3 ms·

OK, You Made an AI Image. What the Hell Am I Supposed to Be Looking At?

2 points by marban 3y ago

proc0 3y ago
> So when I see a photograph of the Dolomites taken by a photographer who actually climbed them, waited for the light to be what they wanted, and spent effort, time, pain, and money to get that shot, I know that it is a piece of art — or at very least art was attempted. This same opinion was probably had back when the camera was invented. Someone probably said, "when I see an oil painting of a man, I see hours of skills poured unto the canvas, trying to capture the subject's soul... what am I to make of a camera that just captures images with light?" I see generative AI as the next stage in this creative process. From paintings, to camera, to moving pictures, and now AI. It will probably spark a new art movement just like the many that came before, and it's going to be completely different. My guess is that we're about to see the most surreal and at the same time photorealistic art ever created. There is going to be some crazy stuff coming because now the level of effort required has been shattered and experimenting will be the norm. It's all art, and just like we still value a good oil painting, we will still value real photos and traditional film making.
bradley13 3y ago
The author is, among other things, a photographer. In this case, a photographer who is feeling threatened. What's in an image? It doesn't matter whether it was laboriously constructed by a person, snapped with a camera or generated by AI. The image is what it is: pretty, inspiring, terrifying, informative, or whatever else.
beardyw 3y ago
It is ironic that photographers should distain AI. Photography at first took over the role of simple representation once the preserve of painters. But they soon leaned to tweak and turn their pictures into something "better", though they created for themselves limits as to how far they could decently go. Expressionism was partly a release for painters to do what they wanted when photography took on their traditional role. Now photographers are facing a new expressionism and not liking it.
navjack27 3y ago
People that want to pass off AI generated images that have no human editing done to the actual composition of the image after generation as art... I have my opinions about that. But when I show people the stuff that I generate and don't touch up... https://photos.app.goo.gl/bLUeWsYVXxQL63G98 https://photos.app.goo.gl/bLUeWsYVXxQL63G98 this is the best thing AI generated images are for. Absolute nonsense. I hope it makes you feel, but what it makes you feel is entirely up to you.

2 points by marban 3y ago

> So when I see a photograph of the Dolomites taken by a photographer who actually climbed them, waited for the light to be what they wanted, and spent effort, time, pain, and money to get that shot, I know that it is a piece of art — or at very least art was attempted. This same opinion was probably had back when the camera was invented. Someone probably said, "when I see an oil painting of a man, I see hours of skills poured unto the canvas, trying to capture the subject's soul... what am I to make of a camera that just captures images with light?" I see generative AI as the next stage in this creative process. From paintings, to camera, to moving pictures, and now AI. It will probably spark a new art movement just like the many that came before, and it's going to be completely different. My guess is that we're about to see the most surreal and at the same time photorealistic art ever created. There is going to be some crazy stuff coming because now the level of effort required has been shattered and experimenting will be the norm. It's all art, and just like we still value a good oil painting, we will still value real photos and traditional film making.

bradley13 3y ago

The author is, among other things, a photographer. In this case, a photographer who is feeling threatened. What's in an image? It doesn't matter whether it was laboriously constructed by a person, snapped with a camera or generated by AI. The image is what it is: pretty, inspiring, terrifying, informative, or whatever else.

beardyw 3y ago

It is ironic that photographers should distain AI. Photography at first took over the role of simple representation once the preserve of painters. But they soon leaned to tweak and turn their pictures into something "better", though they created for themselves limits as to how far they could decently go. Expressionism was partly a release for painters to do what they wanted when photography took on their traditional role. Now photographers are facing a new expressionism and not liking it.

navjack27 3y ago

People that want to pass off AI generated images that have no human editing done to the actual composition of the image after generation as art... I have my opinions about that. But when I show people the stuff that I generate and don't touch up... https://photos.app.goo.gl/bLUeWsYVXxQL63G98 https://photos.app.goo.gl/bLUeWsYVXxQL63G98 this is the best thing AI generated images are for. Absolute nonsense. I hope it makes you feel, but what it makes you feel is entirely up to you.