Summary
After seeing the 90 miles post-photography AI illustrations from Michael Christopher Brown, a comment that called my attention was from @gabrielleluriephoto
which said, “Very curious about all of this. Curious about the intentions and also the criticism. Can this be likened to a painting? Lots of paintings depict suffering….Would it be ok if he wasn’t making money off of it? Would it be okay if he was donating all of the money? Is it because it’s mixing photojournalism and ai generated images? Is recreating images a problem? Is it because he’s a photojournalist? I don’t have answers or a fully formed opinion but I do think it’s important to parse out these issues very clearly because AI-generated images are here and here to stay. Many people will consider it art — others will see it as fake news. it's important to set parameters/ protocol and not just admonish it because it’s tasteless. I hope I’m making sense.” I resonate with her because I also don’t share a certain opinion but, I do feel like rules should be installed for journalists and photographers' safety in what is acceptable and not as news. Also, he writes the history that goes on with these AI illustrations kind of giving it the vibes of a story but with illustrations instead of pictures which, starts showing that AI illustrations might be taking over news illustrators' jobs.