue with AI that I harp on all the time is the ability to create believable images of events or situations that never occurred with people who do exist. Like maybe you beheading your neighbor.

 

[awty]

There will be a HCB or a AA app soon, you can take a photo and the app will instantly make it look like one of the dead photographers took and you can claim it as your own cause you used a camera in the process.

 

[Pieter12]

There will be a HCB or a AA app soon, you can take a photo and the app will instantly make it look like one of the dead photographers took and you can claim it as your own cause you used a camera in the process.

You won't need a camera, and I believe you can create an AI image in the style of either of those photographers right now as there is so much of their work online.

 

[VinceInMT]

…To be photographic art, you need a camera that records an image of an instant in time.

Not necessarily. Photograms do not require a camera and time lapse photos capture more than an instant.

 

[notoriousLT]

Already happening and people are fine watching dead performers captured on film right now and have been for a very long time.

The biggest issue with AI that I harp on all the time is the ability to create believable images of events or situations that never occurred with people who do exist. Like maybe you beheading your neighbor.

All I can think of is how accurate this statement is for Paul Walker in the newer Fast and Furious movies lol

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

The question is when will AI make photography superfluous?

 

[koraks]

The question is when will AI make photography superfluous?

Never. There will always be people who prefer to use whatever photographic technique or technology for image-making purposes. Just like photography not having made painting superfluous. It's funny the same question keeps being asked over and over again, as if the answer is ever going to change.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Not necessarily. Photograms do not require a camera and time lapse photos capture more than an instant.

Most people associate photography with cameras. In any case a photogram is using photographic materials even if a camera is not being used. The idea is that the image comes from a real-life experience, not something created in a computer like AI. Even time lapse photos are shooting real life, just a series of captures.

 

[koraks]

The idea is that the image comes from a real-life experience, not something created in a computer like AI.

A computer is real, too. What happens inside a computer, is also real. How we related to out through our minds, is very real - or at least it does feel that way. It's no less real than any other human experience. What you're doing here is drawing an arbitrary line, while implying it's not arbitrary. It's one of those funny things that keeps happening in discussions like these, and then it splits the responders into one group who understands this, and another who feels the first bunch are just plain crazy/stupid

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Never. There will always be people who prefer to use whatever photographic technique or technology for image-making purposes. Just like photography not having made painting superfluous. It's funny the same question keeps being asked over and over again, as if the answer is ever going to change.

Interestingly, it may be the average non photographer who will use cameras traditionally. They'll only be interested in recording real life shots of friends and family and themselves. They're not interested in AI or Photoshop. The question is how many people will be left who will bother with higher level photography with independent camera kits? Will AI spoil their enthusiasm to go out to shoot real stuff and compete with AI's eventual superior results?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

A computer is real, too. What happens inside a computer, is also real. How we related to out through our minds, is very real - or at least it does feel that way. It's no less real than any other human experience. What you're doing here is drawing an arbitrary line, while implying it's not arbitrary. It's one of those funny things that keeps happening in discussions like these, and then it splits the responders into one group who understands this, and another who feels the first bunch are just plain crazy/stupid

AI may be real in the same way that a painting of oil on canvas is real. But neither is recording real life as it happened. Both come from someone's mind.

 

[koraks]

Interestingly, it may be the average non photographer who will use cameras traditionally.

To an extent, but there's no doubt in my mind that there will just as well be artists who continue to use photography. After all, we still have artist painters today. And amateur enthusiast painters. And yes, also kindergarten children who paint!

Will AI spoil their enthusiasm to go out to shoot real stuff and compete with AI's eventual superior results?

Partly yes, but partly, no. As you know, merely the act of going out, observing, being immersed in an environment and then picking something to photograph is (or can be) a very pleasant experience. Some people will prefer their comfy chair and box of Pringles close at hand, but not everybody.

AI may be real in the same way that a painting of oil on canvas is real. But neither is recording real life as it happened. Both come from someone's mind.

Yes, to an extent, and in different ways - as everything is different if you observe it closely. But the fact that the human mind somehow interacts with the imaging technology is for me sufficient to realize that all of these technologies can and will be exploited (and sometimes, successfully) for artistic purposes. That's why I'm so adamant that I believe it doesn't make sense to exclude AI from the realm of art a priori. It just doesn't make sense. It's like standing on the beach at low tide, arguing that this time, there's not going to be a high tide anymore. That tends to work quite well until your shoes get really wet.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

To an extent, but there's no doubt in my mind that there will just as well be artists who continue to use photography. After all, we still have artist painters today. And amateur enthusiast painters. And yes, also kindergarten children who paint!



