'remixing' existing works into your own creation is both well established an accepted within the art world. Nobody would consider it forgery to do that.
So we are just fine with 'empty' aesthetics? (that is disruptive) So the new definition of art would be: 'a human/ai product of any kind, be it remix or whatever you can sell as art'.
Personally I take a rather maximalist definition of art. If you self-identify as an artist and do something with the sole intention of it being art, then it is art. It can be ugly, boring, derivative, uninspiring and trivial, none of that makes it any less 'art', it just makes it bad art.
So we are just fine with 'empty' aesthetics? (that is disruptive) So the new definition of art would be: 'a human/ai product of any kind, be it remix or whatever you can sell as art'.