I've been toying with a definition of measuring how meaningful something is artistically. First, Newton's Third Law:

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

The act of making art changes us -- the neural connections of our brains are changed by the process.

That magnitude of change is reflected in the significance of the art. The change in our brains might be from a moment or from a lifetime of effort, but without the creative process, it is not art.

You could extrapolate, then, what it means (or doesn't mean) to have art generated by machines. David Byrne said something in American Utopia about how other humans are the most interesting thing to look at. So it makes sense to me that looking at the reflection of their changing brains would be meaningful.

Recordings:

live solo improv: someone took my bacon