“Nine-tenths of painting as we understand it at present extinguished by the competition of these photographs.”
This provocative statement captures a profound anxiety. It echoes through history, resonating with today’s debates about artificial intelligence and art. The prediction did not come from a modern tech evangelist. Instead, a fictional character named Sidney Trefusis voiced it in an 1887 novel. The book was George Bernard Shaw’s “An Unsocial Socialist.” This single line encapsulates the tension, fear, and excitement that greeted the rise of photography in the 19th century.
Artists of the era faced a disruptive new technology. Photography could capture reality with a speed and accuracy that painting never could. Consequently, many in the artistic community questioned their own relevance. They wondered if a machine could truly replace the human hand and eye. This historical parallel provides valuable context for understanding our current relationship with generative AI. Source
. George Bernard Shaw | Biography, Plays, Nobel Prize, & Facts
The Prophecy from a Fictional Socialist
In Shaw’s novel, Sidney Trefusis is a radical thinker. He champions photography as a superior medium for documentation and art. Trefusis envisions a future where technology perfects the capture of form and color. He predicts that photographers will stage elaborate scenes, or tableaux vivants, to document historical events for educational purposes. This innovation, he argues, would make most traditional painting obsolete.
His declaration is stark. He believes only the most exceptional, transcendent works of painting would survive. The rest, the vast majority, would simply disappear. Trefusis also criticizes the hypocrisy of painters who publicly scorned photography. He claimed many secretly used photographs as aids for their own work. He saw their attachment to “barbarous, difficult, and imperfect processes” as a way to protect their specialized skills from a more efficient technology . Of course, separating a fictional character’s views from an author’s personal beliefs is always a challenge. Source
A Chorus of Dissent and Debate
Not everyone shared this enthusiasm for mechanical reproduction. The sentiment against photography was strong in many artistic circles. For example, French poet and critic Charles Baudelaire launched a blistering attack on the new medium. In an 1859 essay, he called photography “art’s most mortal enemy.” He feared that the public’s fascination with realistic imitation would corrupt its appreciation for true artistic imagination . Source. George Bernard Shaw – Britannica
This debate played out in newspapers and journals across the world. An anonymous writer in an 1866 edition of The Belfast News-Letter expressed confidence in painting’s endurance. The author argued that no mechanical process, however advanced, could ever replace the genius of masters like Titian. They believed the soul of the artist was essential. Conversely, by 1890, The Hampshire Advertiser was summarizing Trefusis’s prediction, showing how Shaw’s fictional idea had entered public discourse. The conversation was widespread and deeply felt, touching on the very definition of art.
A Painter’s Nuanced Perspective
As the century turned, the discussion evolved. Painter Henrietta Clopath offered a more measured viewpoint in her 1901 essay, “Art Versus Mechanism.” Published in the journal Brush and Pencil, her work directly confronted the fear that photography would eliminate painting. Clopath firmly rejected this idea as unfounded. She argued that the two mediums were not in a zero-sum competition.
However, Clopath did not dismiss photography’s artistic value. She acknowledged that photographers were indeed artists. They used composition, lighting, and finishing techniques to create beautiful and expressive works. She understood that photography was more than mere imitation. In her view, it was a legitimate medium with its own unique strengths. Clopath’s perspective was crucial. She defended her own craft while respecting the artistic potential of the new technology . Source
Lessons for the Age of AI
The historical reaction to photography offers a powerful lens for our own time. Today, artists and creators face the rise of generative artificial intelligence. The same questions and fears have resurfaced. Will AI extinguish human creativity? Will it devalue the skills of writers, illustrators, and musicians? The 19th-century debate suggests a different outcome.
Photography did not destroy painting. Instead, it liberated painters from the burden of pure representation. Artists began to explore abstraction, emotion, and new ways of seeing the world. Movements like Impressionism and Cubism were, in part, a response to the camera. Photography carved out its own artistic niche while pushing painting in new directions. Similarly, AI may not be a replacement for human artists. It could become a new tool, a collaborator, or even a catalyst that pushes creative expression into uncharted territory. History shows that technology often expands the definition of art rather than shrinking it.