My favorite "Pollock is easy" critique is The Connoisseur by Norman Rockwell.[1]
Of course, what Rockwell was missing is doing a Pollock-style action painting first. After Pollock, any paintings in his style are just worthless imitations.
It doesn't matter how "easy" it is, getting there first and pushing the boundaries of what is considered art still has a lot of value in the art world.
Norman Rockwell did not push any boundaries of art, and that's why he will always be a minor footnote in the history of art, no matter how much more technically accomplished his paintings in a realistic style are compared to some much more significant but technically "easy" abstract art.
I did it first, so admire me for pushing the boundaries of ascii art. Also, you'll never be able to truly reproduce this type of ascii art unless you spend 4 years at art school studying stylometry to be able to identify my unique technique. You can imitate it, but there are subtleties only connoisseurs will recognize.
You're at least 100 years too late for your random art to be considered novel.
Mozart was creating random compositions with dice as far back as 1792.[1] Pollock was playing with randomness in painting in the 1940's, around the same time that John Cage was innovating with randomness in musical compositions.
The use of randomness in the arts and music has been going on for a long time, so something like your ascii art is probably not going to raise an eyebrow today, though maybe if you did it 100 years ago and managed to get it in to a museum or gallery it might have looked novel then.
That said, I wouldn't put it past some galleries to display it anyway, especially if you do it in a large quantity -- say having random text cover all the gallery walls, or make the font really gigantic. I'm sure some people will love it and consider it some kind of profound statement on the mechanization of modern life or something.
Of course, what Rockwell was missing is doing a Pollock-style action painting first. After Pollock, any paintings in his style are just worthless imitations.
It doesn't matter how "easy" it is, getting there first and pushing the boundaries of what is considered art still has a lot of value in the art world.
Norman Rockwell did not push any boundaries of art, and that's why he will always be a minor footnote in the history of art, no matter how much more technically accomplished his paintings in a realistic style are compared to some much more significant but technically "easy" abstract art.
[1] - http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3535/1896/1600/rockwell_s...