In the jargon of fine arts, "craft" refers "making a thing well / in a particular style" while "art" has something to say, most often challenging a widespread idea.
EG installing a toilet in a room of an art gallery with a plaque stating "this is art" was a bold work of art, but was not an impressive display of craft.
I really appreciate this distinction, because separating those concepts immediately clarifies a lot of the discussion around "AI Art".
AI can imitate _craft_ exceptionally well, but it cannot create _art_ (that is, it can't independently devise a display which challenges a widespread idea).
Working artists are losing out because nearly all of the economic demand for art was actually demand for craft, and they're doubly angry because their past work was needed to create the machine that's now undercutting their income.
An AI-generated work is mainly if not categorically a prompt for "how" questions, as its can-kicking answer to "why" is built right into the first letter of the initialism: because a human wanted it.
The real answer to why is pursued from that point up into its usual unnavigable headwaters, with a few extra twists concerning the question of whether the word artificial itself will turn out to be merely another diguise of the anthropic principle.
How can you even reason that.
Imagine an army of people with AI art makers versing an army of people with steam engines... who do you think will change the world?
AI is nothing compared to the industrial revolution.