Great read again. Really interesting. I have the video bookmarked. And I still have the Federico Clavarino interview book marked as well. I just started the Matt Black Magnum course, so these moved slightly down in the list. Good luck with the course and I'm looking forward to your next installment!
I’m following his Magnum Learn course. He has devoted his whole photography life to documenting the Central Valley in California. His commitment en depth are incredible and I love how he talks about his work and how to think when doing something like that. But I'll check out the book you mentioned. Looks interesting as well!
Ben, this was such an interesting post. And sharing what you're learning with the rest of us is very generous. I'm looking forward to following this series.
Really interesting set of takes, Ben. I don't see myself as a 'traditional documentary photographer' as, when I'm out on the street / on holiday, I tend to react to what's in front of me if I find it interesting in any way. I think that the window / mirror analogy also works for landscapes (and maybe other photographic genres). There are landscapers who look for and photograph beauty, light, colour, shape and texture. I suspect that they are the majority. Then, at the other end of the spectrum, there are those who see and record man's (usually detrimental) impact on the land. Good examples of those might be Edward Burtynski and Fay Godwin. Sebastiao Salgado might have a foot in both camps?
Thanks, Paul. Yes, I think the analogy probably works for other genres. I find it useful as a framework to orient my work and understand where other photographers might be coming from. I don't think it's a case of beauty or not. I think it's more about photographic intent. Is the photographer trying to be objective and balanced (window) or bring in their own subjective viewpoint (mirror)?
Interesting, thx for sharing. Really liked the window - mirror analogy. It's something that comes to mind quite often but I think this is the best analogy I've seen so far.
Oh, wow! I almost signed up for this course as well. We could have ended up classmates! I decided against it after seeking advice from one of our joint photography friends 😅.
I am really looking forward to hearing about your overall impression.
😊 that would've been cool... It's quite a commitment. So, I'm glad I have the time. It's been challenging in terms of ideas and how to look at my previous work. But, after 2 subjects, I'm really enjoying it. And it feels like I might be heading in a new and interesting direction.
I’d love to achieve participation and connection first in any people focused photographic project, but it can take its toll. Think Danny Lyon and The Bike Riders or Eugene Smith and the Pittsburgh steel works. There must be something slightly less extreme out there, surely? 🤔
I quite agree. Full immersion is admirable in a project and a transformative experience for the photographer (from what I've heard about Danny Lyon and Bike Riders). But it's not for everyone. And there's more than one way to skin a cat (as my old man used to say). This course, I'm doing, is providing different types of inspiration with each passing subject. Hopefully, it'll help me figure that out. 🤔
The problem with AI generated „photographs” is that they are easily taken out of the original AI context and can be mistaken for being actual photographs. Using AI for „documentary work” is just lazy and unethical. You wouldn’t call realist paintings documentary. Same goes for AI. It is a separate category.
I don't like being tricked by AI either. The image maker needs to be upfront about it. But the genie is out of the bottle. So the question is, could there be a sub-category of documentary photography that uses AI-generated images? We already have constructed narratives that are lens-based.
Well. AI generated images are not photography. So we should not even discuss them in the context of documentary photography. If I generate an image that looks like an oil painting, does it make it an oil painting? We may call AI generated imagery conceptual art, or promptography, but they are not photography, and they are not documentary; they may be propaganda though.
Of course I understand that any photography is subjective, and narratives are built to show the photographer's point of view, to let them express their own emotions or understanding of the photographed event or place. Nevertheless, there is that element of reality and truth that is simply lacking with AI.
As photographers, we should strive to put that genie back in its bottle. There is no place for fake imagery in the documentary domain. Where do we draw the line even? I can sit in the warmth and safety of my own bedroom and generate realistically looking images of people suffering from famine and terror in Gaza, or the war atrocities in the Ukraine. Do I document anything then? Do I show real events? Do I respect the victims? For me it is unbelievable and unacceptable, that we are even having this discussion about letting AI fakery be called documentary photography, but as photographers we should take a hard stance on this topic. Otherwise we're doomed.
