[hectorlorenzo]

This argument could be made 150 years ago about photography. For the sake of an argument: can a selfie be a form of art?

To take a selfie, human intervention is minimal: someone decides they want to take a selfie; take dozens of them, pretty much at random; choose one they like; publish it.

Similarities with the stable diffusion process are striking. And yet, could you consider a selfie "artistic"? Are all selfies artistic? What if Annie Leibovitz or Marina Abramovic take a selfie?

What if Marina Abramovic generates a million images of a rabbit with stable diffusion and papers a whole warehouse with them? Is this art?

Edit: syntax.

[bitwize]

It's considered art for the purposes of e.g. copyright law. Recently there was a dispute about whether a selfie taken by a monkey belonged to the owner of the camera, or the monkey. (A judge opined that only humans can have copyrights, and PETA eventually settled out of court.)

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/12/550417823...

But most selfies probably aren't high value art.

If Marina Abramovic were to take a bunch of selfies, or generate a bunch of AI images, and exhibit them, that might be considered high value art. A famous artist can literally tape a banana to a wall and it'd be considered high art:

https://www.vogue.com/article/the-120000-art-basel-banana-ex...

[spookie]

Let's not confuse tax evasion with proper high art, alright?