Photography AI as art

[VinceInMT]

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.

It even weirder. ABBA is touring again but not in person but as their “digital avatars.”

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I am sorry that this went over your head. You might want to reread what I posted and its point.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Elvis is still "virtually"performing in Vegas. Local museums are giving virtual exhibitions of all kind of art works, Egyptian tombs, etc. You won't find me buying tickets to any of that, nor to any venue showing Ai art. Isn't that what Hollywood has been doing better from a long time anyway? - and I can't stand even that. Fire the robot computer and find a real cameraman again.

 

[madsox]

I love this topic.

And I'm in the group that thinks AI is just another set of tools to use in creating things. Some of those results will be considered "art" and some won't - should artifically generated images be considered "Photography"? I tend to say no, but it's not a hard and fast definition, the lines are blurry and constantly changing.

People who have artistic ability (I don't consider myself one) will be able to make art using AI. Eventually, the computers will be able to do it themselves but they aren't at that point yet. Things need a human to direct and refine them, whether that's using verbal prompts or darkroom techniques or code. I'd say that's where the art comes in.

It's fun watching people get all excited about this, though.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Art" can mean anything, and therefore might mean nothing at all. But I would hope "photography" would at least have a more specific connotation. A robot being sent into a leaking nuke reactor room with a video camera, or by police into a suspected bomb location, well, that kinda makes sense. But otherwise ....

 

[Alex Benjamin]

It even weirder. ABBA is touring again but not in person but as their “digital avatars.”

There will also be a new AI Beatles song...

A new and final Beatles recording using artificial intelligence will be released later this year, Sir Paul McCartney has announced. The musician said he had used new technology to “extricate” John Lennon’s voice from an old demo and complete a decades-old song.

AI used to create new and final Beatles song, says Paul McCartney

Musician says he used technology to ‘extricate’ John Lennon’s voice from an old demo and complete a decades-old song

www.theguardian.com

Paul is supposed to have died in 1966, but it's John that gets the AI treatment.

Unless Paul has been an AI illusion all this time... Would explain "Venus and Mars", though...

 

[warden]

Interesting thoughts on Fordism and some old ideas from Walter Benjamin here

Fordism Comes to the Gallery—and AI Comes for the Artists

Though hyped in the media as the latest thing, the images generated by AI art are actually old, trapping the viewer in a time loop of kitsch.

www.thenation.com

 

[Sirius Glass]

Elvis is still "virtually"performing in Vegas. Local museums are giving virtual exhibitions of all kind of art works, Egyptian tombs, etc. You won't find me buying tickets to any of that, nor to any venue showing Ai art. Isn't that what Hollywood has been doing better from a long time anyway? - and I can't stand even that. Fire the robot computer and find a real cameraman again.

Those are not the original Elvis producing new music. Jimmi Hendrix is that only one that has reach out from the grave to produce new music, not fake or AI music.

 

[cliveh]

And I'm in the group that thinks AI is just another set of tools to use in creating things.

I don't think you get it. AI is not a tool, as it thinks for itself.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

some old ideas from Walter Benjamin here

My walter-ego.

 

[faberryman]

I don't think you get it. AI is not a tool, as it thinks for itself.

The AI programs are not yet sentient.

 

[warden]

My walter-ego.

Ha!

 

[MattKing]

View attachment 341896


I am sorry that this went over your head. You might want to reread what I posted and its point.

Nope - the point is the change in paradigm - to the extent it has changed (in the case of the music industry) or is changing (in the case of photography).
"Something's happening here, but ya don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones Glass"

 

[Maris]

That AI can generate electronic files displayable as a pattern of marks on a monitor screen has nothing to do with photography. AI could do all this on a planet where there is no light.
But there is an opportunity for art and associated fame for an accomplished artist. The art will be the act of curation, selection, and arrangement of the AI generated markings.
As in present day abstract art the patterns of marks need not reference anything external or in the real world.
Rather the work will reference the internal psyche of the artist which could be very interesting. Or not.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh heck, Sirius. They've run in mountains of music by Prince which hasn't reached public ears yet. I sure don't want to hear it. What might be interesting to output on fresh vinyl are the impromptu jam sessions Hendrix did with Keith Richards down in a basement awaiting their respective calls to perform on stage. I forget who the drummer was. But it was remarkable and unique.

 

[madsox]

I don't think you get it. AI is not a tool, as it thinks for itself.

The AI programs are not yet sentient.

^This. What we’re calling “artificial intelligence” is not. It’s a Large Language Model that pieces together bits of data which, according to the parameters it has seem, to it, to be related. It’s a very fast, very slick search engine that can produce output formatted as text, images, sounds, etc.

AI is a tool. It also lies and makes things up and makes lots of errors. But it can be very useful, when it’s directed well. You can make some really nifty images with graphical AIs, and you can do a lot with your own images, faster and easier than ever. So that can be good or bad, but it’s still just another tool (set of tools I suppose is more accurate).

General purpose AI (“real” AI like in sci fi) is another thing entirely, and is some ways off yet. How far off, I don’t know. That’s another discussion entirely.

