So am I endorsing the "soul" of art concept? No, absolutely not. It's clearly against my religion.
But I understand why people see it that way. The problem with soul arguments, other than being magical, is that they all depend on a kind of grok.
You get the piece, therefore you find whatever version of it soulful. It's shorthand for, "it speaks to me." Also a magical concept, but when you're dealing with cultish art idioms, you're limited in the words that can be used for some of these concepts.
Generally, the "soul" of art only comes up in discussions about monetary value or tooling, and is discussed in the negative. When you're talking about whether or not a piece of art "speaks to you" that's the verbiage you generally use.
Soul is, more often than not, a negative abstract, and it's also commonly confused with the "aura" of art, which is a related but entirely different concept. Art auras as discussed by Walter Benjamin revolve around authenticity. A piece can be soulless, and still be "authentic," as in having a chain of provenance, or vice versa.
Most "soul" arguments around AI are actually provenance and appropriation arguments, which is a sad misuse of the term and a way for cartel members to bring up their century old beef with Dadaism (whether they're aware of that or not).
It also shows you clearly, who's actually speaking and the fact that a couple of years of art education might do them good. I'm still a little amazed, I think that the people who declare themselves the "defenders" of art, know so little about the topic.
Why do you think that is?
But I like "soul" in the positive, as a concept, independent of any piece of art or tooling.
I just don't like the discussions and the way people use it.