SEVENTEEN: DAVE, OF THE WEEK
CONVERSATION WITH JAMES DANZIGER / COMMENTARY ON 'MOONRISE' AI / VINCE ALETTI'S BOOK OF THE MONTH / PORTFOLIO OF THE WEEK : KAI-UWE GUNDLACH / THE LIST / OLIVER WASOW'S BLOWS AGAINST THE EMPIRE
ONLY A PAPER MOON: A CONVERSATION WITH JAMES DANZIGER.
A dialogue, and some commentary on the release of Ansel Adams’ ‘Moonrise Over Hernandez’ AI version.
James, why Ansel Adams? You mention that you wanted to recreate the original sighting (of Hernandez), but why an artist of such monumental public sentiment?
The reason I chose ‘Moonrise Over Hernandez’ was not because of Ansel Adams but because of the image itself which I have always loved, lived with, and exhibited. So it’s always been very much a part of my mental image bank of beloved images.
As someone who enjoys seeing how art evolves or can be re-imagined ( think of Baz Luhrman’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ or the recent ‘James: A Novel’ by Percival Everett which reimagined ‘Huckleberry Finn’ from the point of view of Jim) I was thinking about how you might look at ‘Moonrise’ in a way that could put a new and respectful take on the picture that could refresh our appreciation of the original. I had actually thought about this for many years but it was not until the advent of AI that it was possible to do this in a way that I thought would hold up to being of interest to me and hopefully to others.
However, AI was just the seed. The majority of the work to get to where I wanted was done by Photoshop and endless rounds of proofing to create a version of ‘Moonrise’ we had never seen before. While I hope it is close to flawless in terms of color, there are certain seams of AI still visible, and I always felt that these were part of the piece.
As I wrote, I wanted “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 8x10 view camera as the sun was setting on the adobe church and cemetery crosses while the moon appeared through the clouds.” Not only that but the print had to move you emotionally.
Most of the online criticism has been from people who have not seen the print - only the jpeg and not always well reproduced. The response from people who saw the print at AIPAD was largely positive, and some people did think it was an original Adams until they saw the correct description on our wall label. There was absolutely no attempt to deceive.
Do you have plans to engage with any more pictures of the classic canon?
In my opinion most iconic black and white photographs have nothing to gain from even the best color re-interpretations. But with landscapes and with the beauty of skies there’s a greater chance of something interesting. Ansel Adams knew this as he continually worked on making the ‘Moonrise’ sky darker and darker to compensate for the lack of interest in the sky as he originally exposed the picture. But to answer your question directly, I would not rule it out but only with public domain images or in collaboration with a copyright holder.
I’m interested in what’s next, in technology and its application to art, and when I decided to see how ‘Moonrise’ would look if you asked AI to ‘make a realistic color version’ I was pleasantly surprised by what it produced although that first rendering was far from the final image. To get to where I wanted to go I researched the color the sky would have been in situ and the effects of light at sunset mixed with a rising moon. My primary interest was to create something beautiful. It was not my intention to cause harm or offense or to ignore the concerns of people who are genuinely fearful of where technology is heading and how it may affect their lives. However, I do see technology as opening doors rather than shutting them.
Please elaborate on public domain in its significance to you, philososphically.
I always had a feeling ‘Moonrise’ was in the public domain. Adams was working for the Department of Interior at that time which means that much of what he shot belongs to the American people. That’s why there are many books of his National Parks work done without needing any permission from the Ansel Adams Trust. Before starting my attempt at making a realistic color version I hired one of the top copyright lawyers in the country to confirm that ‘Moonrise’ was indeed in the public domain and the research confirmed it was. The Trust has not disputed this. So I was free to re-imagine the image. Again, and this is important, public domain works have long served as foundations for reinterpretation, experimentation, and new creative dialogue across generations of artists.
I understand everyone’s ire, but I do have a long record of standing up for photographers’ rights. However, what turned into a tsunami of online vitriol is based on the idea that I stole something from Ansel Adams. I did not. I had the right to create a transformative new piece and I worked hard to create a respectful re-imagining of an iconic image by a beloved photographer.
