The photographers strike back.
  • Silverseren@fedia.io
    16522·
    5 months ago

    Disqualification seems appropriate. If it is against the rules to use AI photos in a normal photo category and the winner gets disqualified for that, which has happened, and it is against the rules to use a non-AI photo in this category, then the person should similarly be disqualified.

    Not sure if the person behind this actually made the point they thought they were? Because it just shows that being consistent in rules and disqualification is good and the contest was consistent.

    • corus_kt@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1012·
      5 months ago

      The stated point listed in the article was to prove that manual photography has merit and that ‘nothing is more fascinating than Mother Nature herself’, which he proved by winning the people’s choice award. He didn’t say the disqualification was inappropriate nor did he criticize the contest for inconsistent rules? It seems quite clear that he expected to be removed from the contest after making his statement, actually.

      Personally I hope this doesn’t become a trend of machine generation and manually shot/created work spoiling each other’s contests.

      • Silverseren@fedia.io
        256·
        5 months ago

        So, does that mean that AI photos have merit when they win photo competitions, as has happened in the past? Seems like the point he was trying to make would go both ways.

        • corus_kt@lemmy.worldEnglish
          33·
          5 months ago

          Sure, AI photos have their merit. I believe manual and ai generated photos are their own categories and can be appreciated seperately as such.

          Why limit AI photos to being a clone of real photos? Push expression of the subconscious, the psychedelic, the eldritch, etc. Make something creatively unique from the photoreal, something manual photos would struggle to recreate.

    • OhmsLawn@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      5 months ago

      You’re right. I’m trying to figure out what all the controversy is in this. I’m not seeing anything.

  • Bookmeat@lemmy.worldEnglish
    66·
    5 months ago

    EVP of Samsung, Patrick Chomet, recently said that “there’s no such thing as a real picture”. So this artist should object to the disqualification 🙂

  • Thistlewick@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    5216·
    5 months ago

    his entry has been disqualified in consideration for the other artists.

    What artists? The ones who’s photographs have been scraped from the Internet with no consideration or credit to provide free artistic labour to techbros and companies?

    Or the talentless hacks who think asking a machine to draw them a picture holds the same merits as creating the image themselves?

  • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    1618·
    5 months ago

    His statement is so weird. No one said there is no merit in “real” artists. AI just makes it easier for non artists to add pictures into their projects. Like every industrial revolution it just takes work off of us.

    • neomachino@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      256·
      5 months ago

      I would love for robots to take over the boring jobs like making art, I think it’s a great advancement that our overlords have engineered for us. Now we can get back to things we really enjoy like shoveling shit and suffocating in mines.

      Thank god they didn’t make robots more useful for everyday life tasks, freeing up a portion of the day. I have a hard enough time deciding what to do with my free 25 minutes every week as it is.

      Got to go, my mining shift at the shit factor… Never mind they made robots to mine shit now, guess I’ll go starve to death in line waiting for free bread crumbs.

      • papertowels@lemmy.oneEnglish
        4·
        5 months ago

        Software to “make” 2d artistic images is much easier to develop than robots to do household tasks. Not that we don’t see advancements there either, for example robot vacuums are becoming more commonplace.

      • azuth@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        12·
        5 months ago

        Robots and automation have been cutting ‘mundane’ jobs for literal centuries.

        Artists are frankly out of touch and callous when they imply other people’s jobs should be replaced.

    • probableprotogen@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      15·
      5 months ago

      Or you could just… learn to draw? Sure it takes a while to learn, sure it takes a lot of time to make things, but it genuinely is worth it for the journey alone.

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    1330·
    5 months ago

    Sounds to me like the right thing to do would be disqualify the winner and cancel the category entirely.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        1536·
        5 months ago

        The artist proved that right now, AI art cannot compete.

        If a horse wins an auto race, don’t give a prize to the #2 motorist.

        • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          13·
          5 months ago

          That’s not how sports work, even Motorsport has classes, often in the same race, e.g. of course LMP-3 or GT3 cannot compete with LMP-1, and the latter cannot compete with F1 (unless you’re whatever madlads made the 919 Evo at Porsche), but it’s still things people watch. Hell classic motorsport can be a ton of fun and there’s rally classes that drive in 100hp cars that make my overweight nerd heart flutter just watching them

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
            2·
            5 months ago

            There have been years where a lower class is the overall winner in some endurance Motorsport races though. So your analogy is wrong. If a GT3 Porsche happens to be more efficient or if it’s a year with poor LMP teams, a lower class car can certainly win the overall victory.

            There will still be class victories, but that’s separate from an overall.

            Also classic car (historic racing) is totally awesome, the Goodwood Revival especially has done a really good job making racing exciting again. Their YouTube channel is really well done too.