AI is poised to make huge changes to outdoor culture, and we’re in for a wild ride. But there’s also opportunity to redefine how we value wild places, says Alex Roddie
A really good article, Alex, that got me thinking. I’m interested in the label “authenticity” you say that many people crave. For example, photographs were often criticised for not being ‘authentic’ representations long before the digital age. It’s a difficult one: post-modern, anything goes authenticity as being in the eye of the beholder, or does the word have more substance than that?
An interesting point and I'm keen to see what Alex says about it.
It's certainly true that authenticity in photography was problematic long before A, or even before Photoshop. All sorts of darkroom trickery, air-brushing, etc., allowed for 'deepfakes' long before the term was coined. If someone fell out of favour with Stalin, for example, they would be erased from official photos.
What Photoshop, Instagram filters, and all the rest have done have made it easier for everyone to do it and make it look 'real'. AI accentuates this but it's not new or AI-specific.
I've had misgivings for a long time about the casual way so many people approach this. So many photographers seem to care only about the final image looking 'good', and indifferent to whether or not it still reflects what they actually saw and felt out there at a particular place at a particular time. Yet for me the magic of photography has always been exactly that, the ability to capture a moment in space and time and how it made me feel. Which I suppose is exactly what we mean by 'authenticity'.
The other thing to say is that these issues are not unique to photography. In fact historically it's been harder to fake things in photography than in most other media. How have we ever been able to know whether a painting is an accurate representation of the subject? How have we ever been able to know whether a newspaper report is true or false? It boils down to trust and the integrity of the creator, and it always has.
But here's a question about intervention. I say I want a photo to represent what I saw, and I've always held out against things like cloning out pylons or replacing a dull sky with a dramatic one. I won't intervene post-hoc in that way… but I have, on occasion, picked up litter from the foreground of a shot. Now why is one intervention morally acceptable and the other one not?
I guess we all decide where our red lines are. I have spent so much time waiting and manoeuvring to get photos of buildings or views without people in - and this year, I have found myself also taking the ‘real’ image with crowds. The question is, will I use both? The guidebook we used for a visit to Stockholm this year had an image of the Golden Hall with and without people, and I far preferred the one without…
Yes indeed. And there's a case to be made that removing transient elements in a scene (people, cars, litter) is different from removing permanent ones like pylons. But then where do you stop? I remember a furore years ago, long before all this talk about AI, about holiday brochures showing images of deserted beaches or hotel pools when the reality everyone experienced was radically different.
Excellent stuff, Alex, and you've helped crystallise a lot of my own misgivings about the headlong rush to 'AI-ify' everything. Your comment, "automate your own creativity and you’re a turkey voting for Christmas," says it all.
A really good article, Alex, that got me thinking. I’m interested in the label “authenticity” you say that many people crave. For example, photographs were often criticised for not being ‘authentic’ representations long before the digital age. It’s a difficult one: post-modern, anything goes authenticity as being in the eye of the beholder, or does the word have more substance than that?
An interesting point and I'm keen to see what Alex says about it.
It's certainly true that authenticity in photography was problematic long before A, or even before Photoshop. All sorts of darkroom trickery, air-brushing, etc., allowed for 'deepfakes' long before the term was coined. If someone fell out of favour with Stalin, for example, they would be erased from official photos.
What Photoshop, Instagram filters, and all the rest have done have made it easier for everyone to do it and make it look 'real'. AI accentuates this but it's not new or AI-specific.
I've had misgivings for a long time about the casual way so many people approach this. So many photographers seem to care only about the final image looking 'good', and indifferent to whether or not it still reflects what they actually saw and felt out there at a particular place at a particular time. Yet for me the magic of photography has always been exactly that, the ability to capture a moment in space and time and how it made me feel. Which I suppose is exactly what we mean by 'authenticity'.
The other thing to say is that these issues are not unique to photography. In fact historically it's been harder to fake things in photography than in most other media. How have we ever been able to know whether a painting is an accurate representation of the subject? How have we ever been able to know whether a newspaper report is true or false? It boils down to trust and the integrity of the creator, and it always has.
But here's a question about intervention. I say I want a photo to represent what I saw, and I've always held out against things like cloning out pylons or replacing a dull sky with a dramatic one. I won't intervene post-hoc in that way… but I have, on occasion, picked up litter from the foreground of a shot. Now why is one intervention morally acceptable and the other one not?
I guess we all decide where our red lines are. I have spent so much time waiting and manoeuvring to get photos of buildings or views without people in - and this year, I have found myself also taking the ‘real’ image with crowds. The question is, will I use both? The guidebook we used for a visit to Stockholm this year had an image of the Golden Hall with and without people, and I far preferred the one without…
Yes indeed. And there's a case to be made that removing transient elements in a scene (people, cars, litter) is different from removing permanent ones like pylons. But then where do you stop? I remember a furore years ago, long before all this talk about AI, about holiday brochures showing images of deserted beaches or hotel pools when the reality everyone experienced was radically different.
Excellent stuff, Alex, and you've helped crystallise a lot of my own misgivings about the headlong rush to 'AI-ify' everything. Your comment, "automate your own creativity and you’re a turkey voting for Christmas," says it all.