I do think some buy art for the visual wow factor and might not care how synthetic the process was. Others are into the artist and the art, and they would probably appreciate authentications whereby image files with copyright are used to create a final image, whether composite or not.
Really, I was just wondering whether “structural change” is what destroys the authenticity when we operate in a craft where many photographers blend structures.
I teach English Composition, so AI is a big concern anywhere creative products are valued or shared ( or processes taught).
Absolutely, Marylynne. You’re right in observing that some buyers are primarily captivated by the visual “wow” factor and might not concern themselves with how synthetic the creation process was. Others, however, truly value the artist and the authenticity of the work. This dichotomy mirrors the broader fine art market, where there are both those who purchase art for its aesthetic appeal relative to cost, and those who are more discerning, willing to invest in originality and authenticity.
With the advent of AI, we might see a shift where the market for authentically created works could shrink, while the market for AI-enhanced or generated works grows. This could unfortunately disadvantage those artists who commit to preserving the genuine essence of their subjects.
This is precisely why it’s so important for us to advocate for and promote human-made work. By emphasizing the value of work created by human artists—not only in terms of technique but also in the authenticity and originality they bring—we help maintain a space for genuine art in a world increasingly dominated by digital manipulation and encourage support for artists committed to traditional and authentic creative processes.