Something I've come to value increasingly more and more in art is its canonicity. Beyond a certain quality threshold, I find that through sufficient exposure, I

Something I've come to value increasingly more and more in art is its canonicity. Beyond a certain quality threshold, I find that through sufficient exposure, I can train myself to appreciate and enjoy any art. For example, the first time I listened to Bach's organ works, I didn't like it much, because I had so little exposure to organ music. But after continuing to listen, eventually I got it and now I deeply appreciate Bach's organ works. Beyond a certain threshold, art quality stops mattering as much as exposure. And beyond any shadow of a doubt, the amount of art past this threshold is already much more than anyone can expose themselves to in a lifetime. Given all this, it follows naturally that one should choose art based on other criteria, like how much it has driven history, or who you can discuss it with at a dinner party. In short: its canonicity. Any artwork churned out by machine is non-canonical almost by definition. Even if it turns out to be "good" (whatever that means), the fact that it can be churned out en masse means any particular piece of it has zero cultural value. Maybe with exceptions for e.g. the absolute very first piece that gets broadcast live (like a "Beatles on Ed Sullivan" moment). Certainly you would never find someone else at a dinner party who would say, "Oh, yes, I too enjoy Microsoft's Still Life #565343598753. What do you think of the way the computer did the clouds in that?"