Art is in the eye of the beholder, but it still needs a creator.

That creator had a vision in mind that's unique to them because of their experiences, and I think it's wrong to say that this image can be quantified as a location in a abstract feature space.

So to say "there is no additional layer [to judge goodness] that is relevant to [most people]" assumes there is an algorithmic measure of "goodness" that can be applied to art, which is an assumption you need to make to believe that there's any similarities with AI generated art and human generated other than "they look kinda similar".

Until 100 years from now, when more general purpose AI are having what could be described as experiences, and can be asked to draw a picture of how they feel when thinking about being unplugged/death.

We hoomans love to think we're special, but quantum tubules etc besides, we really are just biological computers running a program developed over our evolutionary/personal histories.

Sure, in a future 100 years from now when AI is an actual general AI and not the specialized algorithms we have today, one might be able to argue that it does things the same way as a person(although one would hope it does then better instead, since that's the goal).

Until then we are special and we're just pretending these specialized algorithms are replicating the things we don't even understand. Anthropomorphising the algorithms by saying they "learn" and "feel" and "experience" is us as humans trying to draw parallels to ourselves as we find our understanding inadequate to explain what's actually going on.