I appreciate your intentions as a way to honor this photograph that you hold in the highest esteem. Did you not, however, consider the anxiety and duress that any consideration of AI is met with in the broad photo community?
There are positive uses of AI and there are negative uses of AI. I was more focused on the positive and how I was using it in my everyday life - from helping with my writing to asking simple questions. When photoshop or digital printing first came out they were seen as the beginning of the end for photography. Now there is hardly a photographer who doesn’t employ one of these.
Do I consider the anxiety and distress in the broad photo community? Certainly. I’m aware and concerned about how AI is taking work away from people but what I do gives work to photographers, printers, framers, art handlers, etc. I don’t think I took work from anyone doing my color rendition.
I guess I’m one of those “you can’t put the genie back in the bottle” people so best to figure out how to use it or live with it and when it’s used illegally you have to fight back. Another way to move forward is to create unimpeachably great and original new work. That will always find a place in the world.
Do you consider yourself the author of this re-interpretation? Is it a collaboration? You mention it as a conceptual art piece—could you elaborate on that?
During the fair when asked if I was the author I said I was the Executive Producer. I said this in a self-deprecating way because the title can sometimes seem like a joke as there are frequently many EPs and it is often used as a vanity credit. But I also said it because I wasn’t the only author – AI as we’ve discussed played a starting (as opposed to starring) role, and I credit the printer and Photoshop as collaborators. I didn’t “create” the piece. I produced or directed it or both.
When I mentioned it as something of a conceptual piece, again there are two reasons. One – appropriation is a conceptual idea. And secondly, as the discussion around it blows up, I think the piece is becoming a conceptual piece in the conversation about A.I., appropriation, the distinction between legality and morality, etc.
If one were to argue that the inherent value of Moonrise was the careful manipulation of tonal gradation and the classic black and white print as an interpretation, does your involvement--adding color-- perhaps reinforce that value?
Adams’ black and white ‘Moonrise Over Hernandez’ is a masterpiece. My long held respect for the original is on the record. To answer your question: does my involvement adding color reinforce the value of the classic black and white print? Of course it does! But aren’t the most beloved works of art the most subject to re-interpretation?
(As of June 18 2026, the Ansel Adams Trust would like it to be known, publicly, that they do dispute the contention that Moonrise is in the public domain)
When his gallery was selling limited editions of an AI-generated, colorized (and heavily Photoshopped) version of Ansel Adams’ “Moonrise over Hernandez” for between $6,000 and $10,000, James Danziger told a visitor that the image was “the talk of AIPAD.” The reactions varied wildly. We asked artists, curators and other thinkers about photography for their thoughts on the image and the controversy around it. —Holly Stuart Hughes
Brea Souders, artist
I would say it functions as a post-conceptual work at the crossroads of AI, capitalism, authorship, and photography. Sol LeWitt famously wrote that, “the idea becomes a machine that makes the art.” In this case, the machine literally does this, it makes the image. But is it a good image, and perhaps more importantly, is it a good idea? The AI-generated color version presents as a visual Dorito, engineered for mass consumption. Its colors are juiced up, oversaturated, artificial. But what is most interesting to me is that the gallery chose not to formally identify James Danziger as the person who conceived the idea on the artwork label. The person who printed the image, by contrast, was named directly. Those were decisions of consequence. Omitting the person who conceived it does a disservice to artists working with AI-generated imagery. Particularly when exhibited and sold at a photography fair, it reveals and amplifies confusion around where authorship and labor are now located.
Fred Bidwell, collector and founder of Transformer Station
It has always baffled me why collectors are interested in “Moonrise,” which has been published everywhere and exists in more than a thousand prints. So I wasn’t surprised that, when AI enables an art dealer to be a “creator,” the result is simply another make more “Moonrise.” I have no quarrel with AI, and I believe what Danziger has done is perfectly legal. Nevertheless, he has managed to turn a lovely but overexposed image into something perfectly boring.
