An Interesting Item About AI Altered Images

[samstevens]

4 minutes ago, PapaTango said:

Video is static and does not change its form depending on the emotions or beliefs of the audience.  A showing of Rocky Horror will always be the same film, regardless of the shenanigans of the audience.

Yes, that is a static view of movies. And it's got nothing to do with the analogy I drew, which responded to your own notion that looking under the hood to the basic elements of the process destroys the magic. I wasn't analogizing on whether a film adoptively modifies itself over time like AI (though I think a case can be made that Midnight Cowboy isn't the same film to today's audience that it was to its original audience). I was analogizing that they both come from elements and that knowing those elements doesn't destroy the magic of each.

My point is there are as yet unexplored creative potentials to AI, despite the fact that it's a bunch of servers, algorithms, and inputs. Reducing it as such doesn't destroy that magic. There are also dangers to its use. And there are mundanities about it, just like creating a painting may involve some rather pedestrian aspects of stretching a canvas. But, with imagination, AI, painting, love, and movies are a lot more than the sum of their parts.

[Robin Smith]

AI is the latest bandwagon. I have not really taken a view on it yet, although it is certainly not really new. The obsession/panic surrounding it is not dissimilar to that surrounding the space race, genetic engineering/cloning, the advent of "information technology" in the 1980s, the advent of the internet, the development of the smart phone, social media, digital pornography etc. I barely know how to assess these developments for society, so AI is just another one. One thing I am fairly certain of is that it is better to remain skeptical about positive spins put out by those who work in the industry or those who regard these developments as essential for economic development. The ethical issues raised by all these developments are not simple and are certainly not unalloyed good things as many who work in these industries suggest they are, because they most definitely have an axe to grind in the matter. I feel the same about much research (and I was a research scientist once). There is so much of the economy, people's employment/livelihood tightly bound up with this matter it is almost impossible to pretend we can control it.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Robin Smith

[PapaTango]

I guess that I am way too Saussarian sitting here in my Levi-Strauss pants.  Edgar (the pants man) complimented me today on them during lunch over at Second Life.

Or it's just that I know magic for what truly underlies it.  So maybe I am just a pragmatist with an engineer's mind.  Or maybe I took too many graduate statistics & probability classes--and know the secret to "The Wizard of Oz."

As Brother Theodore noted once, "Einstein is dead.  Schopenhaur is dead--and I am not feeling so well myself."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/13/ftc-openai-chatgpt-sam-altman-lina-khan/

Maybe someone can draw this thread back to altered images...

Edited July 13, 2023 by PapaTango

[samstevens]

8 minutes ago, PapaTango said:

So maybe I am just a pragmatist with an engineer's mind.  Or maybe I took too many graduate statistics & probability classes

 

[inoneeye]

“Leonardo da Vinci
To develop a complete mind: Study the science of art; Study the art of science. Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.

 

The function of muscle is to pull and not to push, except in the case of the genitals and the tongue. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by inoneeye

[hjoseph7]

On 6/19/2023 at 8:47 AM, John Seaman said:

I'm still using 13 year old Photoshop CS5. The "Content Aware Scale" and "Content Aware Fill" functions seemed pretty clever. Also the stitching function for making a panorama out of multiple shots. I guess that 13 years on, whatever features are now available must be streets ahead of those. One thing that occurred to me that, when inserting something into the image, say a tree, does the AI take into account the lighting of the scene? For example, does it add shadows in the appropriate direction, depending on the source of light?

According to some AI Photoshop experts at https://photoshopcafe.com/ , the Content Aware tool is probably going to be sunset since AI does it a lot better.  I'm not sure about the shadows(good question), but I saw some demonstrations that are pretty realistic and amazing ! I'm guessing that you still have to use specific comands in a certain way to make AI work as you planned in PS. When you call your Bank and the Custom Service Robot aks you some questions, you can't just blab away, you have to answer those questions in a very specific way.  

[Ian Shalapata]

On 7/13/2023 at 11:13 AM, samstevens said:

I think a case can be made that Midnight Cowboy isn't the same film to today's audience that it was to its original audience

Though the film hasn't changed, but rather the audience has. A case where the viewer is the AI and not the medium.

My post process is some straightening, if necessary, some levels adjustment, and sharpening. Bare bones when compared to some photographers who labour hours editing a single image. Maybe my simple post process is the reason I am ambivalent, disinterested, etc in AI, which seems to be a lot of painstaking effort to produce some fairly mundane imagery. However, as Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."

That could account for the "current AI panic" John Seaman mentioned. Where bioethics attempts to hold advances in health to the positive side of the equation, there isn't a similar body holding advances in AI to the same account.

[samstevens]

29 minutes ago, Ian Shalapata said:

photographers who labour hours editing a single image

As one who has “laboured” hours over some photos, if I were to call it that, it would be a labour of love. Similar to a painter labouring over a canvas. Refinement, nuance, process.

