I had the same reaction, that I couldn't figure out the argument. (For people who didn't read the article, it's not what you'd expect about why computer art isn't art.) It seems to be from the perspective of rejecting art entirely: "There is no need for the production of more works of art, particularly no need for 'computer art'."

After re-reading the article, I think it's best understood by considering each paragraph a completely unconnected topic. (I'm not being snarky here.)