I’ve been interested in the relationship between photography and AI generated images for a while. They have some superficial similarities, and I’ve been trying to pinpoint why the process of taking photographs doesn’t bother me nearly as much as that of prompt engineering. You point to something important by observing that in some ways the process of photography is the inverse of that of generating an image: taking a photograph requires being in a particular place at a particular time and the result is something hyperspecific; a person can generate an AI image from anywhere and its results are less intentional/more unpredictable/in some ways more vague because they’re pulled from a repository of past images. I think you’re right that algorithmic images are “poised to drain the image-world itself of much of the very meaning which has always moved human beings to create images in the first place” and hope you’re wrong about “without restoring to reality any of its original dignity or status.” I think there’s a real possibility that the image world becomes SO distant from meaning that reality (and/or more intentionally curated online spaces) becomes newly enticing as the PRIMARY space to seek meaning. Very thoughtful piece! Really enjoyed reading it and will definitely return to some of these ideas.
I think that’s a common experience: having no real issue with the existence of photographs, yet being quite put off by algorithmic images. It’s certainly my own default stance. I wanted to explore the way that, despite their obvious differences, one is nonetheless a continuation of the other: algorithmic images extend processes of technical image-creation first set into motion by the camera. It will be interesting to see whether or to what extent these images come to be seen as a kind of over-reach on the part of the image-world—a reminder, perhaps, of what it can’t reproduce—which turns us collectively back towards the given, material world.
In the 1940s Friedrich Georg Jünger, a radical critic of technology, wrote of photographs:
“We can no longer escape the suspicion that the rising tide of copied reality contains an element of self-deception. As they are reproduced in millions, the reality behind these pictures wears thin, turns vague and the old charm evaporates. The photographic techniques continue to function with undiminished excellence and mechanical dependability. But man changes. It is quite conceivable that we may grow tired of the mere copies of things which alone photography is able to supply.”
It didn’t turn out to be true that people came to reject the copied reality of photographs, but perhaps this new phase will elicit a different cultural response.
That Jünger quote is great: It's interesting that it was written about photographs, as today it seems more obviously relevant to AI (esp since, judging by the success of platforms like Instagram, we haven't tired of photographs!). But I guess that response says more about my own experience than it does about a particular technology: having grown up with photographs everywhere, until recently I haven't deeply considered how they reflect reality or create a reality of their own, but since AI-generated images are new on the scene, I'm primed to consider these things as it relates to this technology and the technologies that came before it.
I guess it is very possible that most people don't return to reality but become more deeply embedded in digital experience. Still, in my view this shift makes it all the more urgent to touch grass. To a degree, I can stomach the idea that the online landscape is manipulated in all sorts of ways as long as I also know that the individual work I'm viewing or reading is created by a person in an iterative, intentional way. Not knowing even that anymore, I'm genuinely less drawn to social media.
Yes, I think that urge to move in the opposite direction from an increasingly algorithmic and less human digital environment will strengthen—is strengthening—among a growing number of people. As is often the case with technological change, there aren’t many clear thresholds here—few red lines need to be crossed in order for us, before long, to find ourselves somewhere quite different from where we began. There’s certainly a counter-movement underway though—and Substack, I think (I hope!), is central to whatever is taking shape.
I’ve been interested in the relationship between photography and AI generated images for a while. They have some superficial similarities, and I’ve been trying to pinpoint why the process of taking photographs doesn’t bother me nearly as much as that of prompt engineering. You point to something important by observing that in some ways the process of photography is the inverse of that of generating an image: taking a photograph requires being in a particular place at a particular time and the result is something hyperspecific; a person can generate an AI image from anywhere and its results are less intentional/more unpredictable/in some ways more vague because they’re pulled from a repository of past images. I think you’re right that algorithmic images are “poised to drain the image-world itself of much of the very meaning which has always moved human beings to create images in the first place” and hope you’re wrong about “without restoring to reality any of its original dignity or status.” I think there’s a real possibility that the image world becomes SO distant from meaning that reality (and/or more intentionally curated online spaces) becomes newly enticing as the PRIMARY space to seek meaning. Very thoughtful piece! Really enjoyed reading it and will definitely return to some of these ideas.
I think that’s a common experience: having no real issue with the existence of photographs, yet being quite put off by algorithmic images. It’s certainly my own default stance. I wanted to explore the way that, despite their obvious differences, one is nonetheless a continuation of the other: algorithmic images extend processes of technical image-creation first set into motion by the camera. It will be interesting to see whether or to what extent these images come to be seen as a kind of over-reach on the part of the image-world—a reminder, perhaps, of what it can’t reproduce—which turns us collectively back towards the given, material world.
In the 1940s Friedrich Georg Jünger, a radical critic of technology, wrote of photographs:
“We can no longer escape the suspicion that the rising tide of copied reality contains an element of self-deception. As they are reproduced in millions, the reality behind these pictures wears thin, turns vague and the old charm evaporates. The photographic techniques continue to function with undiminished excellence and mechanical dependability. But man changes. It is quite conceivable that we may grow tired of the mere copies of things which alone photography is able to supply.”
It didn’t turn out to be true that people came to reject the copied reality of photographs, but perhaps this new phase will elicit a different cultural response.
That Jünger quote is great: It's interesting that it was written about photographs, as today it seems more obviously relevant to AI (esp since, judging by the success of platforms like Instagram, we haven't tired of photographs!). But I guess that response says more about my own experience than it does about a particular technology: having grown up with photographs everywhere, until recently I haven't deeply considered how they reflect reality or create a reality of their own, but since AI-generated images are new on the scene, I'm primed to consider these things as it relates to this technology and the technologies that came before it.
I guess it is very possible that most people don't return to reality but become more deeply embedded in digital experience. Still, in my view this shift makes it all the more urgent to touch grass. To a degree, I can stomach the idea that the online landscape is manipulated in all sorts of ways as long as I also know that the individual work I'm viewing or reading is created by a person in an iterative, intentional way. Not knowing even that anymore, I'm genuinely less drawn to social media.
Yes, I think that urge to move in the opposite direction from an increasingly algorithmic and less human digital environment will strengthen—is strengthening—among a growing number of people. As is often the case with technological change, there aren’t many clear thresholds here—few red lines need to be crossed in order for us, before long, to find ourselves somewhere quite different from where we began. There’s certainly a counter-movement underway though—and Substack, I think (I hope!), is central to whatever is taking shape.