...the same way we don't need actors for movies anymore since we have 3D rendered special effects. /s
More likely it's going to become another tool to use (and heavily overuse for some time). The arts will be different but people won't stop being creative. The art of making cave paintings didn't really go away - now they are called graffity and are illegal in most modern caves.
Before that becomes the main problem, that other problem must be solved where you give it your picture and the Mona Lisa whose style is to be copied and the way it copies the style is it paints her eyebrow atop your mouth. 'Cause it's not like this thing can really distinguish between "style" and "content". What it does is it pastes patches from the "style" image onto the "content" image. Sometimes the result is interesting, much of the time it's between boring and terrifying. It's cool and all, but it's not much more intelligent than your favorite Photoshop filter.
If the rating is more important than the creation, perhaps they should create a neural network with an image as input, and a single signal as output, that indicates on a scale of 0 to 1 how interesting that image is, from an artistic point of view.
Alternatively, equip a human with an EEG headset, let them look at images, and take the rating from the output of the scanner.
