I tend to disagree, if it's computer generated it is not art in the general sense. Art is the expression and application of human creative skill and imagination and AI doesn't have any creativity nor imagination, nor does it have any context within the current culture.
However, art can exist within this context if humans are involved somehow or have some input, and I don't mean just the coder's input.
There will be good AI-generated art that moves and connects with people and there will be bad AI-generated art that does nothing. This is the same as the humans that produce it today. It shouldn't matter how easy or how hard it is to produce or whether it has a human touch.
Personally, most computer generated art I see doesn't do anything for me besides act as surface-level eye candy, but I do think it's possible and VR might be a way to connect.
The art world has a history of subverting what people think art is. If this viewpoint becomes common, I think we can expect to see entire high-end exhibits of only AI-generated art at some point in the future (if this hasn't already happened).
> However, art can exist within this context if humans are involved somehow or have some input, and I don't mean just the coder's input.
How can you draw that line? If a coder is working on a generative art project, writes an algorithm, runs it, likes the result, is that not art?
Is an iterative process required where the coder throws away the first results and revises their system until they personally feel it's been sufficiently arted?
However, art can exist within this context if humans are involved somehow or have some input, and I don't mean just the coder's input.