I've read this a couple times and can't really figure out what the argument is. Something about alienating artists from their art? And also the bourgeoisie is involved? I did notice that they narrowed their claim a couple times as the article went on.
The argument appears to be that using a computer to generate a piece of art is not a meaningful distinction from using e.g. a camera or a paintbrush, and so "computer art" is not a useful category. This appears to be couched in a more general political (and normative) theory of aesthetics which argues that art is (in the current political context) important insofar as it serves goals /beyond/ the production of "beautiful objects," e.g. highlighting inequity in the distribution of wealth, or other projects which serve the "needs of the people" contra "the rich and ruling."
I had the same reaction, that I couldn't figure out the argument. (For people who didn't read the article, it's not what you'd expect about why computer art isn't art.) It seems to be from the perspective of rejecting art entirely: "There is no need for the production of more works of art, particularly no need for 'computer art'."
After re-reading the article, I think it's best understood by considering each paragraph a completely unconnected topic. (I'm not being snarky here.)
