We can already suggest a simple interpretation: generative art is more of a craft tradition akin to illustration and what is traditionally called the "decorativ

We can already suggest a simple interpretation: generative art is more of a craft tradition akin to illustration and what is traditionally called the "decorative" or "applied" arts. One unpopular litmus test for whether a practice might be appropriately categorized as "fine art" or "contemporary art" is to look at the economic relationships and institutions involved. "Art" with a capital A tends to be supported exclusively by wealthy patrons, with some help from governments, foundations, and non-profits. Artists sell their work through galleries, or directly to their patrons, and as they age they either succeed or fail to enter a "mid-career artist" phase, where their work becomes canonized through reviews in particular publications, inclusion in group shows, and solo shows at "important" institutions. Anything outside of this very specific system is difficult to call "Art" with a capital A. It's worth noting that this mode of production is overwhelmingly minor in comparison with modes of production post-Internet. Memes, 4chan, YouTube, DeviantArt, art produced in conjunction with the advertising industry, etc. completely eclipse "Art" today, and it's difficult to speak authoritatively of any kind of canon of "art" in general. However, it's clear that when we compare the "art" of today to the "Art" of the past that we see in the great museums of the past, we are comparing fundamentally different things.