Which might all be true---I don't know about the Bad Art bit, but the other two theses seem reasonable---but seems itself to miss the point of the original experiment. Probably nobody disputes that Vermeer was talented as all hell, but I don't know: did anyone, other than the author of the _Grauniad_ column, read the original article as carrying the message "Vermeer was nothing special, he just had a magic tool"?
It reminds me a little bit of the "photography isn't art" / "yes it is" / "no it isn't" Argument Clinic of the early 20th century. If an artist used a sophisticated tool, something that could allow a complete tyro to duplicate some of the challenging mechanics of their work, would that devalue the work as capital-A-Art? I thought we'd gotten past that question long since, but maybe the tree of controversy needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of repetition, or something like that.