#ai art utilized by artists

[burningchandelier]

regarding the Old Wounds video

If an artist can utilize a controversial medium in their art, that's cool as hell. This has been done for centuries and it is always met with resistance. That means that it is hitting the right buttons, socially, aesthetically, and politically. If you are mad, ask yourself why and at whom you are upset.

Then look at this for a while.

[professor-rye]

I feel like, with the uproar over Nanowrimo right now, we have an opportunity to really push back at shitty AI, but I feel like we also need to be smart about it.

Just saying "Generative AI is bad! Fuck you!" is not going to make a huge dent in shitty ai practices, because they'll just dismiss us out of hand. But if we ask the really hard hitting questions, then we might be able to start making some level of progress.

Mozilla is actually doing a ton of good work towards this very goal.

They've been working to try to shift industry goals towards more transparent, conscientious, and sustainable practices, and I think their approach has a lot of promise.

AI is not inherently bad or harmful (hells, even generative AI isn't. It's just a tool, thus neutral at its core), but harmful practices and a lack of transparency make it to where we can not fucking trust them, at least in their current iterations.

But the cat is out of the fucking bag, and its not going back in even if we do point out all the harm. Too many people like the idea of making their lives easier, and you can't deny the overwhelming potential that AI offers.

But that doesn't mean we have to tolerate the harm it currently causes.

[catsinvalhalla]

Does anyone know any good resources to building your own website (as an artist)?

[yeah-yeah-beebiss-1]

y’know, the more i think about it, the more i realize that the knee-jerk “we need copyright law to protect The Artists from AI” reaction around AI illustration feels like the intellectual property equivalent of the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire” mentality

you see people supporting policies that serve against their economic interests out of the delusion that the american dream is real and they’re ever going to be wealthy enough to benefit from those policies

in the same vein, i feel like some artists talk as if stronger copyright law enforcement would benefit them in light of the advent of AI illustration, when it exists solely to protect the interests of massive rights-holding conglomerates who have the capital required to actively utilize it

in other words, you are not lars ulrich, the current infrastructure will not protect you, and stronger copyright enforcement would let warner bros. call a drone strike on you for selling Our Flag Means Death fanart on etsy long, long before it would stop AI models from adding your art to their massive pool of reference data

[local-dragon-haunt]

hey! i’m an artist and i was wondering what about the httyd crossover art made it obviously AI. i’m trying to get better at recognizing AI versus real art and i totally would have just not clocked that.

Hey! This is TOTALLY okay to not have recognized it, because I DIDN'T AT FIRST, EITHER. Unfortunately there’s no real foolproof way to distinguish real art from the fake stuff. However I have noticed a general rule of thumb while browsing these last few months.

So this is the AI generated image I used as inspiration. I will not be tagging the account that posted it because I do not condone bullying of any type, but it’s important to mention that this was part of a set of images:

This is important because one of the BIGGEST things you can use to your advantage is context clues. This is the thing that clued me in: right off the bat we can see that there is NO consistency between these three images. The art style and outfits change with every generated image. They're vaguely related (I.E. characters that resemble the Big Four are on some sort of adventure?) and that's about it. Going to the account in question proved that all they posted were AI generated images. All of which have many red flags, but for clarity's sake we'll stick with the one that I used.

The first thing that caught my eye was this???? Amorphous Blob in the background. Which is obviously supposed to be knights or a dragon or something.

Again, context clues come into play here. Artists will draw everything With A Purpose. And if what they're drawing is fanart, you are going to recognize most of what you see in the image. Even if there are mistakes.

In the context of this image, it looks like the Four are supposed to be running from these people. The thing that drew my attention to it was the fact that I Didn't Recognize The Villains, and this is because there is nothing to recognize. These shapes aren't Drago, or Grimmel, or Pitch, or any other villain we usually associate with ROTBTD. They're just Amorphous Blobs that are vaguely villain shaped.

Which brings me to my second point:

Do you see the way they're standing? There is no purpose to this. It throws the entire image off. Your eye is drawn to the Amorphous Villain Blobs in the background, and these characters are not reacting to them one bit.

