I've never understood the "artistry" of intentional uselessness like this.
If you built a machine that could speed-tie a necktie in a fraction of a second, but artificially limited it so that you had to activate it and then wait several minutes before it actually did it, no one would call that "art".
So what makes this machine - which does essentially the exact same thing, just in a more drawn out, less extreme manner - any different?
The only tangible difference I can think of is that here a person can watch a bunch of bits and pieces move and make noise while they are waiting for the machine to tie the necktie, whereas in my example there's nothing to keep a person entertained while they wait for the machine to actually accomplish its task.
But is that art? Or is it just exploiting humanity's magpie reflex to ooh and ahh over shiny things when we're not otherwise occupied?
Does it actually speak to some unique human conception or expression that is the essnece of its artistry, which my counter example does not? Or is it merely that it better conforms to our instinctual triggers, providing auditory and visual stimuli that our evolutionary development has hardwired us to respond to with rapt attention and general curiosity?