Skip to content
1981
Volume 16, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 2040-3682
  • E-ISSN: 2040-3690

Abstract

The article explores the relationship between photography and generative AI, discussing whether AI-generated images that appear photographic can be considered photography or if they represent a distinct medium. To address this question, the article proposes drawing on the media-theoretical concept of ‘automatisms’, as advanced by Stanley Cavell and David N. Rodowick. Focusing on the emerging practice of ‘generative re-photography’, the article examines the ways in which artists Anja Engelke and Craig Ames deploy photographic automatisms in their works. By appropriating found photographs and recreating them synthetically, both artists demonstrate how multimodal generative AI is fundamentally dependent on the medium of photography and its history – particularly the photographic automatism of documentary recording. Rather than contrasting traditional photography with synthetic images, the works reflect on both their continuities and discontinuities, emphasizing the cultural automatisms embedded in technological automatisms.

© 2025 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/pop_00116_1
2026-02-12
2026-04-13

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bajohr, Hannes (2022), ‘Operative ekphrasis: Meaning, images, language in artificial neural networks’, Artificial Intelligence: Intelligent Art? Human-Machine Interaction and Creative Practice, TU Braunschweig and online, 7–9 October, https://www.tu-braunschweig.de/en/anglistik/seminar/liku/forschung/von-der-avantgarde-zum-algorithmus/tagung-2022. Accessed 18 December 2025.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Barthes, Roland (1977), Image: Music: Text, Essays Selected and Translated by Stephen Heath, London: Fontana Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barthes, Roland (1982), Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography, New York: Hill and Wang.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bublitz, Hannelore, Roman, Marek, Steinmann, Christina and Winkler, Hartmut (eds) (2013), ‘Einleitung’, Automatismen, Paderborn: Fink, pp. 9–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Cavell, Stanley (1979), The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film, Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chatonsky, Grégory, Joschke, Christian and Somaini, Antonio (2023), ‘Disréalismes: Une conversation entre Grégory Chatonsky, Christian Joschke et Antonio Somaini’, Transbordeur, 7, pp. 98–109, https://doi.org/10.4000/12gxn.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Crawford, Kate (2021), Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence, New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter (1992), ‘The image of objectivity’, Representations, Special Issue: ‘Seeing Science’, 40, pp. 81–128, https://doi.org/10.2307/2928741.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Didi-Huberman, Georges (1999), Ähnlichkeit und Berührung: Archäologie, Anachronismus und Modernität des Abdrucks, Köln: DuMont.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Eldagsen, Boris (2023a), ‘REFUSAL OF THE PRIZE of the Sony World Photography Awards’, Instagram post, 13 April, https://www.instagram.com/p/Cq_XiGJIQiC/. Accessed 16 July 2023.
  11. Eldagsen, Boris (2023b), ‘Let’s clean up the messy terminology!..’, Instagram post, 19 April, https://www.instagram.com/p/CrN4GSIIKns/?img_index=1. Accessed 16 July 2023.
  12. Geise, Stephanie (2024), ‘Folly in flux: Artificial Stupidity and changing viewer perception in generative imagery’, Artificial Stupidity, Offenbach am Main, 25–26 July.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Gerling, Winfried (2024), ‘Das Bild als Wahrscheinlichkeit’, in O. Moskatova and L. K. Mücke (eds), Bild | Kanäle: Zur Theorie und Ästhetik vernetzter Medienkultur, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, pp. 39–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Ginzburg, Carlo (1990), Myths, Emblems, Clues, London: Hutchinson Radius.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gitelman, Lisa (2006), Always Already New: Media, History, and the Data of Culture, Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Henning, Michelle (2021), ‘Kind of blue: Social media photography and emotion’, Digital Culture & Society, 7:2, pp. 29–54, https://doi.org/10.14361/dcs-2021-070203.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Holbein, Lena (2019), ‘Reflections on the archive: Reconsidering the evidence project (1977–2017)’, in J. Bärnighausen, C. Caraffa, S. Klamm, F. Schneider and P. Wodtke (eds), Photo-Objects: On the Materiality of Photographs and Photo Archives, Berlin: Edition Open Access/Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, pp. 229–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Kember, Sarah (2014), ‘Face recognition and the emergence of smart photography’, Journal of Visual Culture, 13:2, pp. 182–99, https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412914541767.