If you don't think new art styles have come out of AI art, you haven't looked for them. Or, you are putting your requirements for "new art style" too high for even humans to achieve moving forward indefinitely.
Maybe? My definition of an art style would be something distinct and recognizably different like say, Van Gogh, Picasso, synthwave, or the aesthetic of one of Wes Anderson’s movies. I’ve seen AI blend, remix and do slight variations on these styles, but I haven’t seen AI make something that I’d consider a new style in that same sense. Can you share an example?
Well, if the standard is "A group worked on a style for decades, it changed the field widely, and decades later it is recognized and studied worldwide" then nothing made in the past four years can possibly qualify :P Because random people with and without AI make all kinds of new styles every day. It's only in grand retrospectives that they are declared "A New Movement In The World of ART!"
I don't think it's hard at all for AI to create new styles. Will one of those become a new art movement? We'll have to wait a while for the retrospective.
Show me an LLM who can compose, paint, write after just going to school and without a large dataset.
I am sure any Human could, even if never seen a painting before, or read literature or seen a famous musician.
And 4 years is nothing in Art.
If you look at Renaissance, Baroque, Rococo, Neoclassicism you got around 100 years between each and 50 years between Impressionism , Modern Art and so on. For Jazz, Blues Hip Hop its around 20 to 40 years.
Maybe when LLMs have their own Cultural background they are ready to attack creativity :-)
Attacking creativity is not the topic here. The topic is if new art styles can come out of AI.
I think it can because I think that "Style A + Style B + some unique qualities" is plenty to qualify as a new style. Like "Miyazaki made a new style from Toei Doga + Walt Disney + some unique qualities".
But, as expected, detractors require the goalposts to be defined as impossible to achieve. Generative AI has only been around for 4 years or so. Therefore, the current goalpost is placed at "It can't do anything new because it has not yet spawned a multi-decade movement" which is just silly.
Or, "It can't be creative because it can't yet physically go to school and instead it learns from a dataset" as if school was not a means to stream a dataset through a student :p Or, as if humans who never saw a painting before, but still swam constantly in an enormous dataset of nature and people, didn't make stick figure cave paintings.
At least this discussion is more interesting than the usual "I can tell just by being told it was made with AI that this piece has no soul". Where 'soul' is "A thing that AI is defined to not have that is unmeasurable in any way" And, therefore does not affect anything in any way and cannot be shown to exist or not because it is literally the fantasy of a ghost! :D
