Conceptually not. Art cant be replaced like that.

But practically? It definitely is a hit to the comercial viability of art, and a lot designers are feeling those effects already.

No, I think real artists will still be needed regardless of the existence of AI.

Sure, AI is capable of making art but can it do it with the precision and accuracy of a real human? can it really accurately represent the creators intent as well as a real person? no. that's why we still need artists.

Photography wasn't the end of art either, sure diminished painting landscapes / portraits though. But now photography is considered art as well. True artists will be able to use AI to express emotions, just as photographers can. However it will be infinitely easier to copy / plagiarize existing (digital) art.

So far AI can't hold a paint brush and robots dancing looks creepy as fuck.

Depends. If we consumed art because it was a subconscious way of sharing with other humans, or having a shared experience with them, then no. People will find AI things empty, hollow, and without meaning. If, however, that wasn't the case. If people just consumed because they consumed, then yes. In a commercial sense, it will be dead. But humans desire creation, so it will never go away. On some level, it will persist as long as we do.

In the end it's the Human to operate the tool. Just like a painter handles a brush, A writer handles their pen, an Ai developer gives direction to what the tool is doing.

There are paintings are regarded as rubbish. There are tales that are bad. But there  are good paintings and good stories. Same will be for Ai generated content.

AI will transform art. Some forms will probably stay the way they are, at least for a while, some might effectively disappear, some will change, and possibly some new forms will be created. There will also be much more content for which it's debatable whether it's art at all or not, but some content with AI involvement will be accepted as art. As long as a human is sufficiently involved in the creation process, the created content will be more readily accepted as art.

I don't personally have very strong opinions about what can be considered art - I haven't so far, and I don't see why I would in the future either. I don't personally find it a very interesting classification. The above is more about how I expect the world to view the situation.

AI's role in art is a super contentious topic and I do have a lot of feelings on that. To start I think art will not only be fine but better than ever even since there's so many more possibilities for the average person now, for example blockbuster film level CG is now no longer only in the hands of the wealthy.

It is common to dismiss things created through AI due to it removing the process and I would agree that something like animation done by hand is vastly more impressive than using AI but I would still consider it art since the creative intent is still there and I don't view the journey as a required aspect in art. It can be an extremely important aspect but it's optional cause there are types of art that are very easy and quick to do. Basically I agree with the ideas of the conceptual art movement.

Another part of this that is much deeper relates to the concept of AI/robot personhood. That is a topic that will likely become very relevant in the coming years so society will have to debate over how much value works created entirely by AI/robots have and if they can be considered art. I'm personally ready to accept that idea once they get advanced enough though it'll be incredibly contentious, much, much more so than the current debate over AI in art.