Something for Henk
Well said, Godfrey.
I well remember a heated argument I had with a fellow teacher along those
lines many years ago. He was adamant that photography could never be art.
One could even argue about the type of brush & paint used! And what if the
"artist" had to wear glasses?
Alan C
On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 6:52 AM Godfrey DiGiorgi godfreydigiorgi@me.com
wrote:
I dunno. Art remains art. An "AI" is just another constructed thing by
which humans have extended their abilities to influence and manipulate the
world we live in. We already use automatons to assemble our cars, our toys,
our cameras, and run a lot of our essential infrastructure. There's really
little difference between what is Art directly created by human hands and
Art that is indirectly created by the minds that humans embue their
machines with.
Until a definitive test of what constitutes machine intelligence exists,
and until machines can reliably and consistently pass that test, any Art is
the result of human artiface and mind regardless of whether it is directly
or indirectly created.
If you want to put a simple limitation on "what is art" to say that it
must be made by human hands, well, that is just fine … but most photographs
will then be marginally not-art since we already rely upon a whole range of
machines, of varying levels of "intelligence", to produce our photographs.
G
—
Godfrey DiGiorgi - godfreydigiorgi@me.com - 408.431.4601
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
--Mark Twain
On Jan 21, 2023, at 6:17 PM, Comcast pnstenquist@comcast.net wrote:
But it’s happening. AI is now writing as well. Might as well make the
best of it. However, I’m glad I’ve reached an age where I probably won’t
have to compete with a robot for my job.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2023, at 8:45 PM, ann sanfedele annsan@nyc.rr.com wrote:
I'm with you all th way on that , Ralf.
ann
On 1/21/2023 5:47 PM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote:
Am 21.01.23 um 22:55 schrieb Henk Terhell:
Thanks Ralph, very funny pictures. I guess this is clever photoshop
work,
perhaps even with the assistance of a new AI picture generator.
More of such fantasy work will be our future.
Really? The idea of living in a world where you have to keep wondering
if art is genuine or AI generated gives me the creeps.
Ralf
--
%(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-leave@pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
Well said, Godfrey.
I well remember a heated argument I had with a fellow teacher along
those lines many years ago. He was adamant that photography could never
be art. One could even argue about the type of brush & paint used! And
what if the "artist" had to wear glasses?
Alan C
Apologies if you received multiple versions of this reply. I have been
struggling to get it to go.
Ralf, for me the world of fungi is strange enough in itself. I have no
need for additional artistic modification other than getting sharp pictures
and a fair reproduction of colors. However I do appreciate such weird
fantasy even if it is generated with the help of AI.
To illustrate, here are two recent (non AI) pictures of peculiar fungi:
https://flic.kr/p/2oaDxzD
https://flic.kr/p/2obWN7d
Henk
Op za 21 jan. 2023 om 23:47 schreef Ralf R Radermacher fotoralf@gmx.de:
Am 21.01.23 um 22:55 schrieb Henk Terhell:
Thanks Ralph, very funny pictures. I guess this is clever photoshop work,
perhaps even with the assistance of a new AI picture generator.
More of such fantasy work will be our future.
Really? The idea of living in a world where you have to keep wondering
if art is genuine or AI generated gives me the creeps.
Ralf
I think there are equal chances of him putting his foot in it.
On 22/01/2023 03:09 Daniel J. Matyola danmatyola@gmail.com wrote:
It's too bad the artist didn't put his best foot forward.
Dan Matyola
https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 2:32 PM Ralf R Radermacher fotoralf@gmx.de wrote:
Just discovered this in THe Guardian:
Ralf
Well said, G
I well remember a heated argument with a fellow teacher along those
lines many years ago. He was adamant that photography could never be
art. One could even argue about the type of brush & paint used & whether
the artist wore glasses.
Alan C
I was only making a koke, based on the footwear in the collection.
Personally, I have very broad view of what constitutes art, although I do
not think my photography constitutes "art," except perhaps for one or two
accidental creations.
Dan Matyola
https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 11:52 PM Godfrey DiGiorgi godfreydigiorgi@me.com
wrote:
I dunno. Art remains art. An "AI" is just another constructed thing by
which humans have extended their abilities to influence and manipulate the
world we live in. We already use automatons to assemble our cars, our toys,
our cameras, and run a lot of our essential infrastructure. There's really
little difference between what is Art directly created by human hands and
Art that is indirectly created by the minds that humans embue their
machines with.
Until a definitive test of what constitutes machine intelligence exists,
and until machines can reliably and consistently pass that test, any Art is
the result of human artiface and mind regardless of whether it is directly
or indirectly created.
