> Just curious - have you actually tried selling art?
Indeed. But I understand what you're seeing in my comment.
As a restatement: your art's marketability is firstly dependent on your style/genre/technique being in fashion. Generative art is a curiosity, but still isn't in fashion. You and I are probably not the ones to bring it into fashion; that'll happen when/if somebody well-connected pitches their work's story very well or a collector/curator pitches a their discovery story very well. Presumably, we both have better things to do than position ourselves for that, because it's a lifelong effort and a risky one.
So in the meantime, it's sort of a waiting game where we're left to either do our thing or direct ourselves towards a different style.
That said, stories do matter. But it's not hard to identify them, even for generative art. They just don't become the "good art stories" you're talking about until somebody creates the market and sets a standard.
And pragmatics like reproducibility and constraint absolutely matter, but again, the standard for what that means in generative art will be some collector/curator's discovery as the market develops. It's not the detail we need to worry about, because we can always make our work constrained in the necessary way when the time comes.
I guess what I'm saying is that being an experimental/emerging artist sometimes runs orthogonal to creating a market for our art. Creating that market (by struggling against "main problems") is a lot of work on it's own and takes away from either the making of art or from other parts of life.
And yes, it's frustrating.