How much of art comes from the artist?

So i was perusing the net looking for some clue, some relevant data that might enlighten me on this issue, and what i found was this funny little quote on wikipedia:

Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art.

I really can't say that computer generated poetry is ruled out, nor fractals. It seems to me that they fit basically. Still, there is a looseness of their fit, which makes me wonder.

It all comes back to the concept of the intent of the artist. When Warhol framed the soup can it seems rather lacking. I once saw a series of blurred photographs of ducks, that didn't' do much for me. But, it isn't really about whether they work or not, bad art is still art.

The question comes back to the context and intent of the artist. When my friend Geoff wrote programs to generate what he called, "rugs" which were basically a form of fractal design, and then he would cut from these "rugs" the bits which he found aesthetically pleasing and frame them. This was art. They were, in their way, very beautiful. Completely computer generated, but still, beautiful and affective (i won't comment on their effectiveness)

I used to have a tool called 'the fridge' on an old site (yes julie, i'm working on porting it for nano) that basically generated poetry auto-magically. 99% of it was gibberish. The thing was, once in a while something would come out that was not. Someone would cut and paste and put it in their library. Some times they'd edit it. They'd find something in it. It was intended as a poetry starter and game. It worked really well. It wasn't generating art by itself, it was offering the clay with which artists could create their own art.

Sometimes, there is little that is necessary to do but frame and reveal. The context offers the message. This is still art. Sometimes the artist must clean away the debris and help the audience understand and see the message therein.

All in all, I don't disagree completely that computer generated schlock is not really art. I just think its not as simple as that.

Whether, an artist such as Andrew tries to offer pieces that lead to multiple thoughts and trains of thought, or an artist such as Alcuin tries to lead the audience to a conclusion, obviously either is an artist trying to evoke a reaction of a certain kind from the audience. (even if that 'certain kind' is one of purposeful un-direction)

Art is the final product, placed in context and presented. The amount of work put into the art is irrelevant. The tools used to create the work are of no import. It is my very humble opinion, that there important question for the success of any piece of art is this: Does the product offer the stimulation the artist intended?

If the presented work, regardless of where it was found/generated, does this, then the artist has succeeded.

I am not really standing up for the rights of computers to generate art, nor the recognition of computers as artists. What I'm trying to hint at is a bit less grand or interesting. The entire, "I can't tell you what art is, but i can tell you when i see it" argument is not valid in my opinion.

The bias against any given source, style, or type of art by any particular segment of society is something that many artists rail against. Of course, Maplethorpe, Warhol, Pollack, Mandelbrodt (and more others than can be listed) have all dealt with these sorts of questions.

The entire philosophical sphere of aesthetics is devoted to addressing this very thing.

I have no answers, only more questions. Still, I will choose to find art where ever I find it. I'm just an art-slut like that.