Tim Tadder is widely revered as a bold and visionary photography icon. With acclaim to his name and a client list that stretches from Amazon to Nike, he is recognized as a leader in promotional photography and beyond. However, since late January, he has become a controversial artist in the industry with his work on AI. I sat down to chat with him about the polarizing work he is creating.
I’m ready and excited for a list of questions. I planned a cozy introduction and some lighthearted questions to start the conversation. But in just a few sentences, Tadder jumps into what he really means: he’s completely fed up of being attacked for his discoveries in AI. So I went with it and jumped right into the fire.
January 23, Tadder started posting work created with in the middle of the journey, an AI image generator. Tadder describes himself this way:
[ I am an] established artist who has been a paid creator for 25 years at the top level. I am sharing my experience using this new tool. I am […] Discover the most powerful creative tool ever created.
For him, it’s a way to exercise his creative mind and discover self-expression. Over the decades, he’s transitioned from film to digital, to CGI, to Photoshop composites. With the rise of a new creative medium, is it any wonder that a photographer highly regarded for his work that transcends boundaries is exploring it? According to Tadder, although many photographers are praising his otherworldly visual explorations, the backlash from the photography community has been merciless.
Because I’m doing any AI, I’m being labeled, boxed, and attacked because I’m an artist and I’m exploring creativity. Just because I’m discovering a powerful tool, sharing my knowledge and sharing my insight after living through multiple mediums, if it is justified to hate, devalue and consider me a monster, then I don’t want to be part of that community.”
He continued: “Being attacked is exhausting, and it happens every day.” Then he added: “Why would you hate an artist who is creating?”
The truth is, while I didn’t write any of my thoughts on his posted pictures, my initial reaction to the AI puzzle pieces was the same as many others: “What? ? That’s cheating!” I was furious.
Photo making process
I came across his work for the first time when we were both featured photographers in Lens magazine sports issue 2021. His work is completely unique and jumps out of the pages. I fell in love with it right away and I’ve been following his thought-provoking photography ever since.
After Tet, although he still retains a conspicuous connection, his work has changed somewhat. I started reading the comments below more carefully. He posted AI-generated images. From one beautiful and imaginative work to another, I felt more and more annoyed: “That’s cheating! How can he do that? One night, frustrated and curious, I sat down and tried Midjourney. I was hard at work filming a campaign that week, and after seeing one of his works, I thought, “Well, maybe I’ll cheat, let’s see what happens.” I suddenly understood his point of view. I must have been sitting there for two hours. It didn’t give me what I wanted. Every AI-generated image gives me the parts I want, but it’s never quite accurate. I was about to sit down, type what I wanted and get it. I thought the same thing to a follower who attacked him on an Instagram post: “It takes absolutely no skill to type words into the machine until it spits out what you typed… you run out of resources. capable.”
After the failed test, I went back and looked at his AI works. They bond with each other. Color palette, “model” look, background and transparency. How did he do that? At that point, my mind changed about his AI work, which led me to pursue this interview.
He described the specificity and effort of his process:
It is a cohesive choice that I am driving this tool with my vision and sensibility. The AI didn’t sit down and give me the pictures. I sit down and work with the images for hours, hours, then I sort it, then I feed it back to the AI, then I push it further, and then I blend this image with the image. this in Photoshop and put it back to the AI and let it reproduce it. I went through a process.
The concept of creating intentionally simple pieces like stringing a few letters together on the keyboard and hitting enter is not how the process works in Tadder sections. Fragments require orientation, reorientation, and synthesis. It’s a very deliberate and time-consuming creative process.
In retrospect, my own indignation comes from a combination of not being educated about the process and, to be honest, my fear of being outdated after investing so many years honing my skills. It seemed as if all my learning, practice, and years of experience were being threatened by a computer that needed nothing more than a few words strung together to make me. In admitting this, Tadder replied:
People worry about being out of date as you say, me too! Me too.
One of his Instagram followers added a similar sentiment:
The real reason we humans react so negatively to AI is because we’re scared. People are simply afraid of anything new, especially if they see it as a threat.
However, another commented: “Resenting a new technology will not hinder its progress. – Marshall McLuhan”
AI is fundamentally bad for commercial photography and humanity
My biggest surprise from our talk was Tadder’s outspoken ethics on AI:
AI is basically not a good thing for humanity. Basically, it’s a bad thing for humanity.
He even continued by adding:
“It can replace photography, and it will replace photography in advertising campaigns, in commercials, in magazine articles.”
I never had to ask the obvious follow-up question, “if it’s fundamentally bad for humanity, why would you use it,” as he quickly continued:
I do not use it will not stop.
Pandora’s box has been opened and technology, he says, is now part of our ecosystem. It’s out, no matter how we feel about it. His general sentiment seemed to be that we might as well get used to it and get on board.
AI images are created from learned information, not collages.
He also addresses some misconceptions about how images are created. Tadder explained that the platform scanned the images and generated mathematical representations of them. They turn images into numbers. This technology then generates mathematical algorithms for different characteristics. For example, for “in the style of”, Tadder explains that the software prescribes a mathematical representation for the artist’s use of color, lighting, model selection, casting, and placement. Then it creates the image from scratch in that style. It creates images from learned information, not from collages. That was a big misunderstanding.
AI Suits and Copyright
Another controversial point he mentioned was copyright: “If we were going to sue people for style imitation, every photographer who has ever created is guilty.” Art is built on imitation and extension. Would there be a Picasso, if not a Braque? A Monet without Pissarro? He also points out that copyrights are only as practical as their enforceability, recounting the many stories of people around the world using and profiting from his work. Tadder believes that, over time, artists will be able to copyright their AI works, and artists will be paid to create AI works:
After the anger is over and the hate is gone, people will say, ‘There’s really something to this.’
Stop thinking
Finally, I think some questions are worth asking.
- Why has the art community reacted so strongly to an artist exploring a new medium and sharing his experiences?
- What is it about AI that makes artists so upset? Is it really copyright, the perceived ease of the medium, or is it something deeper?
- If we disagree with the concept of AI, are we morally bound to boycott its use? Or should we accept it and adapt, as so many other mediums have been introduced throughout art history?
I would like to thank Tim for agreeing to participate in the interview. At first, he declined the interview because he was exhausted by the relentless attacks and criticism. I point out that novelty in art has never been accepted. Van Gogh sold only one painting before falling into perpetual despair at the age of 37. Monet’s paintings were so scorned by the art community during his first two decades that poverty often forced him to starve, even have to eat fruit when still life. establish. Digital photography was snubbed by film photographers, then Photoshop was vilified as fraud. Artists have historically not responded well to change. I suppose there’s something in it that made him come back, and I’m grateful. I applaud him for continuing to make art despite opposition. Despite his many experts, there are even more of us who continue to appreciate his daring pioneering. I’ll close with a quote I have on my desk, paraphrased from Warhol:
Make art, and while people are deciding if they like it or not, make more art.
My conversation with Tadder has been recorded, with permission, primarily for reference in the article citations. I’m not familiar with videos and YouTube, but if you want to see the full conversation, you can do so above.
