I respectfully disagree. let's think from a first principle point of view, what is the definition of art in the first place? But whatever the answer is, art is just a way of structuring/representing a mix of multiple arts into one single art, and it's not limited to painting arts. historically people have been taking inspiration from nature, other people, the environment, and more. That's what an AI does as well, but with much more creativity than a human.
I did. It's trying to play off randomness as art, hence the generative part, and trying to subtly relate that to AI through use of abstract artists like Pollock.
It's also not new. If you've taken any modern art history class before, this is article/website is the same content. Every generation of art/artist tries to justify their existence to the last.
Fast-forward in a few years, perhaps we could claim that if even a basic computer is able to do the same, the originality of the work is low, it may not meet the threshold for being copyrightable ?