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Latour, Bruno (1999), Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Malevé, Nicolas and Sluis, Katrina (2023), ‘The photographic pipeline of machine vision; or, machine vision’s latent photographic theory’, Critical AI, 1:1–2, pp. 1–2, https://doi.org/10.1215/2834703x-10734066.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Meyer, Roland (2023), ‘The new value of the archive: AI image generation and the visual economy of “style”’, IMAGE: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Image Sciences, 37:1, pp. 100–11, https://doi.org/10.1453/1614-0885-1-2023-15458.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Moskatova, Olga (2024), ‘Promptismus: Generative Bildprogramme und das Spiel mit dem KI-Apparat’, in O. Moskatova and L. K. Mücke (eds), Bild | Kanäle: Zur Theorie und Ästhetik vernetzter Medienkultur, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, pp. 121–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. O’Connor, Ryan (2022), ‘Introduction to diffusion models for machine learning’, Assembly AI, 12 May, https://www.assemblyai.com/blog/diffusion-models-for-machine-learning-introduction/. Accessed 17 October 2024.
  24. Offert, Fabian (2023), ‘On the concept of history (in foundation models)’, IMAGE: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Image Sciences, 37:1, pp. 121–34, https://doi.org/10.1453/1614-0885-1-2023-15462.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Offert, Fabian and Phan, Thao (2022), ‘A sign that spells: Dall-E 2, invisual images and the racial politics of feature space’, 26 October, https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.06323. Accessed 5 July 2025.
  26. Pasquinelli, Matteo and Joler, Vladan (2021), ‘The Nooscope manifested: AI as instrument of knowledge extractivism’, AI & Society, 36, pp. 1263–80, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01097-6.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Pilipets, Elena and Geboers, Marloes (2024), ‘War, memes, art, protest, and porn: Jail(break)ing synthetic imaginaries under OpenAI ’s content policy restrictions’, digital methods initiative, 4 November, https://www.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/SummerSchool2024WarMemesArtProtestPorn. Accessed 29 September 2024.
  28. Pohlmann, Natascha (2021), ‘Von Kontext zu Kontext: Verfahren der Aneignung gefundener Fotografien bei Mike Mandel, Larry Sultan und Peter Piller’, Ph.D. thesis, Berlin: FU Berlin.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Rodowick, David N. (2007), The Virtual Life of Film, Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Schofield, Michael Peter (2024), ‘Camera phantasma: Reframing virtual photographies in the age of AI’, Convergence, 30:2, pp. 687–709, https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565231220314.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Schröter, Jens (2023), ‘The AI image, the dream, and the statistical unconscious’, IMAGE: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Image Sciences, 37:1, pp. 112–20, https://doi.org/10.1453/1614-0885-1-2023-15460.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Sekula, Allan (1986), ‘The body and the archive’, October, 39, pp. 3–64, https://doi.org/10.2307/778312.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Shklovsky, Viktor ([1917] 2015), ‘Art, as device’, Poetics Today, 36:3, pp. 151–74, https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-3160709.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Somaini, Antonio (2023), ‘Algorithmic images: Artificial intelligence and visual culture’, Grey Room, 93:93, pp. 74–115, https://doi.org/10.1162/grey_a_00383.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Sunde, Emilie K. (2024), ‘From our space to latent space’, Philosophy of Photography, 15:1, pp. 123–42, https://doi.org/10.1386/pop_00096_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Taffel, Sy (2020), ‘Google’s lens: Computational photography and platform capitalism’, Media, Culture & Society, 43:2, pp. 237–55, https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720939449.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Zylinska, Joanna (2024), ‘Diffused seeing: The epistemological challenge of generative AI’, Media Theory, 8:1, pp. 229–58, https://doi.org/10.70064/mt.v8i1.1075.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Benjamin, Walter (1963), Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, Berlin: Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/pop_00116_1
Loading
Generative re-photography: On photographic automatisms of synthetic images
Philosophy of Photography 16, 263 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1386/pop_00116_1
/content/journals/10.1386/pop_00116_1
/content/journals/10.1386/pop_00116_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): appropriation; generative AI; media theory; photograph; photographic realism; statistical unconscious; synthetic photography

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test