Photography AI as art

[MattKing]

Perhaps Art is as much a constituent part as it is a yes or no thing. At some point, the amount of artistry imbued in anything - including craft - changes how we appreciate something, causing us to identify it as Art, instead of just merely artistics.
As AI is a tool, the question then becomes whether the AI is applied in a manner that results in Art.
The fact that the product resembles more traditional photographic output raises other interesting issues.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

AI is no more art than Lightroom is. Both are tools. Neither is photography.

 

[Pieter12]

AI is no more art than Lightroom is. Both are tools. Neither is photography.

I believe the posts are referring to the images produced by AI, rather than the use of it.

 

[cliveh]

If you give an infinite amount of monkeys a paintbrush. In an infinite amount of time they will produce Monet's, Picasso's etc. This theory probably equates to AI producing art.

 

[Pieter12]

If you give an infinite amount of monkeys a paintbrush. In an infinite amount of time they will produce Monet's, Picasso's etc. This theory probably equates to AI producing art.

AI does not produce images randomly as the monkeys you use as an example. AI samples and learns how to assemble new images from existing ones based on the input prompts. The art issue is one of opinion. David Hockney has a show using AI and his painting, is that art? He also "paints" using an iPad, is that art as well?

 

[cliveh]

AI does not produce images randomly as the monkeys you use as an example. AI samples and learns how to assemble new images from existing ones based on the input prompts. The art issue is one of opinion. David Hockney has a show using AI and his painting, is that art? He also "paints" using an iPad, is that art as well?

Correct, but AI may internally sample billions of images before producing it's own version of art. Hence my analogy.

 

[Pieter12]

Correct, but AI may internally sample billions of images before producing it's own version of art. Hence my analogy.

But the monkeys sample nothing. A better analogy might be an art student who studies thousands of paintings in order to learn.

 

[warden]

But the monkeys sample nothing.

My monkeys sample. They don't mess around.

 

[VinceInMT]

…He also "paints" using an iPad, is that art as well?

I’m a member of our local Urban Sketchers. This is an international group that has meet ups and draw what they directly see to record their impressions of their urban landscape. Like most others, I sketch in pencil or pen and then add watercolor. These groups are great because it’s non-judgmental and very supportive.

However, just to be different a few weeks ago I showed up with my iPad, my Apple Pencil, and the ProCreate app and did my sketch with that. It raised a few eyebrows and we had a short discussion about whether that was in keeping with the Urban Sketcher manifesto. I think it does but others think maybe not. (Reminds me of the analog vs digital issues here.) I’d did not use any tools in the app except the pencil and the watercolor brush. It’s possible to take a photo with the iPad and trace it in ProCreate but even I think that’s cheating. ;-)

 

[faberryman]

I looked at the Urban Sketchers website and didn't find a manifesto, or really anything else which could be construed as rules. If, as you say, the members are supportive and non-judgmental, it would seem you are good to go with the iPad. Unless there is a Star Chamber or something.

 

[chuckroast]

I’m a member of our local Urban Sketchers. This is an international group that has meet ups and draw what they directly see to record their impressions of their urban landscape. Like most others, I sketch in pencil or pen and then add watercolor. These groups are great because it’s non-judgmental and very supportive.

However, just to be different a few weeks ago I showed up with my iPad, my Apple Pencil, and the ProCreate app and did my sketch with that. It raised a few eyebrows and we had a short discussion about whether that was in keeping with the Urban Sketcher manifesto. I think it does but others think maybe not. (Reminds me of the analog vs digital issues here.) I’d did not use any tools in the app except the pencil and the watercolor brush. It’s possible to take a photo with the iPad and trace it in ProCreate but even I think that’s cheating. ;-)

The point is that YOU were doing the work, perhaps with help from machine tools, but it was your creative vision. THAT is what makes something art - the intentional, human act.

 

[VinceInMT]

Once again, your definition. I have seen "art" painted by elephants and insects.

Here’s an artist who “collaborates” with insects:

https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2023/06/ava-roth-bee-works/

 

[MattKing]

As well as an Artist who makes photographic Art out of dead bees - involving wet plate if I recall correctly.
She was featured at one of the North West Alternative Photography Symposia a few years ago. I'm trying to remember her name. Denise Ross was also there.

 

[VinceInMT]

I looked at the Urban Sketchers website and didn't find a manifesto, or really anything else which could be deemed rules. If, as you say, the members are supportive and non-judgmental, it would seem you are good to go with the iPad. Unless there is a Star Chamber or something.

it's under "Our Vision"

Urban Sketching - Who We Are | Urban Sketchers

Urban Sketchers, or USk, is a nonprofit organization supporting and representing a grassroots community of urban sketching artists.

urbansketchers.org

 

[VinceInMT]

The point is that YOU were doing the work, perhaps with help from machine tools, but it was your creative vision. THAT is what makes something art - the intentional, human act.

Yes, and whether I use a camera (film or digital), a crayon, pencil, or iPad doesn’t change any of that.

