Whoever decreed that an algorithm can't be art? Perhaps Van Gogh was applying a sort of algorithm when he resolved the world he saw into streaks of paint, or Pollack, when he dribbled it onto canvas from a height. Arguing about whether something is "art" or not is time-consuming and ultimately non-productive, since different people insist on their own definitions of the term, which typically includes things they personally like and value highly while excluding everything else. We could get into a shouting match, I suppose: "It's art!" "No, it's not!" "Yes it is!" "No, it's not!" (repeat until tired). But it's more expedient to admit that anything an artist chooses to call "art" is art, and to talk about its impact (or lack thereof).

If a piece can make a big aesthetic impact on viewers, it doesn't really matter how much labor went into it. But that's not so easy to do, especially over the long term. When an art-making technology is new, it's possible to dazzle people with its novel effects for a while, until they've gotten used to seeing it. But then a reaction sets in, and the Photoshop filters or whatever that seemed so startling before become boring, and people start looking for the next art algorithm...

Andrew Werby
Juxtamorph.com