I think it's a mistake to look at developing new art styles as simply continuing a linear progression. More often than not art styles are unique to the artist - you couldn't, for instance, put Eichiro Oda, Tsutomu Nihei and Rumiko Takahashi on the same number line. And trends tend to develop in reaction to existing trends, usually started by a single artist, as often as they do as an evolution of a norm.

Arguably, if creating an art style is simply a matter of novel mechanics and uniqueness, LLMs could already do that simply by adding artists to the prompts ("X" in the style of "A" and "B") and plenty of people did (and do) argue that this is no different than what human artists do (I would disagree.) I personally want to argue that intentionally matters more than raw technique, but Hacker News would require a strict proof for the definition of intentionality that they would argue humans don't possess, but somehow LLMs do, and that of course I can't provide.

I guess I have no argument besides "it means more to me that a person does it than a machine." It matters to me that a human artist cares. A machine doesn't care. And yes, in a strictly materialist sense we are nothing but black boxes of neurons receiving stimuli and there is no fundamental difference between a green field and a cold steel rail, it's all just math and meat, but I still don't care if a machine makes X in the style of (Jack Kirby AND Frank Miller.)

> More often than not art styles are unique to the artist

I'd disagree. Art styles are a category of many similar works in relation to others or a way of bringing about similar works. They usually build off of or are influenced by prior work and previous methods, even in cases where there is a effort to avoid or subvert them. Even with novel techniques or new mediums. "Great Artists Steal" and all that.

Some people become known for certain mediums or the inclusion of specific elements, but few of them were the first or only artists to use them. "Art in the style of X" just comes down to familiarity/marketing. Art develops the way food does with fads, standards, cycles, and with technology and circumstance enabling new things. I think evolution is a pretty good analogy although it's driven by a certain amount of creativity, personal preference, and intent in addition to randomness and natural selection.

Computers could output random noise and in the process eventually end up creating an art style, but it'd take a human to recognize anything valuable and artists to incorporate it into other works. Right now what passes for AI is just remixing existing art created by humans which makes it more likely to blindly stumble into creating some output we like, but inspiration can come from anywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if the "AI Slop" art style wasn't already inspiring human artists. Maybe there are already painters out there doing portraits of people with the wrong number of fingers. As AI is increasingly consuming it's own slop things could get weird enough to inspire new styles, or alternately homogenized into nothing but blandness.