They are examples of a simple prompt you can put into an AI, to get similar results.

One is little more than random noise. You can put this comment into an AI prompt, in the presence of a legal witness, and when people start liking the output, say “aha!”.

The second is an automated process of canning food, that the artist used to can his own feces. Yes, they were real, about half the cans have exploded after being exposed in places when the sun would heat them up, which was part of the artist’s plan. Another piece by the same artist is Fiato d’Artista, a balloon blown up and sealed by the artist, that over time has deflated. The “art vs. automation” of both, fall heavily on the automation part.

The last can be generated with a single sentence prompt to any image generating AI.

The interpretation you make up to justify a piece, is independent from the means used to generate it… so you have to choose:

• The interpretation is the art, making all tools a valid option, including AI.
• The piece itself has to embody some interpretation, making the examples into “not art”.