On Moonrise, Marlboro Men, and Moral Responsibility
What happens when one of the most important black and white photographs ever made gets fed through AI and turned into colour?
Honestly, it’s complicated.
When the photo dealer James Danziger exhibited a colourised version of Ansel Adams’ famous image Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico at AIPAD, the Association of International Photography Art Dealers fair in New York, it caused a bit of a scuffle.
I saw the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust statement and thought: what on earth? They wrote “This was a substantial editioned offering at a major international sales event. It exploited Ansel’s name, reputation, and his most iconic image, while failing to identify any human artist responsible for its creation.”
And then on Monday, photo dealer James Danziger released a statement defending his decision to create and exhibit an AI-generated colour version of Ansel Adams’ Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico. And honestly, it didn’t make sense. He stated that the photo was in the public domain so it was legally fair game. But as someone who has dedicated their life to art and artists, this felt like such a weird call to make. I wanted to understand why he would do this.
So I emailed him. And he said: “read my statement.” Which I already did. And I am still completely lost as to why on earth he would actually do this.
This is not some forgotten work buried deep in an archive. This is one of the most important photographs in American history. One of Adams’ ten “biggies.” I literally just included it in the exhibition I curated about the American West because it contains everything that story is about. This photograph helped define fine art photography itself.
And there’s a whole beautiful blasted story behind it.
Why Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico Can't Just Be Colourised
Driving through New Mexico in 1941 after what Adams considered a failed day of photographing, he suddenly saw the moon rising over Hernandez and stopped the car suddenly, yelling for his tripod and exposure meter. He knew there was a shot there.
The photograph was then built in the darkroom. Adams spent years refining the print, dodging and burning different sections by hand to create that impossible balance of light and shadow. He even admitted no two prints were exactly the same. So the black and white is not incidental to the image. It is the whole god damn image.
So when James wrote in his statement that the AI colour version was made “with care, thought, and great respect for the original photograph and its legacy”… I genuinely do not understand what that means.How is it respectful to take one of the most celebrated black and white photographs ever made and decide it should be colourised by AI?
Who benefits from this? Not the photograph. Not Adams’ legacy.
Because this image is already as close to perfect as photography gets. So why do this? A money grab? I don’t think it is as simple as that, though so many people commented that this was the only answer in response to my reel on the subject. Was it just a case of a photo lover having a play and then wanting to show it off? A “look what I can do!! I’m working with AI art now?”
I honestly want an answer. A real answer. Not a boilerplate template. I think we all want to understand this, because it touches on something much, much bigger about copyright and artist’s rights and a world we’ve opened up with the introduction of AI that no one is quite sure about.
James and I have had further correspondence around this. He even shared an exchange he had with another person who was displeased at the events.