Re: Photograph vs. illustration

[Lew Schwartz <lew1716@xxxxxxxxx>]

The difference between "real" and fake lies in the object provenance already. AI is a specific kind of fake. A simulacrum is a copy for which no original exists. It's parallel to, but not identical to photography. What is the original? The nautilus, the negative, or Weston's first print? Perhaps, simulacrum is a better term for AI images.

Anyway, this is not a new problem in aesthetic history. A close reading of "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935) will return your brain to productivity.

-Lew Schwartz

On Sun, Jun 29, 2025, 11:52 AM Andrew Davidhazy <andpph@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Food for thought ... Herschel's photograph raises a topic of conversation I think.

It is an excellent image for sure. Should anyone quibble about the fact it was significantly assembled/modified by and "AI" device? What if it had been totally a creation of AI ... well, directed by a human at least? Will machines create images on their own without being prompted? Is the end product the important thing regardless of who or how it was produced?

There is more to this than my tiny brain can deal with.  :)

Andy



This message was sent to subscribers of <b>PhotoForum educational network</b> ("https://lists.rit.edu/sympa/info/photoforum").

Unsubscribe: https://lists.rit.edu/manage/unsubscribe.php?listname=photoforum&email=lew1716@xxxxxxxxx&uuid=&id=CH3PR16MB6404C3C176D4E3D4780D1D08CC47A

This message was sent to subscribers of PhotoForum educational network. Click Unsubscribe to be removed.