The only comment so far is someone named Mark who said, "If you consider that art maybe the article has merit. I guess I am just to old school and really do not see the example in this article as art. I see it as computer generated graphics not art."
I feel this way. Similar to how I don't consider online acquaintances actual friends.
On the other hand, I would consider the program that creates such graphics a work of art, but the graphics themselves are merely derivatives and have no special value to me.
Instead of seeing anything computer generated as 'amazing' anymore, it's just 'so what?' The N64 was amazing, everything since then is an improvement, to be sure, but not amazing. Probably similar to the first train ever built, that was probably amazing, new trains, while superior in every way, not amazing.
Maybe these are really impressive in an immersive 3D type setting, but those videos just look like animations to me. I would not consider these things art.
Even the last one (or her other pieces)? It's basically a traditional painting but in space. You don't think the old masters would have loved to paint their masterpieces in volumes instead of on flat canvas?
I think the fact that it's digital cheapens it. You can use tools to make things exactly pixel perfect, it only takes time.
Obviously there are really talented and creative people doing things digitally that I could probably never do, but to me it's like watching people play a FIFA video game vs watching an actual match.
I'm surprised people still think this way.