While many artists and creatives see AI as a threat and fear its potential to take over their jobs, German artist Boris Eldagsen sees AI as a collaborator.
"I think in the arts there's enough space for any approach, any tool," Eldagsen told Salon in an interview via WhatsApp.
Eldagsen put this to the test. Last December, he submitted his AI-generated image "The Electrician," part of his Pseudomnesia series, to the Sony World Photography Awards (SWPA). The haunting black-and-white image features two women of different generations, the elder behind the younger. What appears to be electrical cords hang overhead.
"The Electrician" won, but Eldagsen realized Sony hadn't publicly acknowledged that the work was AI-generated in any of the promotional material or signage. The artist had submitted the image to deliberately create a discussion about the future of AI-generated work in the photography world, and once accepted, had informed the SWPA about his usage of AI and his desire to share that fact.
Therefore, at the exhibit's opening ceremony earlier this month in London, Eldagsen showed up to refuse the award in public and start the conversation on his own.
"They don't want to talk about the nature of that image. They don't care."
"We, the photo world, need an open discussion. A discussion about we want to consider photography and what not. Is the umbrella of photography large enough to invite AI images to enter – or would this be a mistake?" Eldagsen said during his impromptu speech. "With my refusal of the award I hope to speed up this debate."
The conversation is becoming increasingly important as AI becomes more integrated in the creation of news and other media.
Last month, Buzzfeed began publishing AI-generated quizzes and articles under the byline "Buzzy the Robot." Thursday, it was announced that Buzzfeed is shutting down their news division and, according to CBS, also cutting 15% of jobs throughout the company. Buzzfeed denied that any jobs are being replaced with AI.
And following a January report from Futurism that tech news outlet CNET had published around 73 AI-generated articles, layoffs began at that company as well. Last month, Futurism reported that 50% of CNET's news and video staff had been laid off, but the company denied that AI had any involvement in that decision.
Check out the rest of the interview with Eldagsen, who addresses the need for AI creations to be clearly delineated for the sake of art and journalism.
The following has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Why do you think this particular image won out of the ones you submitted?
Because it has all the qualities an artwork needs. It needs to have an openness, a certain mystery, it needs to touch you on many different levels — emotionally, intellectually. And art, in my opinion, is not to convey a message. So, the question, "What does the artist want to tell us?" is totally wrong, in my opinion. It's much better to ask what impact [the artwork has] on me as a viewer. What emotional impact, what kind of memories and thoughts are triggered? Am I drawn to it? Is it pushing me away? It's a journey inside. And a good artwork can give an impulse to do so, and I think the image gives that impulse. And on that level, it's not important how it was produced.
I think they had two options. One option would have been saying, OK, you fooled us just handing in the image [and] not telling us what it was. But you have a point. You found a weak spot, and we are going to talk about it. What do we need to change for future regulations? Is it a good thing to mix AI-generated images and photography in one category? I think not. If they would just have one online Zoom or interview, that would have been fine . . .
What I thought was totally wrong was that if the press, after the press release, inquired about my image — if it's AI or not — that they did not respond saying yes or no. They just sent a generic "blah blah," keeping it open. Not even using the term AI and not even telling me that they didn't use my statement. I think that was the point that changed a lot, because I realized they don't want to talk about the nature of that image. They don't care. And the difference between photography and AI-generated images does not exist for them.
But I think for the photographic community, it is very important to tell [everyone] it's not the same. And, for me, it's also very important. And you have to take into account, I love to photograph. I have been doing it for 30 years. I love to work with AI — I'm doing it on a daily basis for a year now.
"It's a technical revolution. It's going to destroy jobs, it's going to create new jobs."
You've chosen to work with AI, stating that for you it is "a co-creation" in which you are "the director." What are your thoughts on some artists/creatives concerns about AI taking over creative fields?
I think one concern that I share is the training material. We need to have a close look at the legislation — if it can still be allowed to use training material without asking the owners of the copyright. There needs to be an opt-in, opt-out option. And photographers who are afraid of losing jobs — well, they feel it; it's going to happen. There's nothing more to say about it. It's a technical revolution. It's going to destroy jobs, it's going to create new jobs. Those jobs which are threatened, and the people who are having those jobs, it's a terrible situation. Because once you realize there's nothing you can do against it, you can basically just try to find a new job and start again. And who would like to do that if you love what you do?
I think in the arts there's enough space for any approach, any tool. And we just need to be clear that things are produced differently and have different names. It's just having some kind of structure. A painting is not a sculpture, and a drawing is not a performance. Most of the time.
Some AI-generated images have gone viral before yours (Trump in handcuffs, the Pope in a puffer jacket). While these are certainly fun, what do you see as the wider implications when it comes to what the public may mistake as truth?
I think it's very necessary for news [and] press to distinguish between images that are authentic or manipulated or generated. If you show those funny images of the Pope in [a] puffer jacket without any comment, people will believe it happened. And if you say, right now, we could [in]fer that it did not happen — what about in five years? In 10 years? In 50 years? What is going to remain? What kind of history has to be rewritten? I think we need to come up with a clear system that the press is sticking to. And we need to support the press in setting up a structure of fact-checking, of doing the work of picture editors, which takes a lot of time, and which is costing more than the nominal magazines can afford. But I think we as citizens of a democratic state and the democratic state itself, should invent a structure where this is co-funded. I think it's very important not to give up the fight with this information.
