I have very mixed feelings about this, now that i see the inspirational picture. It looks like a 1:1 copy of the original, which more or less is credited to be "art". Some may like it, i do not so much. Not because of its simplicity, but because of exatcly that! Does that make any sense at all? I ask mayslf, why such a copy and not variate it in some way. On the other hand i would probably do it exactly the same. Gee, my thoughts are going wild on this one.

If I don't try to analyze what the "artist" wanted to show us with this blatant rip off, I'd just consider this as utter crap!

Following points made by chromag and CONS here, I believe this "piece" could be seen as thought provoking, thus qualifying for art, because of its demo compo context, it kind of reminds me the Readymades of Marcel Duchamp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp

Following this readymade idea I could even say that what sq did here could be more interesting because instead of a common object he would have used an art piece as a new art piece. I could also think about the meaning of this piece in the abstract and math world of demoscene..

And of course all analysis we could draw could even be a posteriori false or overdone because it could be just a random pun without much intent.