Gregory Harris, Keough Family Curator of Photography, High Museum of Art
I saw the print at AIPAD in April and have been following the dispute that has arisen in the past few days and, to be frank, I can’t say I’m particularly moved by either. (A note of disclosure: I’ve worked with James Danziger in the past and we maintain a positive relationship. Additionally, the High Museum has a print of Ansel Adams’s “Moonrise, Hernandez” in its permanent collection and the museum likewise has a positive relationship with the Ansel Adams Trust.) Photography is a medium that has constantly shifted as the technology has changed, and the ethics and creative opportunities followed closely along. It’s one of the many things that makes photography so dynamic and fascinating to engage with. Clearly, AI has brought on yet another major technological shift and the attendant ethical and creative challenges are keeping pace. The color “Moonrise” that Danziger made and exhibited seems in line with the majority of what I’m seeing come out of AI-generated images. It made me shrug because while it’s a nifty parlor trick to see what the technology is capable of, there’s not a whole lot more there. Just because you can do it, doesn’t mean it’s great art or worth spending much time with. Maybe if I were to be generous, it’s a gesture in the vein of the critical stance Sherrie Levine took to notions of originality when she rephotographed prints by Walker Evans or Edward Weston in the 1980s (but that idea wasn’t really all that interesting to begin with). Could this be another such performance? Perhaps it’s fitting that Danziger tried to capitalize on the new technology by applying it to one of the most iconic (and saleable) images ever to hit the fine art photography market. To that point, the Ansel Adams Trust is doing their job by vociferously defending the legacy and intellectual property of the artist it was established to protect. Though I strongly support an artist’s (and their heirs for that matter) right to benefit in whatever way they can from their creative labors, I fear the Trust is likely fighting a losing battle in this instance as appropriation of many kinds has been endemic to artistic practice now for many generations. As I think we have seen time and again, appropriation (or flat out ripping off) of another artist’s work does little to damage the “original’s” value and may even bolster its renown. Ultimately, truly great photographs aren’t simply about technical innovation or even mastery, but rather they elicit surprise and, to borrow from the writer Joseph Mitchell, convey the “wild exactitude” of the world we inhabit.
Diane Smyth, British Journal of Photography
As with the GucciCore Fashion Show, this rendition suggests to me that mediation is accelerating in our experience of the world. If only Baudrillard or Debord could give us their takes!
Jill Greenberg, artist
The AI ‘Ansel Adams’ print at Danziger Gallery feels less like serious art than calculated (capitalist) rage bait. But it’s an empty simulacrum missing emotion and heart. There is no real conceptual underpinning here at all. The absence of an author makes it feel especially bleak. Why is the gallery itself credited? What even is that? Have we seen this before? He may as well have gold-plated it. The source image may be legally usable if all copies of the 1941 photograph are in the public domain, but the work still raises questions about commercial exploitation of a canonized artist’s name. What feels especially nasty and cognitively dissonant are questions around naming, attribution, and implied endorsement that add a layer of complication. and the use of AI’s environmentally devastating technology in a work meant to celebrate the planet’s natural beauty.
Quentin Nardi, chief photo editor, Smithsonian magazine
I hate this. I am sorry, I just do. I graduated with a BFA in photography from University of New Mexico in 1995. One weekend while I was in school, I drove the 95 miles from Albuquerque to Hernandez on a sort of pilgrimage. With my 4x5 camera in tow, I wanted to see if I could recreate my hero Ansel Adam’s “Moonrise Over Hernandez” using the Zone system. I failed miserably. But I tried. I bought the film. I loaded up the holders. I made the exposures. I spent hours in the dark room, making test strip after test strip. Finally, emerging into sunlight with a print, still wet in the tray, not perfect, but mine. And even though I was no Ansel Adams, I loved every minute of this crazy, earnest, creative endeavor of mine.