Now I'm not saying that all images have to have a story behind them, but if this were created by a person, it clearly would have had one. Our group here is not telling a story, they are posing.

This is because the AI does not see the image as a whole, but as two separate components: the setting, and the description of the characters that the prompter dictates. I.E. "Merida from Brave, Jack Frost from ROTG, Rapunzel from Tangled, and Hiccup from HTTYD standing next to each other"

Now obviously the most pressing part of this prompt are the characters themselves. So the AI prioritizes that and tries to spit out something that WE recognize as "Merida from Brave, Jack Frost from ROTG, Rapunzel from Tangled, and Hiccup from HTTYD standing next to each other".

This, more times than not, is going to end up with this stagnant posing. Because AI cannot create, it can only emulate. And even then, it still can't do it right. Case in point:

This is not Hiccup. The AI totally thinks this is Eugene Fitzherbert. Look at the pose. The facial structure. The goatee. The smirk. The outfits. He's always next to Raps. Why does he have a quiver? Where's Toothless? His braids? His scar??

HE HAS BOTH OF HIS LEGS.

The AI. Cannot even get the most important part of it's prompt correct.

And that's just the beginning. Here:

More amorphous shapes.

So these are obviously supposed to be utility belts, but I mean. Look at them. The perspective is all off. There are useless straps. I don't even know what that cluster behind Jack's left arm is supposed to be.

This is a prime example of AI emulating without understanding structure.

You can see this particularly in Jack, between his hands, the "tassels" of his tunic, and the odd wrinkles of his boots. There's just not any structure here whatsoever.

Lastly, AI CANNOT CREATE PATTERNS.

Here are the side-by-sides of the shit I had to deal with when redesigning their outfits. Please someone acknowledge this. This killed me inside. THIS is most recognizable to me, and usually what I look for first if I'm wary about an art piece. These clusterfuck bunches of color. I hate them. I hate them so. much.

Anyways here's some other miscellaneous things I've noticed:

Danny Phantom Eyes

???? Thumb? (and random sword sheath)

Collarbone Necklace (corset from hell)

No Staff :( No Bow :(

What is that.

So yeah. Truly the best thing to do is to just. study it. A lot of times you aren't gonna notice anything just looking at the big picture, you need to zoom in and focus on the little details. Obviously I'm not like an expert in AI or anything, but I do have a degree in animation practices and I'm. You know. A human being. So.

In conclusion:

(Y'all should totally reblog my redesign of this btw)

[patricia-taxxon]

i think the adage of "machine learning is just a tool" is speaking past most of the issue. like, of course it is, it's been a tool for like 15 years, but we all know that it's not being marketed as a tool. if it were marketed like any other tool, it would be obvious that it requires existing artistic ability to be fully utilized.

and yeah, when you get down to it, making legible and consistent AI art in line with what you're imagining is basically just as hard as drawing it yourself, but reality doesn't bring in cash. we know it's a tool, the problem is that it can never just be a tool, it must be the product. it must be a magic machine that translates imagination into pixels, but this cannot be. not because art is uniquely human, but because letting a noise generator fill in such massive gaps is necessarily ceding control, ceding authorship.

[therobotmonster]

Remember when I told you Disney wasn't going to "save you" from AI?

Megacorps like Disney have mountains of exclusive data they "own" that they can use to create their own internal, proprietary, AI systems. They have every sketch, development photo, unused concept art piece, cut scene, note, doodle, rotoscope/animation reference footage, every storyboard, merch design document, you name it.

And that's on top of every single frame of every movie and TV show. Every panel of every comic.

That's why Disney supports the efforts to clamp down on AI for copyright reasons, because they own all the copyrights. They want that power in their hands. They do not want you to be able to use a cheap or free utility to compete with them. Along the way, they'll burn the entire concept of fair use to the ground and snatch the right to copyright styles. Adobe has confessed this intention, straight to congress.

When the lawyers come, you won't be accused of stealing from say, artist Stephen Silver. You'll be accused of stealing the style of Disney's Kim Possible(TM).

