I personally don't need to know anything about the circumstances of the creation of art piece to think of it as art (or sometimes not). If the author relies on this (for his work to be judged as art), he should have put it into the work itself.
Yes. That's what is whole thing is about - AI cannot create art because it lacks a human component.
A tighter question would be can animals create art? I don't know the answer to that one.
What I mean by "deny the capability to create art" is that you decided that whatever the AI might have created in the future, and without even looking at it, it's not art.
It's sort of an extreme position, I think.
"If you determine what is art based on the process of its creation, and not solely on the result, then you deny AI the capability to create art."
OK and?
Take a chat bot that can pass the Turing Test. It seems human to the observer, but that doesn't mean it is. And when the observer learns of their mistaken belief, the chat bot doesnt just then become a bot.