Last Updated on 03/14/2025 by Lara Carretero
Magnum Photos is one of the world’s most reputed and important photo agencies. Its members include some of the most renowned photojournalists and documentary photographers, many of whom have become prominent names around the globe through their exceptional photographs. However, what happens when a revered documentary photographer chooses to experiment with AI and consecutively publishes a photo book? It casts a massive shadow on his legacy. Something similar happened to Magnum Photos‘ Carl De Keyzer, a Belgian photographer who chose to reimagine Vladimir Putin‘s Russia amid the growing challenges.
The lead image a screenshot from Carl De Keyzer’s website.
De Keyzer has been transparent about the use of AI for his recent work, Putin’s Dream, which began in 2021. On his website, he publishes how, due to COVID-19 restrictions and the lockdown, he was urged to work on the series with the help of the technology. To achieve images similar to his style, De Keyzer began to feed his older works into Midjourney. The results are semi-realistic images, but some appear like paintings devoid of feeling. While sitting at his home, D Keyzer could imagine what Putin’s Russia has been like since the Ukraine War, and it has cast doubts on his other works. A quick look at his Instagram will showcase how some people want to confirm whether the newer posts are made through AI. At the same time, his other real images, which have been the basis of his AI work, can pass off as fake since the boundary has been blurred now.
This is where the question of whether a photographer should dabble with such technology comes into play. On the one hand, Magnum Photos issued a letter giving photographers the freedom to experiment however they wanted. In contrast, it creates confusion because these photographers have been bringing us images from far-flung regions of the world. They are cashing in on their legacy to create work without being there to witness the reality as it is happening. What we see is just an imaginative version (whether good or bad) of what could be the case. Documentary photography is not fine art, where one can manipulate the image as they want to fit their narrative. If photographers like Mary Ellen Mark, W Eugene Smith, Don McCullin, Susan Meiselas, and more had done the same, we wouldn’t be trusting photography. So, why change that now when the medium itself is struggling?
This is also where the debate about the term photographer vs. AI artist comes into play. De Keyzer may have had a flourishing career as a photographer, but his current work makes him more of an artist. He uses his aesthetics to create a dystopian fairytale world, which can further spread misinformation. In De Keyzer’s case, he utilized his images and, thus, protected himself from copyright challenges. But on the other hand, this practice raises questions about what example he is setting for younger photographers, many of whom are struggling to find a breakthrough. Should they only make photographs so that they can feed them to AI and earn a name from pseudo-documentary projects? Or should they challenge the new standards despite their livelihoods being affected? Ultimately, having a clear guideline on AI across various imaging industries and institutions is the only solution for a better tomorrow.
