After viewing Michael Christopher Brown’s post on AI images, I took his perspective as an offense to photojournalism in general. First, his description of 90 Miles images was “post-photography AI reporting.” Brown tries to portray the historical realities and struggles of Cubans in the borders of artificial intelligence. He diminishes his own profession as a photojournalist by using this outlet instead of real photography. Giving credit to fake images of real-life events in history and even in present-day time shows how contradicting he is to his work. Yes, it may be a fascinating technological advancement. However, his support behind this new innovation will only give his career more hardships in the long run as photographers will start to be less in demand. I agree with a comment that I saw under the post where someone said, “Profiting from… degrading the profession of photojournalism? From stealing others’ artwork? From damaging the environment? From people’s trauma and suffering THEY DIDN’T EVEN GRANT YOU ACCESS TO ?! This is wrong on so many levels and you need to stop before others follow your lead.” Since Brown also said that 10% of the proceeds go to Cuban refugees, this sounds like a joke because 10% is hardly anything. Brown looks greedy for profit and looks insensitive to the authenticity of photojournalism. To me, I find it shocking that a photojournalist promotes AI in photography as it might take over individuals in his profession soon. I believe that there should be more justice for hard working photojournalists like Lynsey Addario who risk their lives to capture a real photo of conflict, poverty, and other social, political, and economic struggles worldwide. This is what I find interesting, unlike generated photos that have no original component of an actual issue.
Categories