“Do [computer] programs make art or the people using them?”
Images borne on a computer do not display the qualities of ‘texture’. Data has no surface. Pixels on a colour monitor have an illusionary existence. Whether they are displayed as flickering dots on old CRT monitors or appear as illuminated red green and blue LCD elements they are inherently and perfectly 2 dimensional.
The surface texture of images thus formed is paradoxical. Not unlike a photograph.
One of the flattest things we look at is text.
The text in this case is a translation, not from another language but from a picture. The image data is interpreted as Ascii text and printed out. This is the starting point for the treatments.
The letters have not lost their identity and are still recognisable, although they have no visible connection to the image they represent. Unless you are a computer. Then it is perfectly clear.
Perhaps it has something to do with being bilingual.
Do computers make art or the people using them?
It occurs to me that people make the computers, people write the programs and use these tools and then let others decide what art is and what is not.
I’m not sure who in this chain is making the art. It could be a joint effort.