The Shadow

... according to one nobody ... What a lot of humans don’t realize is that stating that something is a fact doesn’t make it a fact. Repeating it doesn’t make it a fact. Being more adamant and petulant about it doesn’t make it a fact. As a matter of fact, the more ego and petulance behind the statement of so-called facts the more reason there often is to be at least skeptical that they are facts.

There are many and varied ingredients that go into art and no one, two, or three of these ingredients are necessary for art. Anyone may blissfully decide that this or that ingredient is the key to the secret sauce but that would just be arbitrary rule-making ... art has to have this or that. It often feels good to come up with definitive answers to not so definitive concepts like art but, ultimately, such restricting and forced answers are no solution at all. The answer to “What is art?” that I’ve found more satisfactory than most is in the experience of it, whether as maker or viewer. Listing necessary ingredients does away with so much of its wonder and power. What ingredients are necessary for love, for fear, for loneliness? I don’t find it a terribly beneficial or even coherent way to look at these things, certainly not when they get tethered to “necessity.”

No, it’s not. Plenty of people recognize art in nature and nature didn’t have an intent or will to express itself. As a matter of fact, a lot of art is created when people get their own wills out of their way.

Thanks, Hector. I think it would be awesome if you described how you employed subtlety in your content and other aesthetic choices to compensate for what you felt was a lack of capability for subtlety from the camera you were using itself, which you compared negatively to Nick’s in terms of low light subtlety. That could start moving a discussion of what different cameras can do toward a discussion that includes what photographers can do.

If the camera I have or am using at the time can’t achieve the kind of subtlety I want, I try to get the content and other aesthetic and stylistic choices to achieve subtlety. Granted, sometimes there’s just no there there, in which case I take the photo anyway and just live with it, take the photo anyway and keep it to myself, or simply don’t take it to begin with. Sometimes, with a camera that we say “doesn’t do well” in certain cases, we mean “doesn’t do the expected,” doesn’t achieve a standard level of quality or a certain predetermined “right” look. With a camera that doesn’t have the ability to mimic the low light look of higher level cameras, why shoot at windmills? Why not embrace creatively the look the tool yields and work with it instead of thinking what could have been? It’s ok and in many cases more thoughtful and creative to go with roughness and imperfection in expressive ways than to be disappointed in not always getting to particular standards of technical quality. Then again, in some cases you want that technical degree of quality, in which case you should get the best tool you can afford and that your spouse will allow! :)

I know. And it’s that unknown and accidental character of art that both human art and AI art have in common. If the way watercolor flows on a piece of paper can exceed a human’s intents and computational limits, then that’s an example, at least in part, of the art NOT owing itself fully to human control and ownership. A lot of art is not and cannot be owned in exactly the same ways, if at all. On the other hand, I’m sure plenty of great photographers, painters, and sculptors have experienced chance, accident, and even randomness in their work and still put their signature on it even while embracing those less or even non-intention-inspired elements. This tells me that “ownership” and human intention are not the sole or foundational elements on which notions of what is art and how it can be created can hang their hats.

Yeah, I don’t think it is either! That phrasing sounds faux spiritual and a little sickly sweet, tbh. Machines have become exponentially more sophisticated than they once were. My current cell phone is a lot smarter than my first flip phone was. You might be buying the wrong brand if yours isn’t smarter than one you had a decade ago. Agreed. It’s the computer evolving into something it IS. Some living things are way overrated. There are occasions when I much prefer rocks ... or sand. Certainly, human beings can and do use machines to make art. But we don’t happen to be talking about that. We’re talking about AI systems being programmed to do things beyond the specific intentions of those programming them. When a human uses a machine to make art, the human forms a specific intention of the desired result and uses the machine to accomplish that result. AI art is not remotely like that. The human has no idea what the machine will come up with and is not in that kind of master-slave relationship with the machine, getting the machine to do the human’s specifically-intended bidding. The human programs the machine to compute well beyond that human’s own specific intents and computational limits.

I think about it differently. My take is that humans created the idea of or imagined a being of infinite powers. This kind of myth goes way back and recurs in many forms with powerful beings appearing in many guises. Such myth has its own power and the human ability to create such myths is among the earliest signs of both philosophy and creativity. Myths both explain the world and show the wonder of imagination, not to mention symbolism. It is with that imagination and sense of wonder that humans explored the oceans, explore space, and now develop AI. With knowledge and imagination, humans are creating a technology system so complex, sophisticated, and untethered to its maker. It is suggestive of amazing possibility, some of which may demand a healthy dose of fear or at least care while much about it is revolutionary in the best of senses.

