{"id":826188,"date":"2026-05-27T19:50:35","date_gmt":"2026-05-27T19:50:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/826188\/"},"modified":"2026-05-27T19:50:35","modified_gmt":"2026-05-27T19:50:35","slug":"ai-debate-erupts-over-colourised-version-of-a-classic-ansel-adams-photo-the-art-newspaper","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/826188\/","title":{"rendered":"AI debate erupts over \u2018colourised\u2019 version of a classic Ansel Adams photo – The Art Newspaper"},"content":{"rendered":"

The artificial intelligence (AI) debate has reached the world of fine-art photography, and it is focused on an 85-year-old image by the celebrated artist Ansel Adams<\/a>. Anger had been brewing on social media over the past month, after the New York gallery Danziger displayed a \u201ccolourised\u201d version ofAdams’s Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico (1941) that was generated using AI at the Association of International Photography Art Dealers<\/a> (Aipad) Photography Show in April. The work was offered for sale at the art fair in three differently sized editions of ten\u2014for $6,000, $8,000 and $10,000. (The Ansel Adams Gallery, run by the artist\u2019s grandson, offers prints<\/a> of Moonrise for over $100,000.)<\/p>\n

Photographers immediately noticed the piece<\/a>, and questions arose whether the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust, which manages the artist\u2019s trademark and print production, had been involved. That was answered last weekend, when the trust published a statement on social media condemning Danziger\u2019s AI copy.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt exploited Ansel\u2019s name, reputation and his most iconic image, while failing to identify any human artist responsible for its creation,\u201d the statement reads. It adds that the trust \u201cwas not consulted or notified before the work appeared\u201d, and once the trust learned about the AI copy, it reached out to gallery owner James Danziger and asked that the work be removed from display. Not only did Danziger keep the work up at the fair, however, the trust says it found out the dealer \u201cleveraged Ansel\u2019s name, Moonrise and the Aipad presentation\u201d to push a commercial venture to colourise works from other artists\u2019 estates using AI.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnsel was an innovator who expanded the expressive and technical possibilities of his medium. He was remarkably prescient about\u2014and excited by\u2014the potential of computers to transform photography. The trust\u2019s concerns are not about AI or creative experimentation in the abstract,\u201d the statement continues. \u201cThis is fundamentally about artists\u2019 rights and moral rights\u2014and respect for human dignity. No one should trade on another person\u2019s name, reputation and labour for private commercial ends without consent and candour. The unauthorised exploitation of Ansel\u2019s actively stewarded legacy reflects a gross failure of ethical and professional judgment.\u201d<\/p>\n

On Monday (25 May), Danziger released a defense of his decision to create and present the AI work on his gallery\u2019s website<\/a>. \u201cAs the image is in the public domain, I had every right to create a new and transformative work,\u201d he says in his statement, adding that he hired \u201cone of the most respected copyright lawyers in the country\u201d to make sure he was on safe legal ground. \u201cMy interest in doing this was based on my love of the iconic image, my interest in seeing how AI could be used as a tool for creativity and to create an imagining of what Adams saw in real life as he was driving along US Highway 84 that made him stop his Pontiac station wagon and scramble to set up his bulky 8×10-view camera as the sun was setting on the adobe church and cemetery crosses while the moon appeared through the clouds. From my perspective, this was done with great respect to the image and the artist.\u201d<\/p>\n

Danziger adds that he used the AI prompt\u2014described in the wall text for the piece as: \u201cMake a realistic colour version of Ansel Adams\u2019s iconic Moonrise Over Hernandez\u201d\u2014only as a starting point. He then worked on the resulting image using Photoshop and other digital tools and created several printed proofs. \u201cMy goal was to create an image that felt visually convincing and compelling on its own terms while remaining grounded in admiration for the original photograph. As far as I was concerned, I would only show or sell the image if I felt it was perfect.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since Danziger released the statement, hundreds of photography experts, industry figures and the general photo-loving public have weighed in. The former White House photographer Pete Souza posted on Threads<\/a>: \u201cJust because it\u2019s \u2018legal\u2019 doesn\u2019t make it morally okay.\u201d David Kennerly, a friend of Adams and fellow photographer who now serves on the trust, said in a comment on Instagram<\/a> that Adams \u201cwould have hated this rip-off of one of his most famous and revered photographs\u201d. Kennerly also found a 2012 blog post<\/a> by Danziger in which the dealer called colourising black-and-white photos \u201cweird and disrespectful\u201d. Kennerly added: \u201cI totally agree with him on that.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a statement sent to The Art Newspaper, Aipad says that it is aware of the situation and that it is \u201ca matter we are taking very seriously, and it is being addressed by Aipad\u2019s board of directors and executive directors\u201d. The statement adds that Aipad \u201cholds our membership and those exhibiting at our fair to the highest ethical standards\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are keenly aware of the issues surrounding the use of AI as a tool in the art-making process. The use of AI and how it is used in art practice or even as its own art form raises vital and multifaceted questions and ones we are working to confront conscientiously. As an organisation, we are committed to addressing these issues as we look to the future and the quickly evolving landscape, weighing concerns about artistic integrity and ownership,\u201d Aipad\u2019s statement continues. \u201cIn March, the organisation formed an ethics committee, and we are currently deep in the important process of updating and expanding the ethics and presentation sections of our bylaws and adding a new section addressing artificial intelligence. In addition, we are consulting with other arts organisations to discuss these pressing issues that affect not only the world of photography but the art world as a whole.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Ansel Adams\u2019s Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico (1941) Courtesy the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust<\/p>\n

