by Editor Peter Davidson
Edited and published by Yvette Depaepe, the 2^nd of February 2023 

'Stay Frosty' by Robert Work

I mentioned in a previous article that the great photographer Salgado predicted that in his view, in around ten years perhaps, there will not be photography, simply the image. I thought at the time that he was a little too conservative, it might be sooner than that, but now I think that moment has already arrived. It's here.

So the question is, when an AI generated image, blended from real photographs originated by others, and the end result is indistinguishable from a real photograph, is the result still photography?  

I would argue it is not. Rather it's an image presented as photography, but is not photography. Instead the creator did not use a camera, preferring to  appropriate other photographic works to create a new image via a software program. 

Currently, there is a huge debate on the ethical concerns of using AI in creating original work, be it visual or written. But it must be remembered, this is nothing new.
That'll be $89,950 please, thank you!
That's how much people were paying for Richard Prince's art in 2014.
Well, if you consider it actually art. His art, I mean.
You see, he takes images from other people on Instagram, adds a few 'comment' words, then prints them up big and sells the result.

Intrigued, I went along to see his gallery show in London. Four pages of BS hand-outs written by the artist didn't really convince me to his cause. Although his chosen images are strong, you can't escape the fact that they aren't his. But I guess it's true his artistic vision has arguably brought these images to public view, when otherwise they would be lost. A grey disturbing area indeed. If you like this kind of art, save yourself $89,950 and print one of your own choosing from your own screen print of other peoples art, like from Richard Prince's own web site. Now wouldn't that be ironic...

Re-photography and appropriation can raise serious ethical questions related to issues of originality, authorship, and ownership.

When rephotographing a scene, the photographer may be accused of taking credit for someone else's work. In some cases, the original photograph may be under copyright, and rephotographing it without permission may be considered copyright infringement. Additionally, re-photography can raise questions about the relationship between the original photograph and the rephotograph, and whether the re-photographer has added any new meaning or context to the scene.

Appropriation raises similar ethical concerns, particularly around issues of authorship and ownership. When an artist appropriates an existing work, they may be seen as taking credit for someone else's ideas or creations. Additionally, the act of appropriation can be seen as exploitative, particularly when it comes to using the work of marginalized or underrepresented groups without their permission or compensation.

In both cases, it is important for the photographer or artist to consider the ethical implications of their work and to seek permission or provide proper credit when appropriating or rephotographing someone else's work.

Take for instance the case of Emily Ratajokowski. In 2014, Richard Prince appropriated one of her images from her IG account without her permission, and then included it in one of his shows in New York. Seven years later, Emily photographed herself standing in front on the painting, and created a NFT from it. The NFT sold for $175,000. "I hope to symbolically set a precedent for women and ownership online, one that allows for women to have ongoing authority over their image and to receive rightful compensation for its usage and distribution," Ratajkowski wrote.

Can the AI tide be stopped? No, I think not, unless the courts decide otherwise, the genie is out of the bag. That means photo sharing sites need to decide to either embrace 'the image' or remain a niche subdivision of the photographic art. In much the same way as retro analogue music or film devotees remain true to their chosen specializations. Getty images has already taken steps to ban AI generated images from its site. I suspect others will follow.

Unfortunately, I suspect it will become impossible to know or verify if an image is a photograph or not, and hence the question will simply in time become irrelevant. Any image will just be accepted as an image, and nothing more. Nobody will care how that image was made. If photographers do not wish to have their photographs sampled by the AI, the only thing they can do to prevent that, is to never share their images on the internet. In that case, we will have come full circle, as the only way to see great new photography will be in the form of prints in galleries, just as we did before the internet. It's a brave new world indeed.

A section of this article was written by the AI. Can you tell which part? If I didn't know, I would not be able to... scary stuff.
Peter Davidson