The world does not need more prompts like: “Make a realistic color version of Ansel Adams’ iconic ‘Moonrise Over Hernandez.’” To me, that serves no one. Do the work. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Philip Gefter, critic and author of ‘What Becomes a Legend Most: A biography of Richard Avedon’
Let’s just say that the color version of “Moonrise Over Hernandez” offended my sensibilities. Colorizing it (by any other name) compromises the considerations Ansel Adams brought to making the picture and obfuscates the technical rigor with which he produced the glorious print(s) of that image. It messes with the historic conditions that place the picture in some context of its era -- the black and white film, the majestic observation of nature, the originality of that photographer in that place in that moment with that equipment, etc. And, if that isn’t enough, I found it cheap and ugly.
VINCE ALETTI’S PHOTO BOOK OF THE MONTH CLUB.
Like Thomas Demand, David Gilbert builds installations and photographs them. But that’s misleading. Where Demand’s carefully constructed sets recreate, in part, a range of historic and tabloid sites, Gilbert’s environments are disheveled, ephemeral, theatrical, and quite personal. Although several bodies of work are collected in Gilbert’s new book, Lilies(Zolo Press), they have a common location—a place caught somewhere between coming together and falling apart, forever unfinished. A stage draped but not yet decorated, a child’s room left to the kid’s wildest imagination, an abandoned playhouse. Even the most elaborately built sets look like they’re in a state of collapse, but if the party’s over, the evidence left behind can be oddly cheering and quite touching.
Gilbert echoes Lucas Samaras’ Polaroids, Joseph Cornell boxes, Cecil Beaton at his most decorative, and early Karen Kilimnik scatter work. But that’s not to suggest his work isn’t terrifically original and as witty as it is shrewd. In her essay here, Sarah Lehrer-Graiwer sums it up neatly, calling Gilbert’s work “always sincere, always aspiring, always self-effacing. Call it slacker dandyism or dandy slackerism.” Gilbert’s carelessness can be seductive, even erotic, his images of drapes upon drapes suggesting clothing dropped or thrown off in a heated rush. Or are they the sobering view from the bed when the heat’s off?
Lillies by David Gilbert is published by Zolo Press.
PORTFOLIO OF THE WEEK: KAI-UWE GUNDLACH.
“My work moves between observation and imagination. I am interested in images that resist clear explanation — moments suspended between reality and dream, calmness and tension.
Photography, for me, is not documentary but an emotional way of seeing. I am less interested in accurately depicting reality than in making atmosphere visible. Light, shadow, grain and blur become independent elements within the image itself.
Many of my works are created intuitively and instinctively. I am drawn to spontaneous situations, fragments and seemingly insignificant details: a movement, a reflection, a shadow or an unexpected colour palette. I am especially interested in imperfection, fragility and unresolved visual moments.
Moving between portraiture, still life, street photography, collage and experimental imagery, my photographs often describe memories and emotional states rather than fixed narratives. Recurring themes within my work include perception, photophobia, isolation, silence and atmosphere.
I am interested in photography as a feeling. Not as an answer, but as resonance.
Music is an important part of my creative process and strongly shapes the atmosphere surrounding my work. Artists such as Lisa Morgenstern (“Glass – Solo Piano”) and Nils Frahm (“Kaleidoscope”) are a recurring source of inspiration”.
Kai-Uwe Gundlach has won numerous awards, including from the Sony World Photography Awards and the Art Directors Club in New York and the FotoBook Festival in Kassel. The work has been exhibited at the Robert Morat Gallery in Berlin.
THE LIST. (OF THOSE YOU SHOULD KNOW)
THIS WEEK’S RECKONING OF THOSE WHO ARE ON OUR MIND: A GATHERING OF THE INFLUENTIAL, THE CLEVER, THE SILENT, THE TRULY ORIGINAL, THE TENACIOUS.
OLIVER WASOW’S ‘NATIONAL PORTRAIT’ (IT’S A FRESH WIND THAT BLOWS AGAINST THE EMPIRE).
YES to the Kai-Uwe Gundlach Portfolio 🤩 🤗 🤩 A supremely versatile and talented artist, and a lovely person, too.
Every time I see a colorised image of a black and white image or video it’s extremely tacky. Same with this. It’s tasteless. Go make your own art. Do the work. This is just an horrible money grab no matter you twist and turn it.