Your views are exactly where I started. And the hard stance definitely applies at the photojournalistic end of the spectrum. But this course has pushed me to consider whether AI has utility at the more artistic/subjective end. I've been reluctant to use it myself. But photographers like Carl de Keyzer (Magnum) have. He recently did a project called Putin's Dream, where he was open about its use, and made it clear with the words, "this is not photography" at the top. Apparently, he trained the AI with his own archive. As you say, maybe we just need a different category for this stuff. https://www.carldekeyzer.com/putins-dream
Different category, definitely. If someone finds AI prompting as the best way of expressing themselves or driving their vision, they should do it. What they should not do, is call this output by a different name. Calling it photography lends AI generated content credibility in the areas it should not have it. Similarly, accepting AI output as photography, takes away this very credibility from the actual photography, and puts us all, as photographers, in this horrible post-truth limbo.
Check out Jonas Bendiksen's "Book of Veles" project. It consists of his own photos with AI generated subjects in them. He intended it as a sort of prank on the photography community, and wanted it to be exposed as fakery, but soon discovered, that the very community found it very difficult to discern computer generated content from real photography. Largely because he signed his name under the work, so no one was even thinking that it could be all fake. There is a very interesting interview with Bendiksen on the Magnum website about the whole project.
In the overflowing substack world this is a standout,Ben. Love it. 💪
Thanks so much, Heidi. Really appreciate that. 😊
Great publication classmate 😌
😊 cheers mate!
Thanks for sharing, Ben.
very interesting in light of my own project on East Cleveland and my effort to make the past and future part of what i'm trying to "document".
Cheers Regi. Sounds like you have a project with plenty of purpose there.
Great read again. Really interesting. I have the video bookmarked. And I still have the Federico Clavarino interview book marked as well. I just started the Matt Black Magnum course, so these moved slightly down in the list. Good luck with the course and I'm looking forward to your next installment!
Cheers Daniel, much appreciated mate. I was reading Matt Black in a library the other day. The book was called Reflections where he interviews other artists. It looked quite good. Enjoy the course. https://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Matt-Black-Classics/dp/1614285357
Hey Ben, not sure but I have a feeling that that’s a different Matt Black. I mean this one: https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographer/matt-black/
I’m following his Magnum Learn course. He has devoted his whole photography life to documenting the Central Valley in California. His commitment en depth are incredible and I love how he talks about his work and how to think when doing something like that. But I'll check out the book you mentioned. Looks interesting as well!
Good shout. It seems there is a filmmaker / curator of the same name. I stand corrected. I did think it was a bit out of character for him. 😊
Ha ha, yes I had to do some Googling to figure this out too... But still it seems like an interesting read!
Ben, this was such an interesting post. And sharing what you're learning with the rest of us is very generous. I'm looking forward to following this series.
Cheers Paul. Glad you found it useful. It also helps me consolidate what I'm learning.
Really interesting set of takes, Ben. I don't see myself as a 'traditional documentary photographer' as, when I'm out on the street / on holiday, I tend to react to what's in front of me if I find it interesting in any way. I think that the window / mirror analogy also works for landscapes (and maybe other photographic genres). There are landscapers who look for and photograph beauty, light, colour, shape and texture. I suspect that they are the majority. Then, at the other end of the spectrum, there are those who see and record man's (usually detrimental) impact on the land. Good examples of those might be Edward Burtynski and Fay Godwin. Sebastiao Salgado might have a foot in both camps?
Thanks, Paul. Yes, I think the analogy probably works for other genres. I find it useful as a framework to orient my work and understand where other photographers might be coming from. I don't think it's a case of beauty or not. I think it's more about photographic intent. Is the photographer trying to be objective and balanced (window) or bring in their own subjective viewpoint (mirror)?
Interesting, thx for sharing. Really liked the window - mirror analogy. It's something that comes to mind quite often but I think this is the best analogy I've seen so far.
Thanks Ruben. Me too. The analogy really helps me position myself and also read the work of others.
That’s interesting!
Cheers Lorenzo! Thanks for reading.
Oh, wow! I almost signed up for this course as well. We could have ended up classmates! I decided against it after seeking advice from one of our joint photography friends 😅.
I am really looking forward to hearing about your overall impression.
