Over the past seven years, it has been my privilege to know eight different artists/teachers, three or four of them very well. Of those 8 artists, exactly 3 (maybe just 2) consider photography to be an art form. All of them are well aware of the capabilities offered by the many software products, including the capabilities to be "creative" with the final product. The other 5 (or 6) consider it to be a worthwhile craft, but not art. And that includes the one who is most expert in the whole area of "craft."

But we're all still friendly, and we've had lots of discussion about why they believe how they do. We're still working through it, but it seems to boil down to two things. The first is that photography is, by its nature, derivative. It always starts with something that is already there...the image that was mechanically captured on the sensor or the film. The second is that any "creativity" is accomplished not by the human editor, but by the editing machine (including the software). They consider the post processing not as creating but as remodeling or redecorating.

When asked, "what about the vision that led the photographer to choose that image to record or that editing process to follow," the answer was, "That's great. Do something with that vision. De-mechanize your routine. Quit making a machine do it for you."

It seems to me that this is quite relevant to our discussion. Maybe as photographers we should be working harder to be less derivative in our process, not justifying becoming even more derivative. Or maybe just be more honest about how it is fun to play with toys, especially very sophisticated toys. Artists appear to have already and very quickly and quite unambiguously made up their mind about the new AI tools. Several of the ones I know don't make that big a distinction between AI and photography from their artist's perspective.

I'm always surprised when people, especially artists, believe photography can't be art. The art world decided that question many years ago. The Museum of Modern Art in NY began collecting modern photography in 1930 and established the department in 1940. Most major art museums that show contemporary art exhibit photography. Major art galleries and auction houses sell photography as art. Most colleges and universities which have art departments teach photography there. I don't think it has anything to do with photography being derivative. Photographs which are extremely realistic can be art as well as those which are highly manipulated. The camera doesn't take photos all by itself. The photographer must choose a subject, find good lighting, make an effective composition, decide what to include or exclude in the composition, decide on the best settings and decide how to post process the photo to finish their vision for the photo.

I'm always surprised when people, especially artists, believe photography can't be art. The art world decided that question many years ago. The Museum of Modern Art in NY began collecting modern photography in 1930 and established the department in 1940. Most major art museums that show contemporary art exhibit photography. Major art galleries and auction houses sell photography as art. Most colleges and universities which have art departments teach photography there. I don't think it has anything to do with photography being derivative. Photographs which are extremely realistic can be art as well as those which are highly manipulated. The camera doesn't take photos all by itself. The photographer must choose a subject, find good lighting, make an effective composition, decide what to include or exclude in the composition, decide on the best settings and decide how to post process the photo to finish their vision for the photo.

Over the past seven years, it has been my privilege to know eight different artists/teachers, three or four of them very well. Of those 8 artists, exactly 3 (maybe just 2) consider photography to be an art form. All of them are well aware of the capabilities offered by the many software products, including the capabilities to be "creative" with the final product. The other 5 (or 6) consider it to be a worthwhile craft, but not art. And that includes the one who is most expert in the whole area of "craft."

But we're all still friendly, and we've had lots of discussion about why they believe how they do. We're still working through it, but it seems to boil down to two things. The first is that photography is, by its nature, derivative. It always starts with something that is already there...the image that was mechanically captured on the sensor or the film. The second is that any "creativity" is accomplished not by the human editor, but by the editing machine (including the software). They consider the post processing not as creating but as remodeling or redecorating.

When asked, "what about the vision that led the photographer to choose that image to record or that editing process to follow," the answer was, "That's great. Do something with that vision. De-mechanize your routine. Quit making a machine do it for you."

It seems to me that this is quite relevant to our discussion. Maybe as photographers we should be working harder to be less derivative in our process, not justifying becoming even more derivative. Or maybe just be more honest about how it is fun to play with toys, especially very sophisticated toys. Artists appear to have already and very quickly and quite unambiguously made up their mind about the new AI tools. Several of the ones I know don't make that big a distinction between AI and photography from their artist's perspective.

He's not talking about Lee Friedlander and Ernst Hass and Diane Arbus and the many other recognized greats in the field. He's talking about you and me and all of the other hobbyists out there who, while doing creditable work, are deluding themselves with notions of "artistic vision" and all of the other bunk that goes along with the salf-appointed status of "artist." Photography at our level is, at best, a craft that, given the advanced equipment and software that we use, not more challenging that crochet or pottery. Most of the self-important chatter on here is honestly laughable. More of us need to start checking our egos at the door.

He's not talking about Lee Friedlander and Ernst Hass and Diane Arbus and the many other recognized greats in the field. He's talking about you and me and all of the other hobbyists out there who, while doing creditable work, are deluding themselves with notions of "artistic vision" and all of the other bunk that goes along with the salf-appointed status of "artist." Photography at our level is, at best, a craft that, given the advanced equipment and software that we use, not more challenging that crochet or pottery. Most of the self-important chatter on here is honestly laughable. More of us need to start checking our egos at the door.