I have experience with authenticity. As a budding copywriter, I once invested in a Sony A7 and G-Master lenses. Soon after, I began taking the employee photos that other staff members felt were beneath them. My work with certain employees dried up quickly, and I wondered why.
By forcing complex verité through my fancy lenses, I was capturing unwelcome “complexion.” I later switched to trigger lights, so much for the truly authentic.
Which is why I find it curious that a LinkedIn rep thinks my personal videos look "too nice." “With AI out there, you have to be more authentic…” goes the refrain, which means fuzzy jump cutting on a Samsung or iPhone and "getting outside my comfort zone." I realize algorithmic, not human, considerations drive these recommendations, but at what price?
What Would Avedon Do?
The key question posed by people and social platforms that seek to drive engagement at any cost is: what separates the professional from the "authentic" in this day and age? The realism of photographer Richard Avedon answers this question nicely. Among his famous portraits, his picture of Dwight D. Eisenhower (at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts) has always held me in a certain way.
Ever the iconoclast, Avedon used his camera to depict the emotional toll of leading the free world. It was not the way people wanted to see their President, but it is the way the President saw himself at that stage in life. This is "nicely done" work that shows authenticity stripped of artifice. There is no seeming, just being.
When Bad is Good
The questions surrounding authenticity in the age of AI sometimes depend on your fame. Take Pauline Porizkova who has recently chosen to play against her archetype on Instagram. I have noticed that the wearier, even scarier, she looks, the more engagement she receives. How else do I explain her pictures from surgery? (since scrubbed by Estée Lauder, it appears)
To pull this off, you really need a type to play against. People want the perception of intimacy with a celebrity, and the more "real" the better.
Unlike models or actors, advertising people are mirror makers behind the camera, trained to create reflections of what they see. Good agencies, however, rely on narrative, not aesthetics to give their clients a better shot at fortune and fame.
I remember the iconic “Yeah We’re Different” campaign from Adidas. Runners loved how it used street photography to tell an unglamorous but real story. You can still find this “Nipple ad” with the very good bad photograph posted in running stores decades later.
Compare “We're Different” with this new campaign from Adidas. The model sports a single name that appears synthetically assembled through segmentation analysis. She also has smooth skin that shines too much, which is a giveaway for lazy AI.
If I were to engage with “Fresca” (did I get that right?) I would add prompts like “show pores,” “reduce shadows," and” add sweat,” to make her look more relatable. Of course, since the photo tells no story, not even the artificial can make it more real.
Skin in the game.
Discussions over authenticity get to the core of AI. It's ability to generate slop does not mean brands need to save face through narcissistic, mobile monologues. To help prospects get to know you better, you simply need to get your story down and stick to it.
Few brands do a better job of this than Patagonia.
They make short films, not fluff. Their snapshots look as sharp as an early morning summit. While Jimmy Chin might be a brand ambassador, he does not need a RED camera to shoot pitons on a rock, but he still manages to capture the light just so.
While people might like to see more products in their pictures, Patagonia is just, as the old Adidas might say, “different.” This extends to their environmental advocacy designed to chafe at your conscience (and capitalism, when expressed by Yvon himself. Ironic?).
I guess if “Earth is your shareholder,” you can say, shoot, or film anything you want.
The point I am making is that Patagonia puts all of itself into what it does. While that might be a gift from Mother Earth, I reckon it can work for any brand that is comfortable in its own skin.
Which is why I still shoot videos with a film camera for TikTok.
Because bad footage still gives me a rash.
