The intention behind the work is not something that can be automated, since intentionality is (by definition!) a teleological notion. No matter how complicated

The intention behind the work is not something that can be automated, since intentionality is (by definition!) a teleological notion. No matter how complicated a process is, I'm not obliged to ascribe intentionality to it. Looking at an ice crystal through a microscope I may be awestruck by it's complexity and beauty, but it won't be art, because there's no person making it and having an intention with it (except, I suppose, God, if you allow that). Conversely, even if something IS made deliberately and by a human, I'm not forced to recognize it as intentional. I could likewise argue that the guy making it is just a big blob of molecules following (mostly) deterministic rules, and deny them personhood. It would be a pretty shitty thing to do, but it wouldn't be factually wrong. Or right. As I said, it's a teleological choice to ascribe something the ability to have intentions. But it would not make much sense to ascribe intentionality to both a computer algorithm and the person using it, seeing as the former is a product of the latter.