Will AI enhance or undermine creativity?
Adobe is going all in on artificial intelligence (AI) in its products, most notably for us, Lightroom and Photoshop. I’ll admit to watching, somewhat slack-jawed, as Lightroom’s AI Generative Fill seamlessly removes distracting elements from an image.
AI offers great promise in assisting with many mundane but no less important tasks, such as categorizing and keywording images using image or object recognition. Automated “first-pass” culling large sets of images from a completed job might be another helpful application of AI in photography. Wedding and event photographers may find this particularly helpful in selecting images with eye blinks, subject motion, or imperfect focus — presenting those images for final review and rejection.
However, I have serious concerns that AI will encourage laziness behind the camera -– why worry about composing to remove distractions when you can ask AI to do the work for you? I am also seriously concerned about the wholesale use of Generative AI in photographic projects to create or alter essential image elements, not the least of which are the ethical implications for responsible journalism vs. the spread of misinformation.
AI and the Creative Process
But beyond those serious issues, I think overusing or even using it at all transforms photography as we know it into something decidedly un-photographic. As with most other art forms, photography combines two skill sets: the vision of the artist and the physical skills to express that vision outwardly. Painters and sculptors possess or develop a level of hand-eye coordination that most of us can never hope to achieve, allowing them to express the artistic vision in their minds and imagination on canvas or in stone. Similarly, photography demands technical knowledge and proficiency in the physical skills needed to wield the tools — cameras, lenses and software — to express something about their subject beyond capturing a mere likeness.
Art and Abstract Thinking: What makes us human?
“Art” is a uniquely human creation. Certain animals indeed produce creations that some have suggested constitute “art” — the Bower bird creates elaborate arrangements of objects around its bower. The Pufferfish creates intricate circular patterns in the sand on the sea floor. But, it’s widely agreed that these displays are more about attracting a mate than personal expression. Human Art is not simply about perpetuating the species.
As far as we know, humans are the only animals capable of abstract thought. Abstract thinking involves absorbing information, making connections within the wider world, and understanding concepts not part of the physical world, such as freedom, loneliness, humour or symbolism. Abstract thinking is a necessary precursor to creating Art because visual art forms like photography devolve into mere record-keeping without the ability to recognize connections or symbolism. Today’s Generative AI tools can’t claim any actual ability for abstract thinking, trained as they are on limited (albeit very large) datasets. They can only create new content based on what they have been fed from existing data. They can, for example, add a tiger to an image because they “know” what a tiger looks like. Humans use abstract thought to consider things that are not tangible or immediately present. Abstract thought is how we solve new problems or create entirely new ideas.
Photography, compared to other forms of visual expression, is mainly observational. Photographers observe the world, find meaning, and convey it to their viewers. The challenge is finding and conveying meaning within what they observe. On the other hand, painters can create purely from their imagination and are not constrained by having to work with only what is physically in front of them. Photographers can only deal with what is in front of them. Unlike painters, photographers can’t easily remove elements that dilute or add elements that strengthen the message and the sense they are trying to convey. Introducing Generative AI to create, add, or remove elements from an image alters the photographer’s connection between vision and expression. Some argue that AI enhances creativity by overcoming technological hurdles between imagination and expression. However, Generative AI inevitably influences the expression of any idea or subject it is asked to create by inserting its “own” biases into the result arising from whatever data set it was trained on.
Because AI can only operate within the confines of its training data, it cannot create genuinely original concepts. So, I think it is rare that a digital artist creating original work using AI tools can claim full artistic ownership of a work created in this way. Consider how much artistry is involved in simply telling an AI image generator to:
“Create a dark, low-key chiaroscuro portrait of an older 16th-century Italian gentleman in the style of Caravaggio”,
to produce the lead image in this article. Could you say this is the application of creativity, or is it merely computational output?
Can Purely Photographic Techniques Compete with AI?
Even though photography is still largely observational, nothing in that idea precludes non-representational work (often referred to as “abstract”) since even these images are based on deep powers of observation and recognition. Nor does its observational foundation preclude the idea of composites created with multiple images. Here again, abstract, often surreal ideas come to life through observation, forming connections and recognizing symbolism. Ryszard Horowitz, Jerry Uelsman and John Paul Caponigro produce stunning, frequently surreal imagery using photographic composting techniques. The work of these artists differs from something generated in AI firstly because they create each element in an image using a traditional photographic process – film or digital. Secondly, but most importantly, each part of a composite is chosen using their human ability for abstract thought — for recognizing connections and symbolism through observation and then previsualizing how each element will fit into the final image.
A personal favourite, Horowitz’s images are sometimes compared to the work of Rene Magritte and Salvador Dali. He creates his images using purely photographic techniques. Working initially on film and later digitally, he creates astounding images suggesting imagined dreamscapes interlaced with symbolic imagery. A favourite of mine, his image, “Allegory” (reproduced below) is designed with up to a half-dozen or so photographs, all shot on film, later scanned and composited digitally.
Embrace the Tools, Don’t Lose the Vision
Generative AI offers exciting possibilities but comes with limitations and ethical challenges. As photographers, our connection to our subjects and the integrity of our creative process remains paramount. Let AI assist—but not define—our Art. Looking at and appreciating both the raw skill and the exceptional vision of an artist like Horowitz leaves Generative AI a distant “also ran,” in my opinion. So, for me, at least, I can’t get behind the idea of allowing an AI image generator to create all or any significant part of an image that will be called “photographic”.
It may legitimately be called something else, it may even be considered Art. Just don’t call it photography.
