[riquito]

> No, it wouldn't count. Because then we would have some thousands of bohemian rhapsodies.

The computer broke after completing the work: now does it count? I don't understand your idea of art, isn't there beauty in the result? You give different value if the same result has been reached by a computer, chaos or a human?

Do you have to know how the piece has been produced to decide if it's art or not?

[pegasus]

Yes. A rock that's been pleasingly shaped by desert winds is not considered art. But if we'd later find out that it was actually a man-made artifact, it would become a candidate for this label.

[tbirdz]

So then the computer software that generated the joke would be considered the work of art instead of the jokes that were generated? After all, the software was man-made, even though the generated output was computer-made.