This is jumping into very new waters for me and something I have just experimented with. This is 50% my image and 50% AI. Not officially all my photo, I know but another way to express creativity. What are your opinions?
Very effective, Maddy! Far more realistic than anything I’ve achieved myself. I’d be interested to know more, just to understand what AI is currently capable of producing. I suppose you could say that it’s creative, but, as with a lot of the app outputs we’re mucking around with… is it photography? Personally, no matter how well the end image is received by others, I’m left feeling slightly dissatisfied. Having said that, I’m enjoying the opportunity to experiment with different ideas and approaches to making images.
@jlmather Well of course I wouldn't for a moment put this into any photographic competition or nature competition! It is just another way of being creative! My son explained how to do it, and at first the ideas for the image is just from your descriptions. I found the image too 'graphic' for my liking but then he said you can merge your own photographs, thus the image above. I have been following a Photographer/artist/lecturer who lives in the US and experiments with AI. My first attempts were a bit hopeless, but then my son suggested this different website. The artist I follow is https://roxanneoverton.com/
@marshwader Hi Maddy, I've no doubt that it's creative (particularly if you start merging the AI output with your own inputs), and we're all using automated "tools" to a greater or lesser degree. The question (up for discussion) is at what point do you say that this is creative, but not creative "photography", or the output of an automated filter, rather than under one's own creative control ... Although, of course, one always has the option to delete, or start again. An increasing number of photographers use AI tools such as PureRaw, without understanding what they are actually doing, or having much control over the output, yet that seems to be acceptable. The question (purely for friendly debate) is: where should one draw the line, or at what point does one personally become uncomfortable? I'm not making a judgement, merely saying that it's a question that bothers me about what I've been doing over the last few days. Having said that, it is quite interesting to explore the question via one's own work, and in the light of the comments received on this website! I'll take a look at the website you've referenced. I am intrigued.
@jlmather I totally agree with you. When I started following Roxanne Overton on Vero she replied to me saying the imagery I was commenting on was not at all of photographic material but her own thoughts brought into software to make an image. I must admit I was shocked, then curious. I then did a bit of exploring, but didn't create anything worth sharing let alone looking at. I stopped commenting on her images for weeks and now I am more selective. The question is of course, is it art? I don't think so as art is intentional mark making. It isn't just clicking buttons. That includes photography. This is randomly creating images from your text. The only choice is which one you like the best! I found it fascinating to explore this concept, but I don't see it replacing photography or art (as most people consider it to be). An analogy might be; are you a musician if you learn your musical instrument and can play pieces of music? If you are a classical musician you have to play things exactly as the composer intended. Subsequent genres such as jazz and pop (all popular) music allows for creative experimentation, but it is still music and they are still musicians, Putting a CD or vinyl on to play is not being a musician even though the sound is music. Playing around spinning discs (apparently called 'turntablism'!) as DJ often do in clubs creating different sounds is music of sorts but are they musicians? I think not!
@marshwader Your phrase “just clicking buttons” needs to be explored, I think. It suggests that the button-clicking is undirected and random, but that wouldn’t necessarily be the case. The “artist” using the AI tool has to express his or her concept (or previsualisation) to the AI machine in such a way that it produces the desired result, just as a musician has to press the right “buttons” on the keyboard to produce the sounds that they imagine, or we photographers have to move the right sliders in Lightroom or press the right buttons in our apps to coax out the image we imagined when we first took a shot. After all, there’s a lot of automated “stuff” going on in our digital cameras and phones, over which we often fail to exercise control (especially if shooting “straight to jpeg”). There is an element of randomness in what the AI system comes up with, but you as the artist have the opportunity to shape and reshape your inputs to produce the desired result. In musical terms, it’s probably a bit like the Theramin, where you wave your arms around the device to produce sound: an experienced player can produce “music”, whereas most us would probably just produce random noises. With the AI image maker, as in your own example, you also have the opportunity to add to and modify the output. Rather than “mark making” (and whatever that might mean in improvised jazz, for example) surely it’s more of a question of “intent”? Plenty to chew on, and I foresee that it’s going to come up a lot more over the next months and years as the technology becomes more sophisticated and accessible.
January 9th, 2023
Leave a Comment
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
