And humans are trained on the same; unlike AI, we don't have any external supply of art to rely on : ) At any given time, all we have is what we've already created so far
One of the things that is interesting with these new big models is it is dramatically broadening the context in use. The models are learning both the textual representation of a concept, as well as the artistic/visual representation and the relationship between the two domains.
Would be very cool to see that experiement.
Contrary, I wouldn't expect 19th century artists locked in their rooms to produce a new cohesive art style. You cannot even get artists to reliably create 19th century art at scale. They quickly get sidetracked, and keep complaining about the bars on the windows.
An AI whose training model only rewarded images that mimicked 19th-century art would never develop a "style" outside of that. But if you had a model that was trained on 19th-century art, and then provided a critic network that rewarded 20th-century art (as well as 19th), and re-trained the network, I suspect that it would develop a 20th-century "style", as variations that previously would have been rejected under a strict 19th-century criteria will now be accepted.
Endless rehashing of inputs can lead to seemingly creative outcomes, but that doesn't mean any actual expansion occurs. New works are created/discovered, but are new underlying principles discovered?
The easiest way to block it was to present an animated wall. The AI would just stare at it and not go anywhere.
Art evolved in relation to the social and historical circumstances. At the very least you would need to give all the context of the 20th century beforehand (except for the art itself).