If you want to put a simple limitation on "what is art" to say that it
must be made by human hands, well, that is just fine … but most photographs
will then be marginally not-art since we already rely upon a whole range of
machines, of varying levels of "intelligence", to produce our photographs.
G
—
Godfrey DiGiorgi - godfreydigiorgi@me.com - 408.431.4601
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
--Mark Twain
One would have t5o bge an idiot to deny that the works of Cartier-Bresson
and Adams, just to name two obvious examples, are not true art.
Dan Matyola
https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery
On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 1:16 PM Alan C cole@lantic.net wrote:
Well said, Godfrey.
I well remember a heated argument I had with a fellow teacher along
those lines many years ago. He was adamant that photography could never
be art. One could even argue about the type of brush & paint used! And
what if the "artist" had to wear glasses?
Alan C
What an odd day!
I agree with Godfrey.
On January 21, 2023 6:56:38 PM PST, Godfrey DiGiorgi godfreydigiorgi@me.com wrote:
I dunno. Art remains art. An "AI" is just another constructed thing by which humans have extended their abilities to influence and manipulate the world we live in. We already use automatons to assemble our cars, our toys, our cameras, and run a lot of our essential infrastructure. There's really little difference between what is Art directly created by human hands and Art that is indirectly created by the minds that humans embue their machines with.
Until a definitive test of what constitutes machine intelligence exists, and until machines can reliably and consistently pass that test, any Art is the result of human artiface and mind regardless of whether it is directly or indirectly created.
If you want to put a simple limitation on "what is art" to say that it must be made by human hands, well, that is just fine … but most photographs will then be marginally not-art since we already rely upon a whole range of machines, of varying levels of "intelligence", to produce our photographs.
G
—
Godfrey DiGiorgi - godfreydigiorgi@me.com - 408.431.4601
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
--Mark Twain
On Jan 21, 2023, at 6:17 PM, Comcast pnstenquist@comcast.net wrote:
But it’s happening. AI is now writing as well. Might as well make the best of it. However, I’m glad I’ve reached an age where I probably won’t have to compete with a robot for my job.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2023, at 8:45 PM, ann sanfedele annsan@nyc.rr.com wrote:
I'm with you all th way on that , Ralf.
ann
On 1/21/2023 5:47 PM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote:
Am 21.01.23 um 22:55 schrieb Henk Terhell:
Thanks Ralph, very funny pictures. I guess this is clever photoshop work,
perhaps even with the assistance of a new AI picture generator.
More of such fantasy work will be our future.
Really? The idea of living in a world where you have to keep wondering
if art is genuine or AI generated gives me the creeps.
Ralf
--
%(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-leave@pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Perhaps when seen standalone as photographs, these two images are not "Art" but exquisite documentarian representations of fungi in nature …
But they could be embued with the notion of Art by incorporating them into a display of photographs which allegorizes a perception of them … in their sensual form and color … with relation to something else acknowledged as a human perception of their beauty in contrast or complement to other human experience.
Photography and photographs always live on this border between Documentation and Art, in my opinion. I often think about it as I look through my or others' photographic works with the terms "literal" or "abstract" describing their qualities. Literal photographs tend to be documentation—recordings—in that lexicon; abstract photographs tend to be more focused as Art in intent, more a search for caricature or archetype in a sense. But it's a subjective game, a matter of perception and the language, combined, that we use to describe what we're doing, what we've done.
In the end, what looks 'well done' to a particular set of eyes is well done, when it comes to a photograph. And these two photographs are, to my eye, very well done, Henk! :)
G
—
"No matter where you go, there you are."
On Jan 22, 2023, at 12:45 AM, Henk Terhell henk.terhell@gmail.com wrote:
Ralf, for me the world of fungi is strange enough in itself. I have no
need for additional artistic modification other than getting sharp pictures
and a fair reproduction of colors. However I do appreciate such weird
fantasy even if it is generated with the help of AI.
To illustrate, here are two recent (non AI) pictures of peculiar fungi:
https://flic.kr/p/2oaDxzD
https://flic.kr/p/2obWN7d
Henk
Op za 21 jan. 2023 om 23:47 schreef Ralf R Radermacher fotoralf@gmx.de:
Am 21.01.23 um 22:55 schrieb Henk Terhell:
Thanks Ralph, very funny pictures. I guess this is clever photoshop work,
perhaps even with the assistance of a new AI picture generator.
More of such fantasy work will be our future.
Really? The idea of living in a world where you have to keep wondering
if art is genuine or AI generated gives me the creeps.