German artist, Boris Eldagsen became the centre of the AI controversy when he was awarded the Sony World Photographer award and admitted the photo was Ai generated. He thus refused the award, and instead, suggested the winning grant be donated to the photo festival in Odesa, Ukraine.
In refusal of the award, Eldagsen opened up about being a "cheeky monkey" by entering the Sony open category, hoping to spark a mass debate about whether these photography competitions were prepared for AI-generated work; the answer being, they were not. The photo in question depicted two women of different generations in black and white, appearing through the AI system as a film photograph. In being questioned as to why he refused the award he admitted that, in his eyes, AI and photography were not equaled in this debate, claiming he was almost frightened by the concept of an AI-generated image having the ability to win such a prestigious award.
In recent advancements in AI, chatbots, that new Snapchat AI "friend" and now Eldagsen's experiment winning such a highly acclaimed award, this news has sprung fear into the country over the governmental ability of AI devices. In briefly angering the arts community, Eldagsen has brought to light what most people fear to acknowledge. Something, I argue, that traditional photography also does to the community. You're given a photograph from a recent photojournalist, amidst a current war, and as the. the viewer you're sat there petrified at the extent of the subject, and how the photographer could sit there and take the photo. I guess the frightening existence of AI can do the exact same. Which is the real lion and which is computer generated, side by side, could you honestly tell? In this example, the creator refuses the award, I can sympathise with the thought process behind it, thinking of it as quite a moving proposition to the public. However, is this encouragement for the future?
"A photograph can be an instant of life captured for eternity that will never cease looking back at you" - Brigitte Bardot
Taken from @ilfordphoto on Instagram
In reading over Eldagsen's story, he admits that as an artist he gets joy in experimenting with new resources, and so was inspired by AI to do so. If AI is now under the umbrella of artistic experimentation, how far until the photograph becomes completely false? I am worried for the sake of my fellow artists. How long until the AI generator becomes the forefront of the art community, an already dire area of the public in its lack of funds and engagement? Resorting completely to the computer gives no hope for the individuality of the arts. Perhaps I'm just overly traditional in the sense I still walk around with a camera practically falling apart from 1971 and love hearing the *click* as the shutter moves across the film, that annoying indie chick from a rom-com as I do so. But it's that in photographic expression that I know you cannot get in an AI picture. That framing, the thought process, the settings choice, in itself an experimentation, that is not genuine under a computer system.
I stand in fear for the future, admittedly over everything currently happening, but for the sake of this article, especially the arts community. Such a responsive community to modern-day issues, slowly deteriorating under the service of some code.
