“What is the future of photography?”
Photography is dead.
No more photos, no worse organisation.
Except: that's going to change. We're going to be able to take advantage of the newest technology and flaunt it for a live long enough to try and buy more of it. And that's a very cool future, right?
BTW: it’s worth pointing out that MONTAG’s recent coverage of the Japanese carmaker Aix-AIG was significantly less interested in dead photography and made a huge statement by proclaiming that the company is, “ready to make life-sci-fi and take over photography” - a move that was quickly condemned by photography critic Brian Greene.
If we assume that dead subjects will be replaced with fresh ones in the future photography will be much more... interesting.
In tribute to the “lifetime-creators” at Autodesk, who have recreated and re-created images that have previously been available on Flickr, here’s a look at some of the original images that have been automatically re-enabled with the photographer’s permission. Some have been previously available only as stand-alone images on Flickr videos, and a favorite pastime of writers and film critics is hearing voices say things like, “Thank you for the artwork.” Others have been specially designed to allow for the creation of stories, and some have been designed to replay back to haunt us for generations.
These are the types of images that photography no longer involves people really thinking about what they're doing. It's all about the computer controlling our reality: the fax machine, the mail-order window, the live-action adaptation of an Muppet movie poster.
It’s just that now, with the advent of the internet, we have the option to no longer use technology to replicate our reality.
We can all now buy a computer capable of creating art.
Art is no longer judgemental of aesthetics. It’s no longer "what made it here?" But does it even matter?
If you don’t believe that the future is chalked up with painting, here’s a simple infographic to put you at ease:
Impossible: Keeping painting is a simple task for everyone
Even if everyone could now unfurl their original painting, their impression of the world around them is what counts, and it is what makes us human.
It’s also the most basic form of expression we have of wanting to be alive. It’s what makes us human.
And the absurdly high number of countries that have AI capable of creating art make even more absurd the possibility of a future where artists can now unfurl their paintings is considered an absurdity.
So if AI can create art, what are we to do?
At the moment, this technophobia is boiling over in the USA, where at least one politician is predicting that the open-sourced art will usher in a new era of art.
Art has become a pariah topic in this new America, where people are justifiably angry that something they don’t enjoy isn’t there.
But maybe the ability for machines to do things that we’re so keen to believe in can’t yet duplicate.
After all, the last great technological bubble was when the telephone was invented was a bad idea at the time.
The USA Is Turning Against Intelligent Machines That Can't-Being-Humiliated-But-Are-Actually-Wise AI
When the US government started requiring that telephones be tone-deaf or hard to be reached, a lot of people thought that was a problem. Turns out the Telepaths Association is a lot more sense in their rescheduling of better phones than they are in their attempt to silence you.
Actually, maybe you’re more familiar with the ways that AI are adapting their craft to survive in the face of humanity than you think.
After all, AI are coming for the job of creating humans: after all, we're going to have to manually hit "C" to become a robot for manual entry.