Modern art is considered art because it's a form of human expression, regardless of whether you "get it" or not - it matters that a human being made it, as opposed to a machine.
The definition i'm using is a commonly held one. Art is subjective, and obviously people disagree about what is and isn't art, but most people agree that some degree of human intent and expression is required, at a baseline, for something to be considered art.
But your definition seems to be that anything which elicits an emotional response is art, which seems far less useful.
I suppose it could be argued that because AI requires models and prompts, the end result could be considered art. Also that it's art simply due to the controversy it provokes. Then again, I have a difficult time considering something art if it can be exactly duplicated with the correct inputs. To that end, the human being doesn't really matter. To me, if the human being doesn't matter, it isn't art. I'd also dismiss most "generative" art for the same reason - even if fractals are pretty I wouldn't consider them art.
> But your definition seems to be that anything which elicits an emotional response is art, which seems far less useful.
Your definition is not very useful either: "some degree of human intent and expression is required, at a baseline, for something to be considered art."
A lot of mundane things done by humans - from smoking a cigarette to filling a form -qualifies as something that elicits a "degree of human intent and expression"
> I have a difficult time considering something art if it can be exactly duplicated with the correct inputs
If I make a perfect copy from "Starry Night Over The Rhone" is it not art? Impasto on canvas and all?
If I sit at the Organ and play Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor is it not art?
I would argue that in both examples I am duplicating art with the correct inputs.
Art must necessarily be made by a human to be considered art?
The definition gets less useful by the second.