A great post that presents several aspects of the aesthetic of photography that is a definitional distinction between it and generative image creation. Speaking of definitional differences....

I'm on the warpath about the use and misuse of the words photography and photo/photograph. Since the explosive injection of AI-generative imagery in public consciousness starting last November, I have been disturbed by several aspects surrounding its development and how it is being perceived and discussed.

The juxtaposition of the words photography/photo/photograph and nomenclature surrounding the process and products of AI tool-toys creation is creating a blurring of what should be understood as clearly distinct processes and genres. Failure to to make and enforce this distinction will have potentially severe future consequences in the already beleaguered area of intellectual property law as AI technologies mature. Examples of potential destructive misuse abound.

I’m sorry to bring this up as a blemish on an otherwise stellar post but...

AI-generated photos can be stunning, ...

I’m sure Andrew didn’t intended the oxymoron of the first three words since he seemed careful to avoid saying such a thing up to that point. But this is exactly the kind of example we need to be mindful not to create, and to confront, oppose, and correct whereever we see it.

If readers have some time, please have a look at a project I decided to take on that, among may other issues, includes addressing this subject at AIgitated.com. I haven't made a formal public announcement of it yet until I post more content to show direction and hold interest, but comments, private of posted, would be appreciated.

Thanks again, Andrew, for a great post. I can assure you I will be quoting from it in my next post on the necessary definitional differences, presently in development.