Imagine if these images had been presented as paintings of the hyperrealism genre. The point, I think, is that technology offers tools for human expression. It's in the way that you use it.
Absolutely. In fact, I think we (photographers) are thinking about these "AI photographs" all wrong. They are essentially digital hyperrealistic paintings done by computers. They just happen to LOOK like photographs. But so do Chuck Close paintings.
Some of AIs durability will come from what the viewer is ready to accept as good enough. Much will then depend upon viewers becoming sharers preserving validation.
Do you mean "good enough" as in "AI is still not quite as good as photography?" Which I would certainly agree with. But I think projects like 90 Miles and others show that it is rapidly becoming indistinguishable from "real" photography and soon may literally be. If the only giveaway is context or a caption or metadata, I think we'd better get on ensuring we do that before the two become comingled. Which I read as part of Brown's agenda with this work.
What people have come to expect is good enough. That doesn't mean that all this stuff we worry about as shooters is important to the general public. As preservers of photographic identity we might appear finicky, perhaps beside the point, by image consumers.
AI can have an impact as does photography. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same thing or work the same way on our appreciation of them. AI stuff still looks graphic novel or Depression era mural to me; ideal. Yet folks are most comfortable with norms so maybe AI images fit in a mythic quality. Perhaps it is creating images of photographs the way we hope to see them. Rich but not noticed due to its ideal nature, absent certain details. "But that's OK because I got the message."
Imagine if these images had been presented as paintings of the hyperrealism genre. The point, I think, is that technology offers tools for human expression. It's in the way that you use it.
Absolutely. In fact, I think we (photographers) are thinking about these "AI photographs" all wrong. They are essentially digital hyperrealistic paintings done by computers. They just happen to LOOK like photographs. But so do Chuck Close paintings.
Some of AIs durability will come from what the viewer is ready to accept as good enough. Much will then depend upon viewers becoming sharers preserving validation.
Do you mean "good enough" as in "AI is still not quite as good as photography?" Which I would certainly agree with. But I think projects like 90 Miles and others show that it is rapidly becoming indistinguishable from "real" photography and soon may literally be. If the only giveaway is context or a caption or metadata, I think we'd better get on ensuring we do that before the two become comingled. Which I read as part of Brown's agenda with this work.
What people have come to expect is good enough. That doesn't mean that all this stuff we worry about as shooters is important to the general public. As preservers of photographic identity we might appear finicky, perhaps beside the point, by image consumers.
AI can have an impact as does photography. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same thing or work the same way on our appreciation of them. AI stuff still looks graphic novel or Depression era mural to me; ideal. Yet folks are most comfortable with norms so maybe AI images fit in a mythic quality. Perhaps it is creating images of photographs the way we hope to see them. Rich but not noticed due to its ideal nature, absent certain details. "But that's OK because I got the message."
The word for AI?
Tidy.