Hyperrealism is just being able to exactly copy impressions or photos. If he would now start to copy images he first make using Photoshop (with weird-looking watches all over it and other stuff), it would be certainly considered ingenious art.
Most parts of art are mechanical in their core and can be automated. I don't think there's any reason to assume that he isn't a gifted artist while people who do nearly the same but just use other source material e.g. draw realistic images of dragons are considered as creative or those that just put some blots on a canvas - just look at images like "Violet, Green and Red". What's considered as genius in the arts is ridiculous compared to other fields. And because of that, I don't see why it's necessary to criticize this boy for lacking artistic genius; this stuff is so extremely subjective that it says more about you than anything else.
The next step - mixing interesting ideas and concepts to create creative new art - can also be automated IMO.
> Artistic genius is about synthesizing multiple styles and histories and creating something novel, or re-presenting something old and tired in a new way.
Many modern (and also classic) artists who get the recognition of being "geniuses" are not doing something novel or insanely creative IMO. There are not many who I would consider to be geniuses in the field.
And something like this [1] is more creative IMO than many of technically demanding works or those blots on a canvas.
I would say that the commercialisation of arts destroyed the appeal of it. It's ok if a work is "just nice" or creates a small feeling and nothing more. The expectations are too high if an image costs $168 million - those prices communicate that those images are somehow "more genius" than something a 13y/o can draw. They're not and this is why art (without all that money) is beautiful. It can be a beautiful place of creativity and egality.
[1]: https://www.boredpanda.com/bad-celebrity-portraits-tw1tterpi...