• Camera
• Software

The aspect that makes an image taken from a camera valued is that it is a represention of the real world.

The aspect that makes digitally created images valued is that is is a deliberate representation of an image in the artist’s mind.

Both of these are therefore valued because there is an element that makes it - in some sense - real.

Automatically generated images do not share this element. These images are not representations of the real world, nor are they a deliberate representation of an image in the artist’s mind. Generated images are loosely based on patterns from such representations - this is not sufficient.

Of course, these are not clear boundaries. And the appeal of automatically generated images cannot be ignored. It is an accelerant - imitating at a moments notice that which previously took much time and resources. It provides to the masses an ability they previously couldn’t achieve. However, these imitations mock that which we value in an image. If there are no clear boundaries, we must at least define some scale or varying degree.

Images taken from a camera require some signal processing and filtering to convert readings from a sensor to a digital image. This can be considered a minimum necessity. However, further modifications are done using software to change how the image appears - this is not particularly desirable (unless it is deliberate and explicit). Worse, some modern cameras use automatic generation to enchance the image!

Digital images are created using software. The artist has an image in mind, and the software is simply a medium through which it is expressed. Parts of this process can be delegated to automatic generation and classified by the control exerted:

• Auxillary (how to do X in Y)
• Partial (do X in Y)
• Unconstrained (create Z)

How different is the result from the image that the artist had in mind?

1. Auxillary control is very beneficial - learning “how to do X in Y” (typically through text generation) doesn’t change the end result and can assist in reaching it more quickly.
2. Partial control is more complex . To “do X in Y”, the classification depends on what X is. If X is precise and restrictive, it may be considered fair use.
3. To “create Z” is generally a massive deviation simply because there is no way of precisely capturing the artists intent.

The problem is that all these delegation types may eventually produce a comparable result. It is the artists responsibility to be deliberate and transparent, and it is the patrons responsibility to demand it.

What if the artist does not have a particular image in mind? It may be vague; it is not inconceivable that the process of creation influences and directs the final form. For such creations, the influence may be subject to the same scrutiny as the creation. Is the influence a true representation of the real world, or a deliberate representation of an artist?

Ultimately, this is a preference. It is possible to define the boundary concretely, to draw a line seperating that which is acceptable and that which is not - but this is subject to change and scrutiny. The artist must decide.

Summary:

• The value of an image from a camera is it’s accurate representation of the real world.
• The value of an image created or modified using software is the deliberate representation of an image in the artist’s mind.
• Automatically generated images are based on patterns in these representations - this is insufficient to serve as an accurate or deliberate representation.
• This is a distinction of degree - there are various scales of influence.
• It is the artists repsonsibility to be deliberate and transparent.