The 200 character limit to the status bar is proving a barrier to our nuanced discussion of randomly created Art, such as a monkey at a typewriter producing a great novel, so I created this thread instead since apparently we all had something to say about it. 

I'll lay out my position, for me one of the fundamental pleasures of art is the communication of ideas and emotion. The idea that someone thought about and tried to evoke something in a piece that I am then experiencing second hand. It's like glimpsing the soul of another, and its even more remarkable when this exchange happens over the great cultural and temporal distances. I've laughed at jokes and cried at words written by another human being over two thousand years ago and in another language, a dead language, would this exchange be as remarkable if those words had been assembled instead by random chance? Personally, no I think not.

That is not to say that random chance cannot create beautiful things, or things in which I can derive pleasure and greatly enjoy. Art created by chance can also be filled with meaning, but only ever the meaning of the beholder. There is no communication of ideas, there is no connection beyond the self, no dialog. I think this will always leave randomly created art somewhat poorer than its consciously constructed cousin.

Anyway, do you think that art can be created by machines or through random chance? If so, do you believe that the art is of the same value as if it had been created by a human? If not, why not? 

Have at it!