I really enjoyed reading this! Even with film photography, there is an implied perspective or bias of the photographer; this is why it's always bothered me when people claim that film photography is "pure." I'd argue that most art-making isn't, as we all imprint our perspective on our work, whether digital or analog. Automation is also going to be informed by the maker's bias, which I think people forget sometimes (Amazon hiring scandal anyone?)
A side thought about photography and automation (in analog form) that came to mind is the photo booth. I've always loved the strange contrast between the controlled automation of the booth and the intimacy of the space it creates. Photo booths also gave the every day person a sense of autonomy if they couldn't afford to take "real" photographs. Many artists have used or manipulated this technology as inspiration, which makes me wonder how artists will use AI in the future, for better or worse. All stuff to mull over ...
Thanks; very cool topic re: photo booths! Thanks for the recommendation. Totally agree about there being an element of intent in all art-making; the question is where along the line and to what degree / and what is enabled by the technologies involved. The first photo booth was around 1975; the first karoke bar was around 1971. And throughout history creative activities have been democratized without necessarily devaluing older processes which still have their place. I agree that nothing is "pure"—if anything film offers a different kind of automation; you're ceding control over the way the image is developed to some extent. All that said, I think there's an important line to be drawn about what a "real" photograph is—I don't think a wedding client would be happy with DALL-E hallucinations!
For sure, that's a fair point! The concept of a "real" photograph is so subjective, and it's also difficult to decide who has the "authority" to draw the line between real and false. Your point about someone being unhappy with an AI generated wedding "photograph" is interesting. So, in this case, the client's definition of a real photograph might be literally any image that was taken during the actual event, regardless of whether it's film, digital, with flash, has any "enhancements" (touchups on someone's face, photoshop masking to get rid of anything random or distracting, etc. etc.) Regardless of the technology used, what would be important to them is that the image was made in the moment.
Something else that came to mind is how people can use archival or found material to tell their own story. Do you think this kind of project would still qualify as "real" even though the narrative has technically been created after the fact and the artist has put their own voice onto the images? It makes me wonder whether AI could have any role in this type of situation, for example if AI could analyze archival material to produce a movie or a new set of images based on the material and text/context provided by the artist. Could this be considered real? I think this is pretty dangerous territory to anything related to news, historical events etc. I mean, misinformation is already a thing, so maybe we're already there.
Anyway, lots of stuff to think about! We're in a very strange time of virtual vs physical, real vs fake, and everything in between.
I really enjoyed reading this! Even with film photography, there is an implied perspective or bias of the photographer; this is why it's always bothered me when people claim that film photography is "pure." I'd argue that most art-making isn't, as we all imprint our perspective on our work, whether digital or analog. Automation is also going to be informed by the maker's bias, which I think people forget sometimes (Amazon hiring scandal anyone?)
A side thought about photography and automation (in analog form) that came to mind is the photo booth. I've always loved the strange contrast between the controlled automation of the booth and the intimacy of the space it creates. Photo booths also gave the every day person a sense of autonomy if they couldn't afford to take "real" photographs. Many artists have used or manipulated this technology as inspiration, which makes me wonder how artists will use AI in the future, for better or worse. All stuff to mull over ...
If you're curious at all about photo booth history, I'd recommend Photo Booth: A Biography by Meags Fitzgerald: https://www.meagsfitzgerald.com/photoboothabiography
I knew them in Montreal, and they have so many interesting things to say about this topic!
Thanks; very cool topic re: photo booths! Thanks for the recommendation. Totally agree about there being an element of intent in all art-making; the question is where along the line and to what degree / and what is enabled by the technologies involved. The first photo booth was around 1975; the first karoke bar was around 1971. And throughout history creative activities have been democratized without necessarily devaluing older processes which still have their place. I agree that nothing is "pure"—if anything film offers a different kind of automation; you're ceding control over the way the image is developed to some extent. All that said, I think there's an important line to be drawn about what a "real" photograph is—I don't think a wedding client would be happy with DALL-E hallucinations!
For sure, that's a fair point! The concept of a "real" photograph is so subjective, and it's also difficult to decide who has the "authority" to draw the line between real and false. Your point about someone being unhappy with an AI generated wedding "photograph" is interesting. So, in this case, the client's definition of a real photograph might be literally any image that was taken during the actual event, regardless of whether it's film, digital, with flash, has any "enhancements" (touchups on someone's face, photoshop masking to get rid of anything random or distracting, etc. etc.) Regardless of the technology used, what would be important to them is that the image was made in the moment.
Something else that came to mind is how people can use archival or found material to tell their own story. Do you think this kind of project would still qualify as "real" even though the narrative has technically been created after the fact and the artist has put their own voice onto the images? It makes me wonder whether AI could have any role in this type of situation, for example if AI could analyze archival material to produce a movie or a new set of images based on the material and text/context provided by the artist. Could this be considered real? I think this is pretty dangerous territory to anything related to news, historical events etc. I mean, misinformation is already a thing, so maybe we're already there.
Anyway, lots of stuff to think about! We're in a very strange time of virtual vs physical, real vs fake, and everything in between.