Here's one argument. A work of art has intention behind it. It is meant to accomplish something, even if it's purely aesthetic. There is no intent behind an algorithm.
A counter argument is that "art is in the eye of the beholder"
Not just the properties of that art, but even if I consider it art.
You say intent behind it matters.
When I look at some cable harness assemblies, I see beauty and art.
The intent of the assembler was a functional system that is easy to maintain and diagnose.
Why shouldn't I see that as art, simply because the creators intent was not to make art?
Moreso, not all assemblies look like art to me. A google image search on the term provides plenty of ugly examples.
Here's one of those I find to be beautiful
Haven't you ever looked at something that occurred in nature and thought to yourself "wow that could be a work of art!", despite being completely organic with no intent behind it at all?
What does this mean for paintings of flowers? If flowers in nature can't be art due to lack of intent, why would an artist ever have an intent of duplicating such a scene? Only for it to just then become art?
I don't disagree with your statement regarding curating of art, except in that the curator curates. What is curated (those things being art or something else) isn't changed by the curating of those things.
But yes, the curation as a whole, a different thing (sum of the parts), can also itself be art.