If the default #PlatformRealism of AI image synthesis tools can essentially be described as a second-order aesthetic of generic images, it's particularly revealing what #Midjourney does when asked to generate the image of something specific, say a famous building. A thread …
1/6 You' probably recognized the building depicted above as New York's Guggenheim Museum. However, it's far from an accurate representation of Frank Lloyd Wright's famous design. It’s faithful only in the most recognizable features, while all details are treated quite generously
2/6

With each update, tools like #Midjourney promise us more and more »realistic« representations – but the »reality« these images represent has little to do with the one we live in. Rather, they are best described as #PlatformRealism: a second-order aesthetic of generic images
1/9 In an age of networked online content, generic images are ubiquitous. No online text, no web page, and hardly any social media post seems complete without at least one accompanying image, even if it provides no additional information (of course, this thread also has images)
2/9

Recently, #Midjourney introduced a new parameter called »weird«, which aims to make results more »unexpected«. This is notable for a several reasons, not least because it highlights what the company considers »expected« and thus »normal«: images like this one, for example
1/6 According to MJ, the image above, depicting an all-white 1950s nuclear »family enjoying a picnic,« represents the degree zero of »weirdness«. Pump up the algorithmically generated »weirdness« to 50, and the nostalgic vibe goes down a notch, but whiteness remains the default
2/6

Diffusion models like Midjourney have been marketed primarily as a cheap way to produce images. And that's a problem, because in many cases they are more a means of re-production that exploits and devalues human labor. But what if we use them as tools to study images?
1/9 What's most troubling about these models from a creative viewpoint seems to be their most interesting aspect from a scholarly perspective: they are extremely good at identifying, synthesizing, and reinforcing visual patterns and stereotypes. They're basically cliché detectors
2/9

So far, I've largely stayed out of the debates about whether or not AI can produce art - for me, that's just not the most interesting question about AI image generation. But as the discussion has progressed, I've developed some thoughts that I'd like to share in this thread
1/14 There’s a simple answer to that question: AI cannot produce art, but of course it can be used to produce art – like (almost) anything else. Since Duchamp, Kaprow, and Sturtevant, anything can become art: a ready-made object, a social event, even a copy of someone else's work
2/14

The recent wave of pope-related AI images, and the accompanying hot takes about whether or not we've now finally left an era of »visual truth« made me think about the relationship between two modes of online image interpretation: #WildForensis and #InstantMemeification 1/9 Popular versions of image forensics have been a staple of social media for some time: People just love to speculate about whether or not a widely shared image has been manipulated, and to look for hidden clues of tampering. That’s what I call #WildForensis
2/9

Giovanni Battista Piranesi, aus dem Zyklus: »Proposta del Ministero della Ricerca tedesco per riformare la legge sui contratti di lavoro a tempo determinato in ambito accademico«, 1753 Aus demselben Zyklus, ebenfalls 1753

Mainly for the sake of my own future reference, I am collecting my longer threads on AI image generation here, starting with this one from last year (which, unlike the others, is still in German)
1/

https://twitter.com/bildoperationen/status/1537749809775403012

This one from January speculates on different business models for #VirtualImageArchives and the further platformization of multimodal AI
2/

https://twitter.com/bildoperationen/status/1617248299555381248

This is truly remarkable and makes me think again about the relationship between AI and photography. What interests me about these generative models is that they simulate a photographic visuality without simulating anything of photography as a lens-based, optical medium
1/6

https://twitter.com/mrjonfinger/status/1633672629549936640

This sets them apart from a whole tradition of computer-generated images: In what @bernardionysius calls the »scopic regime of computation,« computers were used to simulate three-dimensional worlds made of points, lines, and vectors that could be captured by virtual cameras
2/6

Now that the DALL-E has been successfully midjourneyfied, it is becoming apparent that instead of simulating all possible ›styles‹, AI is fostering the emergence of a distinct visual style, born out of popular aesthetic preferences dominating platforms like DeviantArt
1/6 One main characteristic of this AI style seems to be what @pookerman has aptly called »fluffy glamour glow«: The default mode of these images is to shine and sparkle, as if illuminated from within. These are images that radiate
2/6

It seems that the new version of Dall-E, probably for legal reasons, ignores the names of artists whose work is still copyrighted. Instead of imitating their individual style, it only produces very generic images, at best vaguely according to styles like »Pop« or »Expressionism«

https://twitter.com/GanWeaving/status/1632622074157039616

Interestingly enough, #Midjourney is quite competent in imitating the style of contemporary artists maybe lesser known to a general public, e.g. here Peter Doig ...

Playing around with AI-generated, non-existent movies and the idea of #ArtificialNostalgia, I started thinking about the notion of ›vibe,‹ how it might describe what I'm looking for in these images and what distinguishes it from concepts like ›style‹ or ›mood‹
1/16

https://twitter.com/bildoperationen/status/1627242486551703554

Much of the discussion around AI-generated images has involved questions of style, and for good reason. »In the style of ...« is maybe the most common phrases used in prompts, as #DallE, #Midjourney, and #StableDiffusion promise to produce images in any possible style
2/16

I'm still intrigued by the recent wave of »fake AI films«: stills from movies that never existed, generated with Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, etc. This space opera, which David Cronenberg never directed, may be the most popular (and most despised), but there are many others 1/15

https://twitter.com/keithscho/status/1612835517376364544

For me, these »films that don't exist« are more than just a nice gimmick; the intense reactions they evoke tell us something about the cultural moment we live in and our relationship to the images of the past 2/15 nytimes.com/interactive/20…

Ich hab darüber nachgedacht, was mich als aus bildwissenschaftlicher Sicht an #DallE 2 (und ebenso an #dallemini) interessiert. Es ist nicht die müßige Frage, ob das jetzt Kunst sei, sondern drei Aspekte, die mir bislang kaum diskutiert scheinen. Ein längerer Thread 1/21 Diese drei Aspekte wären, etwas kryptisch formuliert, 1. die spezifische Priorität der Sprache gegenüber dem Bild, 2. die Entkopplung von Stil und Ikonografie & 3. die Dominanz des Visuellen über das Optische. Was soll das heißen? 2/21