Quote

“Art is life. Life is art. I never separate it.” —Ai Weiwei 

I do think both the art and the audience change over time. If we think of the art as merely its physical manifestation, even that changes, as attested by color and texture changes to paintings over time, the yellowing and degradation of film, the many headless and penis-less statues that stand in museums. But as important is the symbolism, the pathos and ethos, the messages between the lines, and those other intangibles artists imbue their work with that take on a life of their own. When Picasso was painting or Beethoven was composing or Wells was directing, they were creating something that would take on a life of its own rather than something that would be owned by its physical embodiments.

[samstevens]

30 minutes ago, Ian Shalapata said:

a lot of painstaking effort to produce some fairly mundane imagery

Don’t blame the mundanity on the process. Painstaking (and joyful and heartfelt) effort and process also went into Adams’s photos and many others. 

[samstevens]

1 hour ago, samstevens said:

When Picasso was painting or Beethoven was composing or Wells was directing, they were creating something that would take on a life of its own rather than something that would be owned by its physical embodiments.

I don't want to minimize the importance of the art object. The painting as object, the photo as object, are significant. (That's why paintings are restored, etc.) But there are other aspects and qualities to be considered other than this. 

Edited July 16, 2023 by samstevens

[Ian Shalapata]

1 hour ago, samstevens said:

I do think both the art and the audience change over time. If we think of the art as merely its physical manifestation, even that changes, as attested by color and texture changes to paintings over time, the yellowing and degradation of film, the many headless and penis-less statues that stand in museums ... When Picasso was painting or Beethoven was composing or Wells was directing, they were creating something that would take on a life of its own rather than something that would be owned by its physical embodiments.

If the artist intended their work to have a life of its own, it didn't include the degradation of the materials used in creating it. Wouldn't Picasso have used the degraded blue, instead of the hue he did if he intended for the piece to be the oxidated colour? Beethoven's music is simply dots and lines on a page. The music is given life when an orchestra performs it. There is a different life each time it is played, but that is up to the nuances of the conductor and not the music. The meaning of Wells', and others',  films doesn't change due to the yellowing of the cellulose acetate. As you just said, music is reinterpreted, paintings are restored, and film is remastered. 

The question is whether AI can produce a work that can stand the test of time as Beethoven's 9th Symphony, Wells' Citizen Kane, or Picasso's The Old Guitarist? Will it garner the reverence that is given to the examples; should it? Or is it more artificial than it is intelligent?

[samstevens]

42 minutes ago, Ian Shalapata said:

If the artist intended their work to have a life of its own, it didn't include the degradation of the materials used in creating it. ... 

The meaning of Wells', and others',  films doesn't change due to the yellowing of the cellulose acetate.

I agree with the first half and didn't suggest otherwise. I do think the yellowing of photos and films changes meaning. When I look at old art photos and family snapshots that have yellowed, I'm instilled with a feeling of nostalgia that the original audience, looking at a more intact picture, likely wouldn't have had. Same for old movies that have aged poorly. That becomes part of the meaning of the film, even though the filmmaker didn't intend those changes or that change of meaning. So, the physical changes (and degradations) are things that happen mostly unintentionally.** But I do think, as I said, artists imbue their art with symbolism, ethos and pathos, inspiration, often a suggestion rather than a specific direction of feeling. And those things, those more intangible aspects of their art, most artists know, take on lives of their own. I believe many artists think of their art as living. And I'd agree.

**There are artists like Goldsworthy and a few local artists I know who count on physical changes occurring. Goldsworthy's meandering crack at the de Young Museum in San Francisco will likely grow and change over time, and he's aware of that. Many artists are currently working with and in the environment, knowing that those things (and, therefore their art) will change over time.

 

42 minutes ago, Ian Shalapata said:

Beethoven's music is simply dots and lines on a page.

Beethoven's music was a lot more than that to him. Even when he was deaf, he could hear it as he wrote it. The dots and lines are symbolic of something. They are not the music and neither is each performance of it. I think it's something greater than that.

Edited July 16, 2023 by samstevens

[inoneeye]

5 hours ago, Ian Shalapata said:

If the artist intended their work to have a life of its own, it didn't include the degradation of the materials used in creating

Not the examples you were discussing👍

Tangent- It did bring to mind that some artists intentionally do tho… I have created sculptures that are intended to gradually decompose by choosing materials that are not intended for longevity. I have also made photos that account for forced degradation changing over time with a life of their own (using chemistry and varying exposure to light) I have pos/neg polaroids that are over 40 yrs old that are still achieving a new look… more than a simple fade, due to being intentionally partially untreated.
The auto-destruct adds a layer of expression and emotion often unpredictable that I find intriguing.