AI images are not photography.

Charles Baudelaire argued photography could not be considered a fine art because it merely produced mechanical replicas of reality without input from human imagination. He called photography "art's most mortal enemy" and the "refuge of all failed painters" who lacked artistic talent and training.

And if he's to be believed in 1859, photography isn't art.

But today, it's widely accepted that it is. And in all likelihood, you think it is too.

Why is that? And if you have an answer, you'd have to argue why AI generated images wouldn't follow the same trajectory.

▲

CuriouslyC 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yet the kids can't stop doing either... Which was the OP's point.

	▲	r_lee an hour ago \| parent [-]
		"the kids" it's mostly boomers falling for this and being obsessed with it "the kids" are the ones who can spot AI slop pretty easily from what I know

▲

pixelesque 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, it's a spectrum, surely...

What about stock photography, IMO as much as I personally hate "overcooked" AI-generated imagery, it doesn't annoy me that much more than stock photography does on blogs.

I do however use it as a gauge of "if the images are generated by AI, how much of the text content is?" though, so...

	▲	sodapopcan 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, stock photography is also lame, but at least their creators gave permission. It's my dream that "AI" is going to make us look back and reconsider some of the pre-era slop we've accepted in the name of convenience. I doubt it, though.