It all comes down to the definition of "intelligence." Computers can do things easily that humans may find difficult or even impossible. And yet, were you to show a computer a painting, it wouldn't be able to analyze it the way an art critic could. Computers can crunch numbers exceptionally well, but they have no critical capacity.
But all of this is a big "NOT YET". All it takes is the right processing power and programming.
And what we want from a computer. Computers are (usually) supposed to deliver deterministic results. You want it to function according to your needs. And art critic is quite the opposite of that. Show one image to two critics and you get three different opinions. On a Monday. On a Tuesday, you get an additional set of opinions.
Right now, you can write programs to objectively analyze an image, and depending on the processing power you get amazing results really fast. The subjective interpretation is usually not what you want a computer to do. Even today you could write a program that spits out "subjective" analysis, depending on a database of opinions/rules/heuristics. Like, I dunno, blue color - cold, orange color - warm, and you can yield a result like "this image has a cold feel to it". As a basic example. But what is the point of such a program?