😊 that would've been cool... It's quite a commitment. So, I'm glad I have the time. It's been challenging in terms of ideas and how to look at my previous work. But, after 2 subjects, I'm really enjoying it. And it feels like I might be heading in a new and interesting direction.
What a great read. Thanks for sharing this journey with us. I feel like I’m part of the cohort.
Thanks very much Deborah. I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I’d love to achieve participation and connection first in any people focused photographic project, but it can take its toll. Think Danny Lyon and The Bike Riders or Eugene Smith and the Pittsburgh steel works. There must be something slightly less extreme out there, surely? 🤔
I quite agree. Full immersion is admirable in a project and a transformative experience for the photographer (from what I've heard about Danny Lyon and Bike Riders). But it's not for everyone. And there's more than one way to skin a cat (as my old man used to say). This course, I'm doing, is providing different types of inspiration with each passing subject. Hopefully, it'll help me figure that out. 🤔
Good Luck Ben. It sounds a really interesting course. I hope you both well and still enjoying yourselves amidst your amazing adventures.
Thanks a lot Paul. It’s certainly challenging my thinking and getting me to consider new directions. Hope life’s treating you well, mate.
The problem with AI generated „photographs” is that they are easily taken out of the original AI context and can be mistaken for being actual photographs. Using AI for „documentary work” is just lazy and unethical. You wouldn’t call realist paintings documentary. Same goes for AI. It is a separate category.
I don't like being tricked by AI either. The image maker needs to be upfront about it. But the genie is out of the bottle. So the question is, could there be a sub-category of documentary photography that uses AI-generated images? We already have constructed narratives that are lens-based.
Well. AI generated images are not photography. So we should not even discuss them in the context of documentary photography. If I generate an image that looks like an oil painting, does it make it an oil painting? We may call AI generated imagery conceptual art, or promptography, but they are not photography, and they are not documentary; they may be propaganda though.
Of course I understand that any photography is subjective, and narratives are built to show the photographer's point of view, to let them express their own emotions or understanding of the photographed event or place. Nevertheless, there is that element of reality and truth that is simply lacking with AI.
As photographers, we should strive to put that genie back in its bottle. There is no place for fake imagery in the documentary domain. Where do we draw the line even? I can sit in the warmth and safety of my own bedroom and generate realistically looking images of people suffering from famine and terror in Gaza, or the war atrocities in the Ukraine. Do I document anything then? Do I show real events? Do I respect the victims? For me it is unbelievable and unacceptable, that we are even having this discussion about letting AI fakery be called documentary photography, but as photographers we should take a hard stance on this topic. Otherwise we're doomed.
Your views are exactly where I started. And the hard stance definitely applies at the photojournalistic end of the spectrum. But this course has pushed me to consider whether AI has utility at the more artistic/subjective end. I've been reluctant to use it myself. But photographers like Carl de Keyzer (Magnum) have. He recently did a project called Putin's Dream, where he was open about its use, and made it clear with the words, "this is not photography" at the top. Apparently, he trained the AI with his own archive. As you say, maybe we just need a different category for this stuff. https://www.carldekeyzer.com/putins-dream
Different category, definitely. If someone finds AI prompting as the best way of expressing themselves or driving their vision, they should do it. What they should not do, is call this output by a different name. Calling it photography lends AI generated content credibility in the areas it should not have it. Similarly, accepting AI output as photography, takes away this very credibility from the actual photography, and puts us all, as photographers, in this horrible post-truth limbo.
Check out Jonas Bendiksen's "Book of Veles" project. It consists of his own photos with AI generated subjects in them. He intended it as a sort of prank on the photography community, and wanted it to be exposed as fakery, but soon discovered, that the very community found it very difficult to discern computer generated content from real photography. Largely because he signed his name under the work, so no one was even thinking that it could be all fake. There is a very interesting interview with Bendiksen on the Magnum website about the whole project.
Nice one. Checking it out now. I like Bendiksen's idea. Thanks for that!
"The problem with..." is the underlying idea that photographs are somehow real. Ooops.
😊 Isn't it just. But maybe this reality is all in the eye of the beholder.