I don't think purely AI-generated art can be recognized as "art," in the way that the Mona Lisa is art. It is not something made by a person. Too much human creativity has been taken out of the process. Just because I typed in a prompt does not mean I can take credit for the image generated by the AI.
AI-assisted art? Where the artist does most of the work and the AI does things like smooth out rough edges, etc. is a big gray area. Yes, it means you need less technical expertise to create fantastic images, but the image is still primarily the result of human creativity. It's like using an image editor to make an artistic photograph better-looking. But how much is too much?
Related issue...AI art for commercial purposes. Yes, it means a person without artistic ability can create lots of pictures for book covers, etc., but it makes it harder for artists to sell their own original work. Of course, whether we like it or not, that ship may have already sailed on the winds of economy.
The real value of AI art, I think, is as a brainstorming tool. It's amazing, for example, what you can learn about a character by having an AI create different versions of that person, which it can do very quickly, and all you have to do is type in prompts like "Short and broad, with tan skin and delicate features; this person has shoulder-length curly dark brown hair with thick body hair, deep-set gray eyes with thin eyebrows, a wide, smiling mouth, a bulbous nose, and pointed ears."
I hope this helps.