That is a beautiful quote, I had never read it. Novelty and ever growing detail of artistic creation have their limits and their downsides. Video games are an excellent example of this. Take early 3D games like Thief, a steampunk thief simulator game with blocky, polygonal graphics. In the game, you navigate fairly simple geometric environments looking for loot, avoiding guards and exploring the world. In this simplistic setting, interactive objects are clearly visible: a key, or a pile of gold, or a golden goblet. These are all visible as objects in the world. You see a key on a table and you pick it up. The simplicity of graphics allows for extremely clear visual communication and a highly immersive experience. You explore the world with your eyes and ears and wits alone.
Fast forward to today's AAA games, dense in extremely complex and detailed graphics. The player can no longer spot the key on the table or the pile of gold coins, there is too much noise, too much novelty, too much density... so now games have glowing icons showing you where to look and what to pick up. Minimaps to keep you oriented in the level. But what happens? The player is no longer immersed in the world, seeking loot with their own eyes, they are simply following the glowing icons, sleepwalking through the game world. All the detail and artwork glazed over and ignored. The game no longer succeeds at visual communication, because it is too dense, and in its quest for realism has actually lost immersion.
Why do so many people love Monet's impressionistic art when other artists have painted far more realistic flowers and fields? Why is it that some of the greatest art of all time came from limitations? Why do people love movies with practical effects more than those with the most impossible and incredibly detailed CGI effects? I think your quote really captures the truth that AI and ever growing ease and detail of artistic creation can never replace the raw beauty of humans doing their best with limited tools.