Partly yes, but partly, no. As you know, merely the act of going out, observing, being immersed in an environment and then picking something to photograph is (or can be) a very pleasant experience. Some people will prefer their comfy chair and box of Pringles close at hand, but not everybody.



Yes, to an extent, and in different ways - as everything is different if you observe it closely. But the fact that the human mind somehow interacts with the imaging technology is for me sufficient to realize that all of these technologies can and will be exploited (and sometimes, successfully) for artistic purposes. That's why I'm so adamant that I believe it doesn't make sense to exclude AI from the realm of art a priori. It just doesn't make sense. It's like standing on the beach at low tide, arguing that this time, there's not going to be a high tide anymore. That tends to work quite well until your shoes get really wet.

I think we agree. I'm not saying that AI will eliminate regular photography totally. It's going to have a major but not fatal impact on it as digital has had on film photography.

 

[koraks]

Yes, I think it'll be something like that, indeed. Although personally I'm more optimistic about how well photography will stand the test of AI. I think there's going to be the experienced need/desire to photograph in particular social settings. AI is a poor substitute for this, especially if the consumers of the imagery are part of the social settings that were documented (photographed) or simulated (AI).

 

[Pieter12]

Yes, I think it'll be something like that, indeed. Although personally I'm more optimistic about how well photography will stand the test of AI. I think there's going to be the experienced need/desire to photograph in particular social settings. AI is a poor substitute for this, especially if the consumers of the imagery are part of the social settings that were documented (photographed) or simulated (AI).

I had a relative who did not like to take a camera along while traveling. I don't think she even owned one or cared to use one. She would buy postcards of the places the visited and put them in an album and was quite content that way--the photos were better than she would ever take anyway. Today, people use AI to eliminate unwanted background objects or other people from their photos and find them more pleasing and how they would like to remember and share the experience. So, straight-out-of the camera, personal photos are not necessarily what everyone wants.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Very soon, you will not be able to tell if an image was generated by AI. Either people will accept the images at face value or become skeptical about all imagery unless they make it themselves or witness it being made.

I am already in the latter group.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Already happening and people are fine watching dead performers captured on film right now and have been for a very long time.

The biggest issue with AI that I harp on all the time is the ability to create believable images of events or situations that never occurred with people who do exist. Like maybe you beheading your neighbor.

So far the only dead musician who continues to release new albums is Jimmi Hendrix, bless him. When was the last time Janis Joplin released a new album? Elvis Presley? The Big Bopper? Nothing from the rest of them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I had a relative who did not like to take a camera along while traveling. I don't think she even owned one or cared to use one. She would buy postcards of the places the visited and put them in an album and was quite content that way--the photos were better than she would ever take anyway. Today, people use AI to eliminate unwanted background objects or other people from their photos and find them more pleasing and how they would like to remember and share the experience. So, straight-out-of the camera, personal photos are not necessarily what everyone wants.

Soon AI will be able to remove certain unwanted people from your life. We can hope.

 

[MattKing]

So far the only dead musician who continues to release new albums is Jimmi Hendrix, bless him. When was the last time Janis Joplin released a new album? Elvis Presley? The Big Bopper? Nothing from the rest of them.

The mainstream music industry is no longer releasing recordings to make money. They are releasing recordings as loss leaders, to help promote live performances, which is where most of the money is now. It is an almost entirely reversed paradigm.

 

[VinceInMT]

Most people associate photography with cameras. In any case a photogram is using photographic materials even if a camera is not being used. The idea is that the image comes from a real-life experience, not something created in a computer like AI. Even time lapse photos are shooting real life, just a series of captures.

When I think of time lapse, I am not thinking of a series of photos but a single photo where the shutter is left open for a period of time, such as shots that show the stars moving across the sky.

And not all photographic art is based on “real-life experience,” as some artists are working with photography in abstract ways, such as collage that is non-representational.

 

[VinceInMT]

The question is when will AI make photography superfluous?

Photography? No

Photographers? Maybe

Timeline? It’s already here.

I am not aware of many examples of technology that was stopped because people felt threatened by it, outside the neutron bomb.

 

[MattKing]

Speaking generally, just about every one of these discussions are about how new things should be shoehorned into old paradigms.
George Eastman’s first box camera probably inspired similar disagreements!