These AI pictures would wind up being called art if someone purposefully produced them as such and if necessary, provided some meaning or context to them all.
I get what you're trying to say. That sort of thing isn't common in contemporary art, especially not in a gallery setting. But that's a tiny portion of all the art in the world.
For example - I know an artist in Tuscon who drinks his own piss. That's the performance. He might have a personal meaning behind it, but he doesn't explain it to anyone. And he does plenty of other meaningless things intentionally.
He's not world renowned or anything, but he is known among some artists in Tuscon, he considers himself an artist, and thats how he makes his living. He also has an art degree.
> You are correct that art is subjective though.
"art degree"
That's my argument against (most) graffiti.
Pissing on a wall and arbitrarily calling it art does not make it art. That style of thinking worked during the Dada movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada but is no longer something that would work today, unless you were doing a live art installation, in which case you are committing to some kind of commentary on some factor of the world anyways.
Artists almost always create art with meaning, and in the rare cases they don’t they are still attempting to make genuinely thought provoking works of art, even if it’s simply showing off their skills. If you go to an art gallery there is always the artist’s thesis statement or message written out at the entrance.
You are correct that art is subjective though. What an artist envisions and what their audience gets out of it has been shown time and again to not line up in many cases. And in a way, that is the beauty of art - our shared experiences while appreciating it.