AI in Photography - Yay or Nay?
This blog post is inspired by a panel artist talk I attended during the Month of Photography in March in Denver.
The wind is blowing harder than ever outside. Broomfield has gotten so overcast in the past 30 minutes that our house is filled with darkness, and here I am thinking: this is the perfect time to write a blog post. So, let’s dive right in.
The panel talk I attended revolved around the work of three artists who “reimagined” history by generating images with the help of AI. If you’re interested in the work of Todd Dobbs, Laura Rutjoki, and Phillip Toledano, I recommend checking out their exhibition at CPAC.
As you can imagine, many attendees at this panel were curious to hear what the artists had to say about their work, and especially their reasons for using AI.
I went in with an open mind, though I’d be lying if I said I was completely on board with using AI to create images for a photographic arts center. Regardless, my curiosity led me to listen to the entire talk.
Here are 3 statements by the artists that I found particularly thought-provoking.
1. “Complaining about AI is like shouting at a scene.”
No matter what anyone personally thinks about AI, I believe everyone should be allowed to feel however they want about it. If they want to shout, scream, or complain, then that’s totally justified. People have the right to feel frustrated about the use of AI in photography and are free to decline to work with companies or photographers who use it. If you’re reading this and think there’s nothing you can do to change the direction of things, let me tell you: you absolutely can, even if it’s just for yourself.
2. “Only a photographer will be able to use AI to create a good, compelling image.”
One artist stated that “only a photographer will be able to use AI to create a good, compelling image,” and I respectfully disagree. You could just as easily prompt an AI by typing something like, “Impersonate a photographer who tells compelling stories through photographs and write a prompt to create an image that sparks interest and conversation.” If we hold on to the idea mentioned by another artist that “the tool doesn’t matter, only the outcome does” then it would be fair to argue that AI alone could generate the entire process without any photographer needed!
3. “Using AI to create images we would never otherwise see.”
One example given by an artist genuinely struck me positively: “Imagine someone escapes from North Korea and describes what they saw to a photographer. The photographer then inputs a prompt into AI to generate an image of something the rest of the world would never see. It now becomes possible to evoke emotions through that image.” This is a fair point. It made me consider AI more positively, as it could truly have a significant impact by visualizing experiences we've never imagined. However, questions arise: If AI requires training data, how would it work in this scenario? Is there enough information about North Korea available? Would AI actually produce something accurate and meaningful? We won’t truly know until it happens.
On the other hand, you could argue that some things should remain unseen and that maybe we're not meant to see everything. I can understand both sides!
So, AI - yay or nay?
As I mentioned at the beginning, to each their own. I won’t tell anyone how to feel about this. Whether we should remain open to the rapidly changing technology of AI or not is something you must decide for yourself, and something only the future will reveal.
Personally, my feelings toward AI actually worsened after the panel talk; I went in with an open mind but left feeling even more concerned. I went ahead and tried out AI to generate an image of a couple eloping. Within a few seconds I got stunning results and was shocked about how easy it is to deceive. As for me, I will stay away from it. Let me know in the comments what you personally think!