We're not objectively deciding what is art and what isn't, up front. Who decides what counts? Who's to say an AI generated self-published vomit novels on Amazon aren't as valid as anything else.
I don't find your comment particularly insightful. These aren't good questions but I'll attempt to answer in good faith.
>Who decides what counts?
Clearly for this scheme the people approving the applicants and those setting the criteria for those reviewing the portfolios.
A better line of questioning might be who decided on these people and what makes them qualified to judge but you'll find yourself going down a 'Who guards the guardians' conundrum.
Your comment reminds me of when some member of the audience challenged film critic Robert Ebert on who made him the 'boss' to decide which films were good and which were bad.
He simply answered with the name of the owner of the building since he authorised the production of his film review show.
Correct, the programme is FOR artists. How could this possibly work otherwise? By somebody stating they intend to become an talented artist?
How else would you gauge merit if not through their portfolio of prior work?