Random Art?

I stumbled upon this website and this led to a number of important questions that I had to answer.
I often have seen art as a bit of a waste of time and appreciate art with an important message, intrinsic beauty or a humerous twist, rather than something which is pointlessly profound or something trying to be art for art's sake. Some of my favourites have been the 'light switch', Dali's "Christ of Saint John of the Cross" and Marcel Duchamp's Mona Lisa. While I understand the rules of art as valuable tools to compare artists and works, addressing themes and aiming for improvements, I don't see the point of art for serving these rules, i.e. art for art's sake, 64 Bricks.
In "the Decay of Lying", Oscar Wilde states that "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life"
The following article shows that life, perhaps, if not imitating art, is a little worried by it and unsure where actually to draw the boundaries as they don't know what it is. The origin of the piece is actually about a stolen statue whose plinth has become a piece of art as well.
I often recall people telling a true story and finishing with, "they couldn't make that up even if they tried" , well, knowing many mad films, books and tall stories, I bet they could.

The Times, June 26th, 2006

THE SEVEREST ART CRITICS? WELL, IT’S USUALLY THE GALLERY CLEANERS .

Damien Hirst’s Painting-By-Numbers, an installation comprising ashtrays, half-filled coffee cups and empty beer bottles, was binned by a cleaner in October 2001. Emmanuel Asare, cleaner at the Eyestorm Gallery, said: “As soon as I clapped eyes on it I sighed because there was so much mess. I didn’t think for a second that it was a work of art — it didn’t look much like art to me.”

People walking past the Tacheles art gallery in Berlin in December 2002 assumed that a suicide victim was a piece of performance art. They delayed calling the police because the 24-year-old woman had jumped from a gallery window.

Cleaners scrubbed a lavatory in the Arches art centre in Glasgow in February 2005 only to discover that the stained walls and paper-covered floors were part of an installation by the artist Angela Bartram.

A dropped wallet reportedly became a temporary exhibit when Tate Modern opened in 2000. When the owner returned, he had to squeeze past a crowd and, when he picked it up, was berated by an attendant for touching an exhibit.

Gustav Metzger’s Recreation of First Public Demonstration of Auto-Destructive Art, a transparent binliner stuffed with paper and cardboard, was also the victim of a cleaner when it went on display at Tate Britain in August 2004.

Well back to the original concept of random-art.org that made me think about art.
Is the programme 'random art' really random, or is it constructed? Was the programme left to its own devices and it concieved of the art? No. The viewer is still made to appreciate or dislike the artist, even though it is claimed to be random.
What about a system of randomly entering commands into a computer until things appeared. Would the blue screen of death become art?
I think current artistic thinking on 'what is art?' boils down to "art is what people might think art is or isn't" So the less I say on this matter, the better. If I say it isn't, then someone could disagree and say it is, then it is a conroversial piece of art. If I say it is, then de facto is art in my mind" Albeit not a very valuable piece, and not a very good one either, but somewhere could make an obscure ironic statement to someone, especially when programmers put comedy bits of programming into the blue screens themselves, like "s*** happens :>". Which I think sums up the art world, and the retort would be "but the good s*** floats to the top"