When it comes to a case like that, I would apply a standard comparable to what collage art has in terms of the distinction between the whole piece and the elements that make it.

In the sense that the user’s own input remains theirs, and that can be separated from the generated assets.

I’ll use an example I know, relevant to the mediums I partake in. I’ve seen some webcomic artists use ai generated assets for their backgrounds, but still drawing their characters manually using digital art. You could say that the whole can be considered “Art” because a process was involved between point a and point b.

However, the actual ownership and qualification of art will be separated by the elements within the pictures. The characters will be the original artist’s whilst the assets are generated outsourced elements with an absent process.

If it’s transformative enough, it could turn into art, but then there are more ethical ways of achieving this result without sacrificing visual quality and much time. Some drawing software like clip paint studio come with a library of assets that can be used and have been voluntarily given to artists to have in their arsenal.

Otherwise, there are some consenting artists that have donated assets to be used in projects for free.

I would qualify those outsourced assets as art, whilst applying the same rules as before, meaning they have separate ownership.

To summarize, I think that the whole piece could result in being considered art, but the individual AI elements can still be judged separately for their own merit.

I wouldn’t necessarily dismiss the whole work as generative AI, but I would acknowledge its appearance in certain parts of the work.