Jeff,

To continue your thought....
What is the purpose of such an experiment?
There is not value in proving that it's still possible to make a work of art without perspective, or drawing, modeling, storytelling, color, tone, light, line, form, volume... etc.

All that is being done is limiting the number of tools by which depth, dimension and meaning can be achieved to make a work of art beautiful or compelling.

I would contend that it's more sensible to try to find other tools or parameters that can be included if they will enable still greater works of meaningful art.

For example if the work of art could change over time it might be possible to enrich the visual arts.

Hmmmm!
Didn't Thomas Edison already do that?

It is in fact humanity, the human experience including our lives, our fantasies, dreams, stories, myths, legends, and religion that must be tapped as the only true source, the fountain from which all great art must go to find meaning and form.

Art about life. You are describing art about art, which is no art at all. Perhaps Rockwell's self portrait in front of a Jackson Pollock might be the exception in a nice bit of realist irony.

Fred