Would you pay $10,000 for a print originated from a quick AI prompt? The clear skies in ‘Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico’ by late master photographer Ansel Adams have grown somewhat stormy with the news that an AI enabled colour recreation of the same image was recently for sale at New York’s AIPAD (Association of International Photography Art Dealers) art fair.
The price tag? Up to $10,000, in print editions of 10.
The controversial ‘new’ image ‘by’ art dealer and gallery owner turned AI wrangler James Danziger has unsurprisingly generated controversy, with an aggrieved Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust claiming last month it had not been informed in advance of the project and that it “exploited” Adams’ reputation. “Ansel was an innovator”, it states, pointedly.
Art historians and photographers are also in uproar, wondering whether it’s all a publicity stunt.
Danziger, however, is unrepentant – for now. “As the image is in the public domain, I had every right to create a new and transformative work,” he writes on his gallery’s website. “My interest in doing this was based on my love of the iconic image, in seeing how AI could be used as a tool for creativity, and to create an imagining of what Adams saw in real life as he was driving along US Highway 84.”
The one-time Sunday Times Picture Editor states that when his AI enabled image was exhibited, it was clearly labelled as to what it was. “As for the print itself, while AI served as the starting point, the final image involved extensive human intervention, editing, proofing and refinement over many months.”
He adds: “I would only show or sell the image if I felt it was perfect.”
Controversy over AI use in creative circles revolves around the prompter’s moral and ethical judgement in using the tool. And it should be stated that it’s not perfection but rather imperfection that a makes an image inspiring and engaging. Plus, there’s a very fine line between being ‘inspired’ by something and plain ripping it off. Add the potential to make money into the mix and any row quickly becomes explosive; especially when a mural-sized version of Ansel Adams’ original previously sold for nearly $1 million in 2021.
In fact, the photographer is estimated to have made around 1300 prints of ‘Moonrise’ up to his death in 1984, as he perfected his dodging and burning technique; the result being existing originals vary wildly in terms of contrast and tone.
In Danziger’s defence it could be argued: ‘what’s one more interpretation?’ But others would state the image isn’t his to mess with. Whatever the actual rights, it’s plain wrong.
Posting on Facebook, pro photographer Steve Bloom calls the action “an existential threat to the future and value of photography” and a “wake-up call to photographers to reinvent their process.” Noting that a ChatGPT prompt can produce a result very similar to Danziger’s in just 30 seconds, he concludes: “I feel for the Adams Trust, who clearly feel violated.”
What do AP readers think? Is it wrong to ‘re-imagine’ – and, moreover, put up for sale – a classic photograph using AI tools?
Related reading:
- Adobe removes AI imagery after Ansel Adams row
- How to use artificial intelligence (AI) ethically
- See how much AI was used in an image – and stop generative AI ‘training’ on your pictures
Follow AP on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.
