Technology

Sure, but they did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disumbrationism

Disumbrationism was a hoax masquerading as an art movement that was launched in 1924 by Paul Jordan-Smith, a novelist, Latin scholar, and authority on Robert Burton from Los Angeles, California.

Annoyed at the cold reception his wife Sarah Bixby Smith's realistic still lifes had received from an art exhibition jury, Jordan-Smith sought revenge by styling himself as "Pavel Jerdanowitch" (Cyrillic: Па́вел Жердaнович), a variation on his own name. Never having picked up a paint brush in his life, he then painted Yes, we have no bananas, a blurry, badly painted picture of a Pacific islander woman holding a banana over her head, having just killed a man and putting his skull on a stick. In 1925, Smith entered the banana picture under a new title of Exaltation in New York's "Exhibition" of the Independents at the Waldorf-Astoria. He made a suitably dark and brooding photograph of himself as Jerdanowitch, and submitted the work to the same group of critics as representative of the new school "Disumbrationism". He explained Exaltation as a symbol of "breaking the shackles of womanhood".[1] To his amusement, if not to his surprise, the Disumbrationist daub won praise from the critics who had belittled his wife's realistic painting.

More Disumbrationist paintings followed: a composition of zig-zag lines and eyeballs he called Illumination; a garish picture of a black woman doing laundry that he called Aspiration, and which a critic praised as "a delightful jumble of Gauguin, Pop Hart and Negro minstrelsy, with a lot of Jerdanowitch individuality";[2]: 111  Gination, an ugly, lopsided portrait; and a painting named Adoration, of a woman worshipping an immense phallic idol, which was exhibited in 1927.

https://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_disumbrationist_school_of_art/

Jordan-Smith did too, though, and his work doesn't qualify. I think that one has to both do and maintain a straight face for the rest of one's life.

Those artists at least had a recognizable and identifiable style. It was easy to mimic yes, but they became icons for the identifiable style. If Altman snuck this in to the museum I'd give him some credit for it I suppose, but the style already exists and isn't novel or identiable to a particular artist. Other people have snuck crap into museums too. There's no novelty or creativity or unique iconic style here. It's just sludge.

Except this is missing the executing part. Prompting isn't work.

I think that art can be defined as a creation that elicits an emotional response. The method of creation has little to do with it.

Whenever digital artists started becoming a thing, they were gatekept as well.

Run all the samples through a computer, write a prompt telling it to create music in the style of (x), and keep tweaking the prompt to reiterate the result until something desirable emerges. No skill or understanding of music required, just keep hitting “generate” or whatever until something gets spit out that sounds good.

Vs

Thousands of hours of music making experience, understanding of musical styles, lyric arrangement, composition, heck…even music theory and the ability to read and write musical notes…and take all of that and make something original that, with permission of the original artist, uses modified clips of others’ tracks.

Sampling isn’t the defining difference.

It's funny because trip-hop landed in pretty much elitist, conceptual album category for snobs and luxury products' ads, with sampling being one of it's core features. Useless gateekeping and/or mischaracterising the 'art' word as something well-defined.