[justinsingh]

From my understanding it seems that the technology exists to replicate human art, not to create new styles on top of it. So I think in order to train the technology to do more styles of art it will require humans to make those new styles.

[mseebach]

I think there's a useful metaphor in pop music: Mainstream music is almost fully formulaic. While not fully written by machine, it's not exactly a green-field endeavour to write a pop song. While we do tend to call these people writing and especially performing pop-songs "artists", this is more in the sense of "performer", and it's generally laughed at when a pop star refers to their art.

In the meantime, there are tons of underground movements and scenes, coming up with new sounds and styles, and the artists we generally accept as proper such (and not just performers), belong to these, feeding new styles into the mainstream.

Something similar will probably hold true for computer-made "art": Some very nice and enjoyable things will come out of it (and tons and tons of trivial and dull things as well), but the truly interesting stuff is made by humans further up the funnel.