Interesting redux on the old version and a good example of modernization. The author is ten years younger than me... but sounds younger still. I wrote something like this a few weeks ago, when discussing my notion of contextual realty. It is another update of something fairly old: If it walks, looks, and quacks like a duck, it may be one. But if it sinks when thrown into water, it is likely an imposter.
Carel De Keyser, a well-known Belgian photographer said this because then (and actually today still) Photoshop had a negative image. People thought that using Photoshop was something negative and that the real photographer had to made beautiful photos only with his/her camera and had to do it without Photoshop. I can say much about it but 1) what is against using Photoshop if you like the result; 2) people who have this type of criticism implicitly say that people/photographers cannot be creative by themselves. Much more can be said about it, but this is a little bit of the backround of this quote. I quoted these words of De Keyser, because now the same discussion has started again. However, now it is not about Photoshop but about using AI to create images.
Thank you. This sheds light on the topic. Inasmuch as it is not close to me, professionally or personally, I have no compelling interest. Insofar as it has peripheral connection with other artificiality happening now, I am, as a philosopher, interested. Connections among things are important. I don't know about your position on AI, or any of that fiction. But, your topic is close, should you admit it or not. I engage with others on the relevance of this, frequently, from the PhD level downward. In any case, I think our fascination with complexity is woefully misplaced. But,it is no longer mere fascination, is it? It is addiction. This may not bother most Who accept the changing status quo. But it bothers me.
As you sensibly point out, people who use such technologies have the right to do so. To a point, anyway. There is a lot of wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over a range of issues. AI has polarized society, perhaps as much as the war against philosophy has polarized academics against much of society, as they (the academics) now see it. For many, ethics and morality are still emblematic of desirable virtues, while for others, those terms merit little more than a nod and wink. Polarization and isolation are festering sores. Advocacies of one sort or another attempt to popularly legislate issues, while the court themselves have trouble deciding what is or is not legal in the eyes of those who contextualize reality to suit specific interests, motives and preferences---IMPs, my acronym, I think. This results in aimlessness, IMO. But, as is likely apparent, I am twentieth century. There are a few of us left.
Thinking about, or around, your final sentence: a. If, and only if, Photoshop is/was/will be artistic device, is there an ethical issue at play? Or, if with art, ethics are irrelevant, then what? b. If, and only if, AI is used to create images...then what? c. If...art is devoid of ethics, does what anyone thinks matter anyway? (This would include altruistic artists, assuming those exist.) d. Does nihilism apply in any way to art,or, does art render itself exclusive of such consideration? Oops. I begin to sound like a twentieth-century philosopher, who shall remain unnamed.
Must keep it short, for have been on holiday, as you could read in my newest post, and then there is always a lot to do. a) Photoshop as an artistic device is okay, but some use it for deceiving others, presenting fake as fact. However, this was also done already with photos before Photoshop existed. b) The same answer. I think that it is not so important how you create art, and if this is by using AI, it is okay. But one problem with AI is that it is based on what others created. Who then is the creator? c) Art devoid of ethics? I don’t think so. Why then does Facebook block my Montaigne blog website, because there is an image on it (an abstract picture of a gallows, used only by way of illustration) that FB doesn’t like? d) I think that art and nihilism don’t exclude each other. Art can be nihilistic but usually is not.
7 comments:
Interesting redux on the old version and a good example of modernization. The author is ten years younger than me... but sounds younger still. I wrote something like this a few weeks ago, when discussing my notion of contextual realty. It is another update of something fairly old: If it walks, looks, and quacks like a duck, it may be one. But if it sinks when thrown into water, it is likely an imposter.
Carel De Keyser, a well-known Belgian photographer said this because then (and actually today still) Photoshop had a negative image. People thought that using Photoshop was something negative and that the real photographer had to made beautiful photos only with his/her camera and had to do it without Photoshop. I can say much about it but 1) what is against using Photoshop if you like the result; 2) people who have this type of criticism implicitly say that people/photographers cannot be creative by themselves. Much more can be said about it, but this is a little bit of the backround of this quote. I quoted these words of De Keyser, because now the same discussion has started again. However, now it is not about Photoshop but about using AI to create images.
Thank you. This sheds light on the topic. Inasmuch as it is not close to me, professionally or personally, I have no compelling interest. Insofar as it has peripheral connection with other artificiality happening now, I am, as a philosopher, interested. Connections among things are important. I don't know about your position on AI, or any of that fiction. But, your topic is close, should you admit it or not.
I engage with others on the relevance of this, frequently, from the PhD level downward. In any case, I think our fascination with complexity is woefully misplaced.
But,it is no longer mere fascination, is it? It is addiction. This may not bother most
Who accept the changing status quo. But it bothers me.
As you sensibly point out, people who use such technologies have the right to do so. To a point, anyway. There is a lot of wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over a range of issues. AI has polarized society, perhaps as much as the war against philosophy has polarized academics against much of society, as they (the academics) now see it. For many, ethics and morality are still emblematic of desirable virtues, while for others, those terms merit little more than a nod and wink. Polarization and isolation are festering sores. Advocacies of one sort or another attempt to popularly legislate issues, while the court themselves have trouble deciding what is or is not legal in the eyes of those who contextualize reality to suit specific interests, motives and preferences---IMPs, my acronym, I think. This results in aimlessness, IMO.
But, as is likely apparent, I am twentieth century. There are a few of us left.
Thinking about, or around, your final sentence:
a. If, and only if, Photoshop is/was/will be artistic device, is there an ethical issue at play? Or, if with art, ethics are irrelevant, then what?
b. If, and only if, AI is used to create images...then what?
c. If...art is devoid of ethics, does what anyone thinks matter anyway? (This would include altruistic artists, assuming those exist.)
d. Does nihilism apply in any way to art,or, does art render itself exclusive of such consideration?
Oops. I begin to sound like a twentieth-century philosopher, who shall remain unnamed.
Must keep it short, for have been on holiday, as you could read in my newest post, and then there is always a lot to do.
a) Photoshop as an artistic device is okay, but some use it for deceiving others, presenting fake as fact. However, this was also done already with photos before Photoshop existed.
b) The same answer. I think that it is not so important how you create art, and if this is by using AI, it is okay. But one problem with AI is that it is based on what others created. Who then is the creator?
c) Art devoid of ethics? I don’t think so. Why then does Facebook block my Montaigne blog website, because there is an image on it (an abstract picture of a gallows, used only by way of illustration) that FB doesn’t like?
d) I think that art and nihilism don’t exclude each other. Art can be nihilistic but usually is not.
Thanks! As always, your thinking helps me think better.
Post a Comment