The darker side of this assumption, that the computer is a cheat, that the computer is making the art, is the idea that if you go buy an art program, you too can be an artist. Art is in the eye, not the tool.
Back to Terry Graham from my original post...It takes an artist to produce work like this (If anyone thinks the computer did this, I challenge them to go ahead and take photos of a face and a flower and make poetry like this):
I would like to point out that artists have been using camera technology for centuries.
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/11/came...f-old-masters/
I would also like to point out that artists were some of the first people to ever have their livelihoods threatened by a machine, and what did they do? They began to abstract things. They also embraced the new way of seeing that the camera presented, different cropping, motion blur, the candid aspect. Impressionism, abstraction, expressionism, surrealism...none of these would exist if it were not for the camera. Picasso was influenced by Méliès. Duchamp was influenced by Muybridge.
"Edgar Degas and Thomas Eakins were so intrigued withthis new ability to capture a moment in time that they both pursued photography as an additional
creative outlet." Arnason and Kalb - History of Modern Art. 5th ed.
Further, pointillism would not exist were it not for developments in optics. Art and technology have always been making love. If it's OK for Degas it's fine with me.