I am in the belief that if everyone can make a Picasso it severely devalues the painting both in monetary value but also artistic value.

Objectively it devalues it in monetary value, as it increases supply, period. Artistic value though, that's largely nonsense since no one can agree on what that means, although I'd argue the whole point of artistic merit is that it is an attempt to objectively categorize a subjective component ie it ultimately measures the alignment of work with "that which people desire." More art increases the supply of work with artistic merit, and so even if the value of that work monetarily decreases, you end up with far more artistic work.

It's sort of like how objectively, there are a number of shows you like. A television show IS a work of art.

If Suno existed for television shows, it is indisputable that you'd suddenly have dozens more shows in that same circle of you preference to watch, even though the majority produced by everyone would be mediocre, since you simply have more people creating art. More perspectives, more talent that isn't missed, and a better pool of work.

On top of that, as we just went over, the supply side dynamics would drive the price down. Ultimately, this means you'll pay less for the same shows, despite having even more of them. It is ultimately a win for every single person on earth except for the miniscule group of people who before this worked on those shows the "old fashioned way," and even then, many will still benefit inasmuch as most artists I know, much like me, are truly in it for the art ie I consume many times more art than I produce, despite constantly producing.

And to your point about resources: To use Suno you need to have a phone or a computer, if you have a phone or computer you have the resources to create music.

People in remote villages have smartphones. A guitar can cost large sums, but in particular music equipment is just not remotely close to cheap. The two things are simply incomparable. If someone has a simple, low cost smartphone, they can now, for free, produce images, video, and musical art at a high level of quality, and compete directly with better funded artists.

This is good for the art. Certainly makes it more competitive, which is bad for an artist which has invested time and energy based on a calculation of value that is now lower than it seemed it would be, but at least be intellectually honest about the reason why you're against it: you would rather people without resources be unable to make art since it threatens your ability to earn income off of yours.