>>8038512A rubiks cube on its own is art in terms of its design and engineering, but if you put a single rubiks cube on a pedestal in the middle of an art gallery most people would look at it and go 'yeah nah mate, that's not art, it's just a fucking rubiks cube...'
But if you put a bunch of rubiks cubes together and used them to create a massive 6-color pixelart image and installed that on the wall of an art gallery most people would be very impressed either because of the image itself, and/or because of the scale of the piece, and/or because of the time and effort clearly involved in creating something like that.
As a wise man once said:
' "Art" is a poncy term for craft combined with flair.'
So if something is claimed to be art, but to the viewer the thing is apparently lazy and clearly very low effort, then most folks not only won't accept the thing as art, but they'll loudly and happily decry it, and anything like it, as being 'not art'.
This is why so many people reject a dead animal in a glass box in an art gallery as being 'not art' because it's clearly both kinda lazy and low effort; just as they reject AI-generated art, because most folks see someone typing some random words / a phrase and/or feeding one or more source images into a computer program and having the computer shit out endless interpretations of those words/source pics as also being kinda lazy, incredibly low effort, and just lacking 'craft' because the human isn't really doing anything, the computer is doing all of the heavy lifting.
Whereas show those same folks a bunch of imagery created on a computer by someone using MS Paint / Photoshop / Illustrator / Bryce / Blender / 3DS Max / etc. and they'll likely happily accept the work as being a form of art because they can tell/appreciate that another human actually took the time and effort to learn a skill, and then applied more time and effort and that skill, and the tools that go with it, towards generating those images.
