I am looking forward to the day that we can walk through a computer-generated infinite gallery in virtual reality, looking at paintings and sculptures entirely generated by machine learning algorithms. Humans are going to have to catch up!
Human standards of excellence are, and IMO should be, defined by what humans can do and experience. There's not much scope for competing with or "catching up" to a technology that is inherently many times faster/smarter/more creative that a human. Competition is not the right way to look at this.
However, art can exist within this context if humans are involved somehow or have some input, and I don't mean just the coder's input.
How can you draw that line? If a coder is working on a generative art project, writes an algorithm, runs it, likes the result, is that not art?
Is an iterative process required where the coder throws away the first results and revises their system until they personally feel it's been sufficiently arted?
Personally, most computer generated art I see doesn't do anything for me besides act as surface-level eye candy, but I do think it's possible and VR might be a way to connect.