This is one of the most baffling things I've come across in a while: Vice ran an article on an artist who colorized historic black and white mugshots. Only that he photoshops smiles onto their...
This is one of the most baffling things I've come across in a while: Vice ran an article on an artist who colorized historic black and white mugshots. Only that he photoshops smiles onto their faces. These were mugshots of people captured and later killed by the Khmer Rouge. I thought it was subtle, like the wrong shading under the lips but no! I guess in context, it's ok to link them, here's a twitter thread, for example.
I've spent 15 minutes trying to process this. Even trying to play devil's advocate and wonder whether this is some form of artistic expression that serves a purpose (his excuse is lukewarm at best). But it's getting more baffling the more I think of it. How on earth?!?
I wonder if he's using AI and would rather pretend it didn't happen and weather the outrage than admit he can't actually do the work he claims he can as an artist.
I wonder if he's using AI and would rather pretend it didn't happen and weather the outrage than admit he can't actually do the work he claims he can as an artist.
Good thought, but I doubt it. An AI trained to colorize would have no idea about facial expressions. An AI trained to modify facial expressions would have no idea how to colorize. However it was...
Good thought, but I doubt it. An AI trained to colorize would have no idea about facial expressions. An AI trained to modify facial expressions would have no idea how to colorize. However it was done, it was certainly a deliberate action.
Meanwhile, here's a family member saying that the bio the artist claimed for their relative is inaccurate. It's verified by that same Alastair McCready too.
This is one of the most baffling things I've come across in a while: Vice ran an article on an artist who colorized historic black and white mugshots. Only that he photoshops smiles onto their faces. These were mugshots of people captured and later killed by the Khmer Rouge. I thought it was subtle, like the wrong shading under the lips but no! I guess in context, it's ok to link them, here's a twitter thread, for example.
He did the same shit with a series of mugshots of Australian women in the 1920s. Vice said it removed some faked smiles from that article as well but the first women on it apparently also had a false smile added. Edit: Vice since removed the photos from the female Australian mugshot article as well.
I've spent 15 minutes trying to process this. Even trying to play devil's advocate and wonder whether this is some form of artistic expression that serves a purpose (his excuse is lukewarm at best). But it's getting more baffling the more I think of it. How on earth?!?
I'm far from being a "canceller", but that is grounds for dismissal...
Right?
FYI the tweet you linked to for his excuse now 404's. At least for me.Nvm. Different browser and it loads. Ignore me.
I wonder if he's using AI and would rather pretend it didn't happen and weather the outrage than admit he can't actually do the work he claims he can as an artist.
Good thought, but I doubt it. An AI trained to colorize would have no idea about facial expressions. An AI trained to modify facial expressions would have no idea how to colorize. However it was done, it was certainly a deliberate action.
I didn't mean he was using specialised AI, but some sort of off-the-shelf old timey photo retoucher. Not that I'm aware of any such program existing.
An alternative story is that he did this work for families, some of whom wanted the pictures altered to have their family member smiling https://twitter.com/AlMcCready1/status/1381466042736672770?s=20
I'll shut up speculating and wait for real information to come out.
Meanwhile, here's a family member saying that the bio the artist claimed for their relative is inaccurate. It's verified by that same Alastair McCready too.