AI, or Artificial Intelligence has emerged as a hot topic in the creative world.   A variety of tools are now available that generate written and graphic works which appear to equal, if not exceed, the work of humans.  Like so many, I’m curious about these tools, and wonder where they’ll enable us to go.  As with any big new thing, some fear it’s coming, and others embrace it.  Who knows what the future holds, but AI is here and it’s not going away. 

Over the past few months, I’ve been asked about my thoughts on AI’s impact on photography, in particular, and visual arts in general.  These questions and my own curiosity have led me to research the topic, but I haven’t used the tools myself, and probably won’t any time soon.  In this post, I’ll share my thoughts on the three most commonly asked questions.  First, are works created by AI tools “art”; how will AI affect my art making; and will AI lead to the death of photography and other artistic work done by humans.  I think that AI will certainly have a, potentially significant, impact on photography and the visual arts, especially for commercial artists, but it will have little impact on my own creative path and will not lead to the death of photography or any other art form (at least in the short term). 

Are images generated by AI tools “art”?  Maybe!  If you follow the adage that art is in the eye of the beholder, then if someone deems such work to be art then it is art.  However, if you think that art comes from the head, heart and hand of a human artist, then perhaps not.  We are talking about a highly subjective topic, and everyone has an opinion.  There’s plenty of work out there that some consider art, but that I do not, and vice versa.  In truth, perhaps I don’t think it’s art because I just don’t like it or like how it was made, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not art to someone else.  Whether or not something is “art” is a matter of opinion, which renders the question unanswerable, and, to me, not worth spending a lot of time worrying about.

I have heard some say the AI generated images are not “art” because they are created by algorithms.  An algorithm is just a process for getting to a desired endpoint or output. All art is created by algorithms.  Artists create their work using algorithms that start with a vision or idea and end in finished artwork.  Painters have algorithms for starting with a blank canvas and a notion in their head and ending with a finished painting.  I’ve observed my wife, a print maker, use such an algorithm for creating her prints.  Most artists (at least the ones that I know) don’t use the term “algorithm”, but that’s what it is.  Perhaps images generated by algorithms programmed into AI tools, could then be considered “art”, because those algorithms came from humans too.

However, many say that art can only be created by the heads, hearts and hands of humans.  Thus, AI generated images cannot be considered art.  I tend to agree with this notion.  While making an AI generated image does start with a human launching the process, the rest of the process does not further involve that human’s head, heart or hand.  To me, making images with AI is more akin to playing a slot machine.  A player pushes a button (pulled a lever in my day), watches the wheels turn until a result is revealed.  The player has nothing to do with the process that led to that result.  Thus, they can’t claim that they made that outcome happen.  Likewise, someone can type words into the AI image generator, launch the tool, and an image will result.  But that image was not created by him or her, and, in my opinion should not be considered art, or at least not art that they “created”.     

An increasing number of artists use AI generated images as a starting point or an interim step in their creative process (algorithm).  This could be analogous to a photographer starting with a negative (or capture) and creating something else in the chemical or digital darkroom, or a painter using a photograph as the starting point for a painting, or any artist using reference images in their creative process.  This is common practice in art making.  I think the work created in such a process should be considered “art”, even if one of the steps included an AI generated image.

Now for question #2 – AI won’t change much, if anything, for me, and most of the artists that I know.  Making art is both a journey (the creative process) and an outcome (the artwork).  To paraphrase Jay Maisel, I value photographing (the journey) as much as the resulting photographs (the artwork), perhaps more so.  For me, the best art happens when both the journey and the outcome are satisfying.  Unfortunately, in photography, there are plenty of fulfilling journeys that result in disappointing outcomes.  But that is ok, because I enjoy the journey so much, and I make enough satisfying outcomes to keep me going.  Instructing AI to make an image produces an outcome, but there appears to be no personal journey.  I find that about as unsatisfactory as I do playing slot machines.  I will keep pursuing my creative journey as I do today, and, hopefully, sometimes make artful images.  Someday I may experiment with AI tools, but I’m still trying to master my current toolkit.

And finally question #3 – I do not think that AI tools will be the death of any art form, but they will have a big impact on photography and visual arts.  As described above, I think that those who pursue art for the sake of it will continue to do what they do.  Many such artists will give AI tools a try, and some will incorporate AI generators as a tool in their creative process and output, as discussed above.  And there will be some who may use AI generators because they think it’s good fun to see what the tool generates.  As artists work with the tools, master them and apply them to their creative processes, change will inevitably occur.  

AI tools will have a much bigger impact on those who create photographs and other visual work for commercial gain.  Many buyers of such work will find that they can get AI generated work that is good enough at a much lower cost and in a shorter time.  Just as there are many photographers happy to give away their work, there will be plenty of “AI artists” who will be just as eager to do the same.  Commercial artists may go the way of musicians that perform for hire.  Those musicians have largely been replaced by smart phones, playlists and a pair of good Bluetooth speakers.  As a wedding photographer, I observed this trend first hand.  When I first started, most weddings had live performers providing the music.  By the time I stopped, mp3 players had largely replaced the performers. 

I do think that AI tools will impact the evolution of photography and the visual arts.  Time will tell what that impact will be.  In the past, a number of significant developments have affected the course of art making.  During the Renaissance, the use of techniques like chiaroscuro, foreshortening and linear perspective revolutionized painting.  This trend continued with artists using the camera obscura to render scenes more precisely (see David Hockney’s book, Secret Knowledge).  In the later 1800s, painters evolved away from painting scenes realistically to creating works that were more romantic, expressive and impressionistic.  Many attribute this to the popularization of photography.  Clients could have pictures created much more quickly and cheaply by hiring a photographer, rather than a painter or illustrator.  Music was dramatically impacted by the introduction of technology that took music out of the performance hall and into listeners homes and hands (as cited above).  I think AI has the potential to have this level of impact on the evolution of art.  It will be interesting to see what happens as the tools develop and we figure out what to do with them.  Being a curious fellow, I’m looking forward to seeing what develops.

For an in-depth discussion on AI and Photography, I recommend that you list to episode 307 of Matt Payne's podcast, F-Stop, Collaborate and Listen.   https://www.podbean.com/ep/pb-zncf2-1389198