The History of Photography and Its Problems

It's being predicted by many that generative artificial intelligence is the death knell of art. Given the number of so-called "apocalypses" that the art world has had to deal with in the last century alone, it may be worth looking at one particular art to get a good feel for how likely it is that this technology is likely to cause the death of art. Yes, we're looking at photography.

Let's Take a Picture

Photography is one of the weirder arts: It's based on the highest tech, requires some great math to do well, and it helps if you're not afraid of chemicals. Well, at least in some cases. Photography has been the basis of at least three different crises in the art world, with the first right when it left the starting gate. Drawing and painting were two of the most important ways to record history; they could record what people encountered in the field as well as moments of personal history, such as family portraits.

When photography was first introduced, people wondered at its ability to record the moment with dead-on accuracy with no exaggeration; what you saw was what it actually looked like. With painting and drawing, there were always small details wrong, with even the most life-like portraits being limited by the skill and patience of those involved. There were also timing issues: You had to choose between speed and detail. With photography, it may take a few minutes, but you can capture every detail.

It was no wonder that painters and illustrators were worried about their jobs. However, this ended up being less of a worry than they thought: The equipment was expensive, the glass plates needed were fragile, and the chemicals were hard to deal with.

Verdict: Painting and illustration are still around, so maybe this one was more drama than anything else…

Watch for Shopping

In 1987, Adobe Software released Photoshop. While originally released as a subset of Illustrator and expected to do modest sales at best, the software exploded on the scene. While photographers loved the software as it allowed them to correct issues as well as take their art to new levels, other groups quickly found a wide variety of uses for the software. However, it did have its detractors: It was seen as devaluing photography, especially in its use of documenting social communication (it could add or subtract people from pictures, making them appear to have been or not), as well as ethical issues with the software, some of which parallel the DeepFake issues of today. There was also the potential of modifying evidence.

Verdict: While some of the fears were well founded, the software has become a vital tool in many industries and even spawned a few, such as forensic digital photography. It's even been recognized as an art form.

Fun With Cameras

Even before the invention of the smartphone digital photography was seen as a problem. Prior to the digital camera, there was just as much science to taking a picture as there was art; you needed to know what kind of picture you wanted so you could make the necessary adjustments. This led some photographers to carry around different cameras with different settings. The original digital cameras were pretty simple but soon became as sophisticated as their analog version.

The perceived threat is that they simplified photography and thus made it more available to the masses, and this was seen as potentially devaluing photographers: The better pictures the average person could take, the more likely they wouldn't need someone with skills and experience. Thus, professional photography would fall as amateurs took on the roles that professional photographers traditionally had, from family pictures to model shoots.

Verdict: We still have professional photographers; their experience just can't be beat, and their equipment and skill make for some great pictures. By the same token, the amateurs have gotten better, as they've actually studied photography and got the basics (composition, lighting, depth of field) down pat.

With the advent of generated AI art, it's important to remember that while there may be issues at the beginning and that artists are going to lose jobs, this could be not only the beginning of a new art but that artists are not only likely to survive the new technology but actually thrive. There's no way to tell what the future may bring, but it's not as dark as some assume.