alt Hacker NewsWe are not uncomfortable with what the art is saying but with what the meta-narrative around the art is saying, and I think that's an important distinction. Sometimes context is an important part of artistic interpretation and expression, but this time around I think the discomfort is that human intention is being replaced by a machine.
> If not, where do we draw the line?
I don't find this question uncomfortable at all: art is art if and only if it was made by humans, end to end. Human thought informing human action resulting in a human-created work. If you involved an AI, it is not art; it is a facsimile of art. If you agree that conveying emotion and meaning is an important part of art, and I think you do since you highlighted that art can and sometimes should be uncomfortable, then I posit that AI "art" cannot be art because there is no feeling, emotion, or creativity involved in its creation. An AI can only attempt to mimic human expression based on its training while the AI itself is incapable of these things.
> art is art if and only if it was made by humans, end to end
I disagree with your definition of art. One can use AI as a reference and the end result will still be art because it'll carry execution technique and the subjective perception of the artist. Saying otherwise would be like saying that electronic music isn't music because it's a computer producing the sound waves.
A better candidate would be "an object can be a work of art if and only if it wasn't made by machines end to end".