> The world of art was completely transformed by the introduction of photography in the 19th century, because the capturing of lifelike scenes was no longer part of the goal, and we entered an era dominated by the artist’s imagination.
That's a common viewpoint, but it's not quite true, for multiple reasons. A camera is a rather limited tool: it will transform colors, sometimes unpleasantly (value compression, color shifts), and can never quite capture reality as an artist would.
Then, while many paintings look lifelike, they still are absolutely out of reach of a camera. Landscapes in particular (e.g. [0]) are heavily staged: the light is invented, trees and mountains are moved around to fit various æsthetical choices, etc.
Or, consider how Bouguereau's, while life-like from a distance, are much less so from up-close (see [1]): the artist is among others playing with transparency and opacity of the paint to increase the feeling on depth and realism.
Art changed drastically during the 19th century, and photography played a role for sure, but IMO the decline of religion is probably a greater contributor.
I think that both viewpoints are correct. I would add that, importantly, the invention of photography changed the economics of picture ownership. No longer was it necessary to sit long hours and pay a ton of money to get a family portrait! Photographs were far cheaper, and to the untrained eye, "better" than the work of a mediocre portraitist. Of course, I would personally much rather have Ingres (for one) paint my portrait, but only the very wealthy could afford such a thing.
It's also a very common viewpoint but not true, as there are countless methods in which photographer can prepare for a photo. A quick argument: video is a stream of photographs. Do you think that movies can never capture reality as an artist would ;-)
Today's photography decline and digital method's popularity raise show - iny my opinion - that the trend is stable. Average person practices the most approachable form of art available to them. Shift from painting to photography happened not because it's subjectively better but objectively easier.
> Do you think that movies can never capture reality as an artist would ;-)
We’re talking about single photos here, not entire movies. Sure, if you make a 5-hours documentary about a subject you can capture everything you want, but that’s not comparable to a single photo or drawing.
Good writers can also capture aspects of reality in a way that’s impossible for photographers because "reality" goes well beyond what you see: thoughts, sentiments, sounds, smells, memory, feelings, etc.
> A quick argument: video is a stream of photographs. Do you think that movies can never capture reality as an artist would ;-)
I meant, limited from an artistic point of view! But it's indeed a fantastic tool, and the ability to carry one in the pocket at all time is quite a blessing, even for artists! It also offers plenty of otherwise hard to reach possibilities: filming blooming flowers, microscopy, etc.
> Art changed drastically during the 19th century, and photography played a role for sure, but IMO the decline of religion is probably a greater contributor.
And we have new tools affecting art today, artificial intelligence chief among them. Interestingly, that coincides with a rise in religion in many Western nations fueled by the influx of Islam to Europe. I wonder how people will view the effects on art and sciences in 200 years. Today, many people view both AI's effect on art and the rise of Islam in Europe very negatively.
I believe AI to merely affects art but superficially: by that I mean that it lower the cost of creation so drastically, that what it creates is essentially worthless. It can be pretty and enjoyable, but it's, at least for now, immaterial, and too dirt cheap to produce to bear any sensible intrinsic value.
Industry jobs might be somewhat at risks, as businesses tend to optimize for profits, but even there, I'd wait and see what happens in the long run.
> I wonder how people will view the effects on art and sciences in 200 years.
Hopefully we would have had a Renaissance 2.0 since then!
Were Islam to keep on growing (I do personally think it's more on the decline), I think we could expect interesting outcomes, artistically speaking, as Muslims visual arts, because they tend to shy away from figuration, are somewhat orthogonal to Western's forms.
> Today, many people view both AI's effect on art and the rise of Islam in Europe very negatively.
Islam has always been culturally foreign to Europe, and the current economical & social situation have a bunch of weird, highly chaotic side-effects.
Most of the Muslims I've met were generous, heartwarming and thoughtful, perhaps more than the average person. I know it's not systematically true either, but I still have little reason to not have an essentially positive view of them.
