Algorithms that create so-called “art” are merely amalgamations of human knowledge. Or, another way to put it, as Jaron Lanier once said, “AI, more than anything else, is just a funding category for research.”
”“Humans” who create the algorithms in question are the artists. The algorithm itself cannot be. Art is an expression of being human.
Moreover, there is something to be said about the inherent — not to mention the commercial — value of art being dependent on both its exclusivity and provenance. We humans associate art with its being touched, literally, by the human who created it. We prize art that is signed by its creator (or a limited number of copies of it). We humans hold other creative people among us in high esteem for having the discipline to develop a sui generis talent.
If an algorithm can create a digital file that can be copied indiscriminately and indefinitely, what value does it have, other than being decorative? Decorative artsy things may be pleasing or pretty; but I would question its status, or categorization, as art.