It IS art, you cynical gits!
By some of the reasoning I've seen above, photography wouldn't qualify as art in your books either. A photographer doesn't paint or sculpt either, he takes pictures of things. The art isn't in the act, since anyone can point a camera and press a button; it's in the creation. You might casually snap a photo of a sunset, which is just 'dicking around' with a camera, but it's rubbish because it's blurred, or there's a bloody great telegraph pole in the way that you didn't really want there. An artist would choose an angle and position and exposure to take the shot, perhaps with a building to one side with its windows reflecting the clouds and such, which creates the artistry of the photo. An artist might take hundreds of shots and end up using only a few - that choice is also part of the artistry of photography.
In this case, the artist has done something original - nobody else has thought of using a CT scanner to photograph gadgets. Thus, it creates a new way of looking at everyday items we take for granted. And how do you all know how many shots he took and rejected because they looked like crap, or they didn't inspire him in some way?
My own first thought on seeing the pictures (since I've recently been reading up on four-dimensional Euclidean geometry - tesseracts, glomes and polychorons, and about how a four-dimensional observer looking into our 3-space would be able to see simultaneously both the surface and the interior of the 3-dimensional Earth, or our own skins and innards) - was that these photos made me think of how a four-dimensional being might see these gadgets. That's what art is - something that provokes thought or invokes an idea in the observer. These images certainly did that for me, so I have to disagree with you all on this one. These are indeed art!