I've also met people who told me (literally) that 99% Muslims were bloody awful, by sole virtue of being Muslims: the same reasoning we had a few decades ago, when Jews were targeted for sole virtue of being Jews, not because of their individual acts.
> I believe AI to merely affects art but superficially: by that I mean that it lower the cost of creation so drastically, that what it creates is essentially worthless. It can be pretty and enjoyable, but it's, at least for now, immaterial, and too dirt cheap to produce to bear any sensible intrinsic value.
AI is already replacing a very long tail of small business needs for near-worthless art. This market was already dominated by Fiver and free stock photos / icon packs / etc. But like any calculus, the very long tail of small transactions added up to a non-negligible portion of the industry.
> Were Islam to keep on growing (I do personally think it's more on the decline), I think we could expect interesting outcomes, artistically speaking, as Muslims visual arts, because they tend to shy away from figuration, are somewhat orthogonal to Western's forms.
Islam in Europe is growing - mostly by refugees' birth rates. As I'm not Christian, and my own culture also prefers art without human or divine figuration, I absolutely love Muslim art. I've been to many mosques (and some Christian churches, too) in my country.
> Most of the Muslims I've met were generous, heartwarming and thoughtful, perhaps more than the average person. I know it's not systematically true either, but I still have little reason to not have an essentially positive view of them.
I agree with you 100%. But we're not talking about people - we're talking about culture. I can think of more than a single culture that I'd rather not live among, even if as individuals I value my friendship with individuals of that culture.
> I've also met people who told me (literally) that 99% Muslims were bloody awful, by sole virtue of being Muslims: the same reasoning we had a few decades ago, when Jews were targeted for sole virtue of being Jews, not because of their individual acts.
Yes, exactly, it's not hard to find somebody who hates other people. Don't let them ruin your perception of people - you'll find 99% of people to be fine no matter what culture they are from. But groups of people who maintain a culture among them - I have to say that some of these can be problematic. Paradox of tolerance and all that.
> This market was already dominated by Fiver and free stock photos / icon packs / etc
Let's add to this the use of digital art, which drastically reduced production costs (can't resist: [0]). I wonder however, if, in the long run, AI won't end up boosting traditional arts, and encourage higher creativity and skills from human artists.
> Islam in Europe is growing
In numbers definitely, but I was thinking in terms of "spiritual intensity".
Consider e.g. how Muslims feast during Ramadan at night: I doubt this is remotely aligned with the original intents. Same thing goes for other groups: hateful Christian despite Jesus's "Love Thy Neighbor", Jews celebrating murder despite Hashem's command, etc.
Perhaps "feasting" wasn't the right word: I would bet Ramadan was originally a time of rest, calm and reflection, and not about eating excessively all nights for a month.
Prophets usually encourage good measure, balance, not that kind of excessive behavior.
In my experience AI has a very negligible impact on contemporary art for now. Sure, it feels everywhere if your art consumption is limited to browsing the Web, but if you go out in museums and galleries it’s not that visible.
That's a common viewpoint, but it's not quite true, for multiple reasons. A camera is a rather limited tool: it will transform colors, sometimes unpleasantly (value compression, color shifts), and can never quite capture reality as an artist would.
Then, while many paintings look lifelike, they still are absolutely out of reach of a camera. Landscapes in particular (e.g. [0]) are heavily staged: the light is invented, trees and mountains are moved around to fit various æsthetical choices, etc.
Or, consider how Bouguereau's, while life-like from a distance, are much less so from up-close (see [1]): the artist is among others playing with transparency and opacity of the paint to increase the feeling on depth and realism.
Art changed drastically during the 19th century, and photography played a role for sure, but IMO the decline of religion is probably a greater contributor.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albert_Bierstadt_-_Among_...
[1]: https://www.muddycolors.com/2023/02/bouguereaus-the-oreads-a...