this was really beautiful. I almost blurted out it was art but then I was forced to remember we can't call computer generated things art by some hidden rule.
A great deal of people don't see what can be distilled down to pure logic and math as being a valid form of art. They believe there is something beyond the physical world which art can reach out and touch. They are incorrect and most would back down immediately if they were talking about it in person.
A big part of it is framing. If you frame something as a tech demo, that's how it's going to be recieved. 'The Art World' does seem reasonably open to stuff like this, but you really have to go out of your way to make sure people know "hey this is art, please interpret it as an Artwork, here's a chunk of text explaining the conceptual backdrop for this piece, here's how it fits into my wider practice, thank you". But with that perhaps you would risk alienating a big chunk of the HN crowd.
I've seen art exhibits that essentially were three LCD screens which displayed a video/computer simulation of paint dripping and mixing. I believe the entry to the art world is just gated enough that who gets to display their "artwork" is much more a question of connections and politics than raw talent.
Huh? Of course it is art. Look at all the random graphics and movement coming together to form a 3D street animation.
1.) people can take away a lot from the code and animation which makes it a great example of a new art form. The street scene in oarticular conjures up emotions.
2.) just because a group of the Internet does not understand or appreciate art in all its forms, doesn't mean anything at all except they are ignorant when it comes to identifying artwork.
Programming is a form of art, to me.