 

[madsox]

That AI can generate electronic files displayable as a pattern of marks on a monitor screen has nothing to do with photography. AI could do all this on a planet where there is no light.
But there is an opportunity for art and associated fame for an accomplished artist. The art will be the act of curation, selection, and arrangement of the AI generated markings.
As in present day abstract art the patterns of marks need not reference anything external or in the real world.
Rather the work will reference the internal psyche of the artist which could be very interesting. Or not.

Well said. Would add that the art will include (does include) guiding the AI in the creation of the images.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

it's art if the artist says it is and others like it; no matter how it was made!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

it's art if the artist says it is

Yes, it's that simple.

And a bit depressing that we're still having this "conversation"—although its "How many angels can stand on the head of a pin" aspect doesn't make it worthy of that term—a hundred years after Duchamp's ready-made, where in the "Is _____ art?" we've just replaced "a urinal" by "AI photography".

Most important issues related to the use of AI will deal with ethics, not aesthetics.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That AI can generate electronic files displayable as a pattern of marks on a monitor screen has nothing to do with photography. AI could do all this on a planet where there is no light.
But there is an opportunity for art and associated fame for an accomplished artist. The art will be the act of curation, selection, and arrangement of the AI generated markings.
As in present day abstract art the patterns of marks need not reference anything external or in the real world.
Rather the work will reference the internal psyche of the artist which could be very interesting. Or not.

I agree. But it's not photography.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

But it's not photography.

Most important issues related to the use of AI will deal with ethics, not aesthetics.

I should have added "economics."

I was at a two-day conference a couple weeks ago about radio and podcast, in which the main subject was AI. It went from AI tools to help you create your podcast (there are some really good ones) to a radio station, RadioGPT (won't give the link, but you can Google it), in which everything, from the music choices to the voices doing news, traffic, and, at times, commentary, are all AI generated. Some voices still sound a tad robotic, but others, especially those cloned from actual voices, are sounding more and more natural, and will totally sound so in a couple of years. Company who built this technology has already started to sell it to actual radio stations in the US.

So, main question associated will all this during the conference wasn't "Is it radio?". Main questions were "is it ethical?" (or when does it stop being ethical, which is more complicated) and "How many people will lose their job?".

So yeah, it will be photography because the main use of AI won't be in art—I suspect number of artists doing fully AI-generated photographic artworks and being successful at it will be minimal. It will be in fashion and advertisement—domains where the notion of ethics can already be at times a bit loose—, and the people losing their jobs will be photographers.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I should have added "economics."

I was at a two-day conference a couple weeks ago about radio and podcast, in which the main subject was AI. It went from AI tools to help you create your podcast (there are some really good ones) to a radio station, RadioGPT (won't give the link, but you can Google it), in which everything, from the music choices to the voices doing news, traffic, and, at times, commentary, are all AI generated. Some voices still sound a tad robotic, but others, especially those cloned from actual voices, are sounding more and more natural, and will totally sound so in a couple of years. Company who built this technology has already started to sell it to actual radio stations in the US.

So, main question associated will all this during the conference wasn't "Is it radio?". Main questions were "is it ethical?" (or when does it stop being ethical, which is more complicated) and "How many people will lose their job?".

So yeah, it will be photography because the main use of AI won't be in art—I suspect number of artists doing fully AI-generated photographic artworks and being successful at it will be minimal. It will be in fashion and advertisement—domains where the notion of ethics can already be at times a bit loose—, and the people losing their jobs will be photographers.

Pretty soon we'll have Employee At HomeGBT. You turn it on for the 10am conference with other employee at home workers. Then leave to go snorkeling while it fills in for you "talking" to other employee at home AI GBT's programs. When the meeting is over, the whole thing is summarized by another GPT and sent to the boss's GPT for review while he's out playing golf. Meanwhile everyone's bank accounts get automatic salary deposits which are forwarded to the snorkeling and golf club. I, Robot.

What a life!

 

[VinceInMT]

"Art" can mean anything, and therefore might mean nothing at all. But I would hope "photography" would at least have a more specific connotation. A robot being sent into a leaking nuke reactor room with a video camera, or by police into a suspected bomb location, well, that kinda makes sense. But otherwise ....

Or a robot that, guided by a doctor, performs surgery. I had that done and have no complaints.

As for what is “photography” and what is “art,” we can, and probably will, discuss that as long as this forum exists, particularly the “art” thing.

A few comments ago Alan Edward Klein proposed a definition of the former that included the use of a camera, a definition I found limiting. Now that I’ve thought about it more, I look at the very word “photography” and believe that it’s embedded right there in its derivation: drawing with light (or some kind of radiant energy like an X-ray). If AI is just producing images with algorithms from digital data, where was the light? I would suggest that AI images are more akin to drawing than to photography.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Imagine a gallery full of Thomas Kinkade paintings. If there was one AI generated painting on the walls I'd likely see it as refreshingly creative in comparison. It's a low bar and don't know if there's a photography equivalent, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

Gets us right back into the 'what is art' debate.