Giuseppe Lo Schiavo, an artist whose work based on real-world 3D scans was displayed on Danziger\u2019s stand alongside the Moonrise copy at the Photography Show, says he was not aware of the AI print before it was shown, so he could not speak to the gallery\u2019s decision to present it. \u201cWhat I can say is that I know James to be meticulous, and if he made it, I have no doubt he established his rights carefully,\u201d Lo Schiavo tells The Art Newspaper. \u201cMore generally, I find AI-generated photography of little interest, and I rarely find it artistically rewarding. On another note, I think the amount of hate these topics generate is a bit scary, but also a sign of the uncertainty AI is creating for creators and artists.\u201d<\/p>\n

Petra Cortright<\/a>, another artist whose post-internet work has been shown by Danziger, is more direct in her opinion: “I don’t believe in hysteria over art. James did nothing wrong.”<\/p>\n

Joseph Mario Giordano, a photographer and journalist who first spotted and posted about the Moonrise copy on Threads, says he was \u201cappalled at the laziness\u201d of the prompt fed into AI to create the work, adding that colourising Adams\u2019s work is \u201clike taking Edward Weston’s peppers<\/a> and making them oranges\u2026 it’s ridiculous\u201d. He also wondered if Danziger\u2019s foray into AI-generated prints of photographic classics was \u201csome low-key way to gauge the market. One of the first things I thought of was that it had this whiff of NFT.\u201d Giordano hoped the swift reaction against the AI work would send a clear message to others that \u201cno one wants this in the photography industry\u201d.<\/p>\n

Joanie Lemercier, a French artist and environmental activist who also posted about the \u201cfake\u201d AI Moonrise on Threads, says that \u201cunfortunately, what’s happening is very much aligned with where the tech is going in general. The big AI companies are basically harvesting [intellectual property] and work from creators, whether it’s photographers, musicians or visual artists.\u201d By \u201cripping off the legacy of the artist to make derivatives\u201d, Lemercier says Danziger is following a \u201cclassic move\u201d of the tech giants of \u201cextracting value to generate profit\u201d.<\/p>\n

Adding another dimension to the debate is the fact that Adams was a staunch environmentalist, who used his art<\/a> to push for federal protections of the US\u2019s wilderness, and that AI is a notoriously damaging technology. \u201cIt sounds like a bad joke,\u201d Lemercier says of using AI to re-create Adams\u2019s Moonrise, which captures exactly the kind of landscape now at risk from data centers. \u201cThey\u2019re building an infrastructure to extract data that will require huge amounts of resources,\u201d Lemercier says of the AI industry\u2019s largely unchecked push for more computing power.<\/p>\n

Jim Krantz, a photographer who studied with Adams early in his career and has had his own brush with appropriation<\/a>, says: \u201cThis whole thing has raised more questions than answers\u201d, including issues over \u201cauthorship, ownership, copyright, appropriation, inspiration, personal expression\u201d. As an artist, Krantz thinks AI could be a useful tool but in this instance, \u201cit’s a sham, it’s smoke and mirrors, and I find that to be more destructive and invasive\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt this point in my life, I’m less interested in protecting what photography was than exploring what it can become,\u201d says Krantz, adding that the medium \u201cstill has to hold on to integrity, humanity and some kind of a personal vision\u201d.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the best result of the current controversy, Krantz says, would be the understanding that \u201cyou don’t have to lean on an electronic box to make something beautiful, because if you open your eyes, you can go to the shittiest parking lot, and if you look real closely, you’ll see cracks in the pavement, then a piece of black tar here, and all of a sudden you’ve got an Aaron Siskind photograph in front of you\u201d.<\/p>\n

In the end, Krantz says, humans have an advantage over machines\u2014creative imagination. \u201cIf you have ideas, and if you’re good at what you do, you know how to use your materials, your hands are in it, you get wet, and you get dirty,\u201d he says, \u201cwho the fuck needs any of this [AI] stuff?\u201d<\/p>\n