I think it's interesting that despite both the artist himself and AI being very clear that his image is not photography, we still want to ask "Or is it." No. It's not. It's photographic certainly, but as he explicitly states, it's not photography. Even technically it's not photography. It doesn't capture light on a surface or sensor. It …
I think it's interesting that despite both the artist himself and AI being very clear that his image is not photography, we still want to ask "Or is it." No. It's not. It's photographic certainly, but as he explicitly states, it's not photography. Even technically it's not photography. It doesn't capture light on a surface or sensor. It analyzes data to create the proximity of it.
There is no subject being captured. No scenery. Only recreations based on data. While you can certainly train or limit the data set, there is no truly controlled composition. No ability to shoot the same subject from a different angle. Every shot is a new creation. Only a button to press until you get something that clicks. Oh wait....That last one sounds just like photography. ;) But it's still not photography.
The three images along side each other are a great illustration, literally and figuratively, as the women are not the same. There are subtle changes in hair, clothing, facial features...because you aren't capturing a real subject. Only a proximity based on the available data. Photography captures real subjects and memories and truth. AI will never be able to do that.
I think that while Boris may certainly be kickstarting the conversation on AI's entry into the photography space, it's been well on it's way in other mediums. There has often been a dismissiveness of the concerns, which unsurprisingly shifts when AI shows up on a new doorstep. I think as AI becomes more ubiquitous, we'll see a degree of backlash to it. I can see regulations created or unions getting involved. At the very least, I hope to see a rise in folks who want to keep it in it's own lane, have it be clearly identified and perhaps an increased value placed on tangible art. The real deal will become more precious, like a resurgence of vinyl over Spotify or MP3s.
I think it's interesting that despite both the artist himself and AI being very clear that his image is not photography, we still want to ask "Or is it." No. It's not. It's photographic certainly, but as he explicitly states, it's not photography. Even technically it's not photography. It doesn't capture light on a surface or sensor. It analyzes data to create the proximity of it.
There is no subject being captured. No scenery. Only recreations based on data. While you can certainly train or limit the data set, there is no truly controlled composition. No ability to shoot the same subject from a different angle. Every shot is a new creation. Only a button to press until you get something that clicks. Oh wait....That last one sounds just like photography. ;) But it's still not photography.
The three images along side each other are a great illustration, literally and figuratively, as the women are not the same. There are subtle changes in hair, clothing, facial features...because you aren't capturing a real subject. Only a proximity based on the available data. Photography captures real subjects and memories and truth. AI will never be able to do that.
I think that while Boris may certainly be kickstarting the conversation on AI's entry into the photography space, it's been well on it's way in other mediums. There has often been a dismissiveness of the concerns, which unsurprisingly shifts when AI shows up on a new doorstep. I think as AI becomes more ubiquitous, we'll see a degree of backlash to it. I can see regulations created or unions getting involved. At the very least, I hope to see a rise in folks who want to keep it in it's own lane, have it be clearly identified and perhaps an increased value placed on tangible art. The real deal will become more precious, like a resurgence of vinyl over Spotify or MP3s.