For that matter, nature can obviously be both, and it doesn't have intentional design nor vision behind it. So it's clear that it's not a universal requirement.
What I meant is that something that is "interesting" and/or "beautiful" is just artistic, such as nature as you pointed out. For it to be art, there has to be intent behind it, otherwise it's just aesthetically pleasing.
My point was that art is more than just something that's aesthetically pleasing.
But if we're talking about definitions, surely what really matters is how most in society understand "art"? Now suppose we went around showing Midjourney-generated pics to random people on the streets and asking them whether it's art or not; how many do you think would say "no", or ask questions about artist's intent before giving an answer?
I just think that until AI has real intent, it's a different thing that what we do. Which is not saying anything bad it, quite the contrary.
The definitions will inevitably shift over time, they're already ultimately subjective. If you believe in god, it's not hard to argue that nature is art and quite a lot of people believe in god.