I've noticed that the difference between replicas and the real, historical objects they are meant to represent is the lack of imperfections.
Real things, like dinosaur fossils or castles or even little things like roman clay oil lamps, are almost always either incomplete or broken.
When people take photos of disasters or photograph a chance encounter with some rare animal or reclusive celebrity, they never look like they do in the movies or in work done by professional photographers.
Genuine photos are unposed and candid and, in the case of rare animals in the wild, lacking some important feature that makes classification simple and instead generates comments like, "Couldn't you have taken a better photo?".
Reality is grainy, dark, smudged, curious and always to some degree not what we would quite like it to look like. Reality is unintended and chaotic; a puzzle that never has all the pieces.
That's what most people think is the opposite of Art. To them Art is intentional and while some artwork may display elements of chaos and natural "wildness", it is the image of chaos or nature that the artist prefers and deliberately sets out to create, thereby producing an artificial one, even if it is immediately more pleasing to look at.
Generative Art, on the other hand, has an ugly beauty to it just like the swirls and rivulets painted by rainwater flowing over gravel. It has a quality that can't be imitated. These are things I'd never make. Things I'd never have thought of.