The problem with this discussion is not only that the definition of "art" lacks a consensus. The main issue is that instead of being a descriptive, a lot of people call something "art" as a compliment. Which is utterly silly, by the way.
Because at that point "art" becomes sinply something that is "aesthetically pleasant", and that will change from person to person. "Art" as a compliment is useless.
If we try to use "art" as a descriptive, then we would need to draw a hypothetical Venn diagram, and define things that are art and things that are not, so we could try to categorize videogames, or whatever AI produces. This implies a lot more agreement than there is currently.
Because at that point "art" becomes sinply something that is "aesthetically pleasant", and that will change from person to person. "Art" as a compliment is useless.
If we try to use "art" as a descriptive, then we would need to draw a hypothetical Venn diagram, and define things that are art and things that are not, so we could try to categorize videogames, or whatever AI produces. This implies a lot more agreement than there is currently.