The creation of the Mona Lisa was art. The painting itself and photos of it are signifiers of the act.
This confuses a lot of people who think art is defined by finished, potentially consumable art objects.
Art is made by artistic actions - especially those that have a lasting impact on human culture because they effectively distill the essence of some feature of human self-awareness.
The result of the actions can sometimes be reproduced, collected, and consumed, but the art itself can't be.
This is where AI fails. It produces imitations of existing art objects from statistical data compression of their properties. The results are entertaining and sometimes strange, but they're also philosophically mediocre, with none of transformative power of good human-created art.
You are not being self-consistent. If art is defined by the creative process, not the end product, why are you measuring its quality by the transformative power of the end product?
I also don't think your (very strong) assertion that AI art products have no transformative power would stand up to any sort of unbiased, blinded comparison. Art's transformative power on the viewer comes from the effect of the art object (the end product) on a human mind, and it's possible to get that effect while knowing absolutely nothing about the source of the art object.
This confuses a lot of people who think art is defined by finished, potentially consumable art objects.
Art is made by artistic actions - especially those that have a lasting impact on human culture because they effectively distill the essence of some feature of human self-awareness.
The result of the actions can sometimes be reproduced, collected, and consumed, but the art itself can't be.
This is where AI fails. It produces imitations of existing art objects from statistical data compression of their properties. The results are entertaining and sometimes strange, but they're also philosophically mediocre, with none of transformative power of good human-created art.