 

[snusmumriken]

it's under "Our Vision"

Urban Sketching - Who We Are | Urban Sketchers

Urban Sketchers, or USk, is a nonprofit organization supporting and representing a grassroots community of urban sketching artists.

urbansketchers.org

“5. We use any kind of media …”

So an iPad should be acceptable. But even if it wasn’t, this would seem a bit like ‘fly-fishing only’ rules. Some people like activities to be challenging, and consequently feel that other ways are cheating.

AI-generated art is surely a big step further on, where skilled human input is drastically reduced?

 

[Pieter12]

Yes, and whether I use a camera (film or digital), a crayon, pencil, or iPad doesn’t change any of that.

That is what AI does. It is your creative vision that is input for AI to create images.

 

[snusmumriken]

Attempts to define art that start at the creator’s end rather than the viewer’s always seem a muddle to me. If you paint a still-life of flowers, that will be considered to be art. Photographing the same was at one time scorned as ‘not art’; but as time has gone on and it has become apparent that good photography isn’t that easy, it has been accepted into the art fold. If you make exquisitely detailed flowers in China clay, that would probably be considered craft. And if you invented and built a machine that could churn out really convincing fake flowers of types that have never existed naturally, that would be considered industry. The creative human input in the latter is probably far and away greater than in the other cases.

There are other aspects to my example besides the medium and how easy it is - eg originality and uniqueness. But it seems to me that those are judged from the viewer’s perspective. For instance, the machine-made fantasy flowers might appeal enormously at first encounter, but once you had seen them in every living-room the appeal would have worn thin.

 

[koraks]

Yes, it's a muddle for sure. IN your first example, it's art because of the medium chosen. In the second, it's art because of the difficulty involved. In the third, it's not art, although the medium (china/ceramics) has been accepted in the art world for centuries and the degree of difficulty is high. The fourth is also somewhat puzzling given the artists working on the interface of high-tech industry and 'classic' arts today.

Apparently line must be drawn somewhere between art and not-art. It just happens to be a very wiggly line no matter how it's drawn.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Attempts to define art that start at the creator’s end rather than the viewer’s always seem a muddle to me. If you paint a still-life of flowers, that will be considered to be art. Photographing the same was at one time scorned as ‘not art’; but as time has gone on and it has become apparent that good photography isn’t that easy, it has been accepted into the art fold. If you make exquisitely detailed flowers in China clay, that would probably be considered craft. And if you invented and built a machine that could churn out really convincing fake flowers of types that have never existed naturally, that would be considered industry. The creative human input in the latter is probably far and away greater than in the other cases.

There are other aspects to my example besides the medium and how easy it is - eg originality and uniqueness. But it seems to me that those are judged from the viewer’s perspective. For instance, the machine-made fantasy flowers might appeal enormously at first encounter, but once you had seen them in every living-room the appeal would have worn thin.

If you define art as something that stirs the emotions and spirit of the viewer, then art is art only from the perspective of the viewer. It doesn't matter whether the creator thinks it's art or for that matter whether the creator was human or not.

In any case AI is a tool created and controlled by man and his software. So the result is humanly created.

Finally, even if AI is a tool that can create art, it doesn't make it photography unless the resultant image was captured a moment in real time with some form of camera or photon catching device. An image created by a computer is not photography.

 

[koraks]

An image created by a computer is not photography.

But you just argued it's man-made.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

But you just argued it's man-made.

I don't understand your post.

 

[koraks]

I'm pointing out your argument is consistent. When it comes to determining whether AI-generated imagery can be art, your argument relies on it ultimately being human-made. When it comes to AI not being photography, the argument somehow involves a step of reasoning (of unclear function in your argument) that AI-imagery is computer-made. So which is it?

I'm not saying this to be pedantic, but to illustrate that any attempt to simplify this matter into something clear-cut will break down in inconsistencies. It's quite personal. For me, that's perfectly OK.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm pointing out your argument is consistent. When it comes to determining whether AI-generated imagery can be art, your argument relies on it ultimately being human-made. When it comes to AI not being photography, the argument somehow involves a step of reasoning (of unclear function in your argument) that AI-imagery is computer-made. So which is it?

I'm not saying this to be pedantic, but to illustrate that any attempt to simplify this matter into something clear-cut will break down in inconsistencies. It's quite personal. For me, that's perfectly OK.

You misread me. I said art does not have to be human made. It's up to the viewer to consider it art.

Ai is not photography. It's a tool used like Lightroom to create images. If there is no camera originally to make the image, it's not photography.

 

[koraks]

You misread me. I said art does not have to be human made.

Alright, but that's inconsequential, because the inconsistency is still there:

In any case AI is a tool created and controlled by man and his software. So the result is humanly created.

An image created by a computer is not photography.

With the latter, you apparently referred to AI as well.

So it's created by a human. And it's created by a computer. At the same time. That makes it rather ambivalent, and difficult to marry with the staunch positivist views that were put forth before (not by you).

Note that I'm nog arguing whether AI is or isn't photography. If you feel it isn't, fine. If you feel it is, fine. Art - the same thing.

It's a tool used like Lightroom to create images.

That's not the most fortunate comparison, I think. Maybe if you compare it to Illustrator; that would probably be a better match. Even still, there'll be very significant differences that spoil the broth.