Yes. As long as they’re pink and have training wheels. :)

Well, someone who sends a retouched photo of themselves making them look 10-20 years younger may not cross a terrible ethical boundary but they are putting themselves at practical risk. Someone sending a picture that looks 20 years younger than themselves is setting their potential date up for disappointment, so most likely being counterproductive to their own ends. On the other hand, I’m sure some figure that if they can just get their foot in the door, their charm and personality will take over and make the date fall immediately, no matter the age or deception. As to employment, I think it would be unethical of most potential employers to ask for a picture unless looks is a very specific part of the job, such as with actors or models. Unless I were seeking a job of that kind, I’d likely pass up on applying to an employer who asked for a picture. I guess sending an employer who has no business asking for a pic in the first place a deceptive picture that looks 20 years younger would fall into the category of the employer getting their just desserts. Of course, the deceptive person looking for the job likely won’t get it. Lose lose.

lol. Next up ... guns!

No, you just need to observe how often you accuse those you disagree with, not just me, of stating the obvious.

Another of your well worn fallback memes.

If that’s important you, then I’m happy that’s how you see yourself. You get a big pat on the ego for being better than the rest of us. That and $2.75 will get you from Times Square to Park Slope on a subway. I agree, actually, that your photography is quite good. Don’t feel the need to compare it to the rest of the world’s. Your writings here on photography, art, and AI are much less good.

Very possibly. Most philosophy departments in universities are also underutilized. Good philosophy isn’t about winning, and winning and losing has more mass appeal (like sports) than discussions which often have no clear destination or conclusion. So, it stands to reason that philosophy forums and departments are underutilized, especially in today’s world of short attention spans and the desire to be on the winning team. I’ve always considered it a benefit that philosophy and unwinnable arguments don’t appeal to everyone.

Turn the channel if you don’t like it.

I actually prefer street photography that is an amalgam of meaning and don’t like visual puns as much. But I recognize that as my preference and not to be what street photography is. And, while I didn’t love the exhibit of Elliott Erwitt I saw a while back, he did do some great visual puns that didn’t need or want much more meaning than that. They were what they were and I respected them well enough for that.

You said it before and you’ve said it again. “It isn’t about ...” The problem is you’re wrong, because for many it is about this. You just don’t think it should be because you see yourself as the master of the universe, determining what street photography is and isn’t in a single bound.

What exactly is your interest in my panties about? You think it’s a political progressive thing not to believe in a soul? Are you kidding me with this? Now you’re showing you don’t even know what progressivism is. Not surprising. I don’t believe in souls because I don’t believe in souls. That has nothing to do with my progressive political beliefs. You’ve just childishly turned “progressive” into your own personal curse word for anything you don’t understand or disagree with. Plenty of self proclaimed progressives are religious. Just not some of us. I even know a few conservatives who don’t believe in souls. Shocking to you, I know. You’ve got this black and white idea about art, politics, science and religion, what they must be. Guess what? They mustn’t be what you think they are or what you claim they are. There’s a broad spectrum of beliefs about art, religion, and politics and all the labels you throw at others don’t neatly define them as easily and simplistically as you’d like.

Wrong. For me, too, though I don’t limit it to what the thing represents and also think it’s about what the thing expresses ... and more. No, it doesn’t. AI systems make art and they’re not conscious agents. You keep repeating that it takes two conscious agents but you don’t give reasons for saying that. The repetitions don’t add up to a reason. It’s just an arbitrary statement. You say it takes a conscious creator and a conscious observer to make art, which you say is, in part, what the thing hanging on the wall represents. Representation doesn’t require two conscious beings and art doesn’t either. Trees represent a lot to people as does water. Neither was made by a conscious being.

I’m surprised I have to explain this, but I guess I do. I’m not backpedaling on political beliefs I’ve talked about. I’m saying theyre irrelevant to this discussion and you’re just lashing out about political progressivism as a baby cries for its bottle, because you have no coherent thoughts about the subject at hand to present, which has nothing to do with political progressivism. I’m also separating politically conservative views, which I generally disagree with (“conservative” as used in the U.S. which, hopefully, won’t invite one of your anti-American rants) from conservative thinking on philosophical matters, especially in the philosophy of mind, some of which I do agree with. Hopefully, you can grasp this. If not, ask a child to explain it to you.

Then, fine, your preference is to embrace amalgamated meaning in street photography and put down visual puns in street photography. That’s all it is, preference and put down (in Brad’s case, being amused). What you’re doing is no more right and no more lofty than what others are doing when they form a group to do straight street photography or they go out and shoot visual puns. And your preference for amalgamated meanings in street photography doesn’t make that what street photography is and doesn’t make visual puns what street photography isn’t. It simply states one man’s preference.

It’s clear you have no idea what you’re actually talking about. You just keep moving goal posts, obfuscating, changing the subject, deflecting, and using all kinds of other intellectually dishonest tricks such as ranting about progressivism in a thread that has nothing to do with it, to avoid saying anything that can be dealt with rationally. You have not made one clear statement of what you’re talking about, preferring to beat around the bush in order not to commit to anything. I’ve made myself clear in a few words: AI can create art. And I’ve given reasons for it. You haven’t even committed to the idea that AI can’t make art, at one point in the thread actually denying that that’s what the discussion’s been about. Regarding this topic, you’re simply a lost soul.