I love this definition of art and it's why some of the recent knee-jerk rejection of AI-generated artwork (sometimes citing its inhumanity or lack of human backstory) is premature IMO.
More importantly, that's beautiful art. Thank you for sharing, OP.
I also don't know what to think about AI-generated art yet, either. All of my paintings, I just keep painting until I have the feeling that they're finished. But: in my head, don't I simply remix previous things I saw and found beautiful, pigment and scratch movements that worked well, and all these things? Where's the difference? :-)
(I enjoy the act of smearing paint on canvasses, which makes a lot of difference for me – and there is no prompt.)
To me, it seems like the artist at least has this particular sentiment in mind - if not while doing the physical act of painting, at least at some time before or after, or while sharing the works of art themselves.
To me, I often sense I don't "get" art, because I don't feel anything looking at it, and I am wholly preoccupied with wondering why the artist created what they did, and what they had in mind at the time. To me... that's what art is. Wholly contradicting what this particular artist defines it as.
Who is right?
When you say "that" you appear to disagree with the quote.