Framings require creators; they don't arise spontaneously. Someone could turn a urinal factory into art, but art doesn't validate itself. Belief alone in artistic essentialism doesn’t make it so.

That's such a great pile of bullcrap, you could frame it and hang it up in a museum!

The point I'm making is that a unique framing only results in a single piece of worthwhile conceptual art. You can't have an infinite factory of ducamp's fountain. What makes the piece worthwhile is that it was an original idea.

Conceptual art is different from decorational art in this sense. The AI music is a largely a homogenous synthesis of existing works. The AI "art" is decorational, not conceptual art. You could make an arrangement of AI art that is conceptual, but how many arrangements can you make that are actually worthwhile conceptually if AI art is generally homogenous?

It's like asking how many worthwhile works of conceptual art can you produce with a urinal factory that makes identical clones of the same urinal? 0 to 1.

And besides, it's not nessisarially true that all framings have creators. Nature is an example of a system that cultivates and curates a certain type of life without any rational process.

I don't disagree that being novel has it's place in framing art, and I still believe that a Fountain Factory could certainly be framed as art.

To your other point, sorry, but artistic/aesthetic essentialism hasn't been serious position for at least a hundred years.

As long as there is a perceiver, there is a frame.

The idea that nature is intrinsically beautiful is a frame. It's fine to hold that but it shouldn't be confused with not having a frame.

There's a difference between a factory that is art vs a factory that produces art.

There's only one factory, and the concept works only once.

Mass-produced art is still art as long as people frame it as such and all indication suggests that they do.

I have some mass-produced art on my wall. But it's definitely not conceptual art, as some ancestor post was discussing.

The point of Fountain was to say that whether something is art should depend on the content and its absurd that a urinal could be considered art.

But the art isn’t in the content, it was in the statement it was making about the absurdity surrounding the fact you could pay to put anything in an art exhibition. Swap out the white urinal for a blue one, it’s the same point.