But don't listen to me. Listen to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

[what-eats-owls]

This info was of some surprise to folks on Bluesky, so I'm going to repeat it here in light of the sheer number of "the Internet Archive was an uncomplicated good apart from this one weird move" posts I've seen...

Are we all aware that IA has been gradually pushing the dogma that generative AI is a net public good, and has been feeding books, music, and video into AI?

This article is about how IA is actively using AI in their archives. It's an interview with Brewster Kahle, founder and Board Chair of IA. Choice quote:

This is the blog post about the comments they submitted to the US copyright office arguing against any new copyright regulations for AI. Some more choice quotes:

You can guess how I feel about framing the writers and artists whose work BUILT generative AI as "workers" who just need to be "retrained."

Last year they hosted a zoom panel called "Generative AI Meets Open Culture: Opportunities, Challenges & Ethical Considerations." Multiple visuals were AI-generated art, the panelists were asked to avoid discussing copyright. It's an hourlong panel and I couldn't find a transcript, so I skipped around to see if anyone addressed the elephant in the room. I found at ~32 minutes, a vague gesture at acknowledging it wasn't great if you tried to replicate an artist's style, but fine if you just wanted generic art.

(If anyone finds a more concrete statement in there, and/or a transcript, I'd love to know! The tenor I got was overall "look at how cool these tools are and let's talk about how they're a public good.")

At the end of January 2024, they hosted "Public Domain Day," including a panel on incorporating Generative AI in art. They invited two artists who utilize Generative AI, and a publisher whose books go immediately into the public domain. More quotes from their own writeup:

This was an event in celebration of public domain, but as far as I can tell, they've more or less avoided even acknowledging that creators are actively being harmed by Gen AI. Again, if anyone can find a clearer statement, please share it.

Another wrinkle in this is that Kahle, on behalf of the Internet Archive, sued the US Government in 2004, challenging the law that automatically granted and renewed copyright to a creator. Previously, copyright was opt-in only, had to be regularly renewed by the holder, and cost money to do so. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court in 2007, but was dismissed. (Scroll down to Docket 07-189, Kahle v Mukasey, for court filings.)

To be clear, this is the law that means you automatically own your own work. It's not a shock that Kahle's suit failed. But if Kahle had won, artists who didn't pay to secure and maintain copyright over their work would be SOL right now in the lawsuits against generative AI image and text scrapers.

So yeah. My tiny violin for IA continues to shrink.

[maowives]

tbh im going to be real i dont really even think "AI art looks terrible and like hot crap" is a reason to justify opposing it because I think the reality is that you guys just straight up either aren't creative enough, or aren't invested enough, in utilizing things that look like shit in your art. you can make cool art out of things that look like shit. "looks like shit" is such a deeply relative thing to begin with. i don't think AI art looks like shit. I think it looks like art which was spat out of a giant statistical model, which it literally is. that's like saying [puffed cheese snacks] shouldn't exist because they taste like shit and are extruded garbage. both of the latter things are true but that doesn't change the fact they are also really good and fulfilling and life giving and enjoyable and also can be used in creative and interesting and unexpected ways. you may hate puffed cheese snacks at like, a bridal shower or whatever you people get up to, but look me in the eye and say that you wouldn't even be a little bit at least amused or interested if someone pulled out a bag of puffed cheese snacks out of their purse after they fucked you within an inch of your life and passed them to you while you both lie in bed sweaty and naked. that would be funny. it would be intriguing. and most importantly it would be a subversion of expectations that births interest. AI art isn't "bad" you guys just suck at using it for effective cultural and artistic critique. Get better at satire and polemics! Disavow the withering dullness of bourgeois art! Disavow the prevailing attitude which tells you Art is something which must be chained to the Academy, to Prestige, even to "beauty" or "technique!" Art is not an expression of Linear Skill, it is not a Moral Virtue earned by Suffering in the Practice Mines. Art is about expression, and expression can take as many forms as people can understand them to be.

"ART has to be CHEAP and AVAILABLE to EVERYBODY. IT needs to be EVERYWHERE because it is the INSIDE of the WORLD. ART SOOTHES PAIN! Art wakes up sleepers! [...] ART IS CHEAP! HURRAH!" (from The Cheap Art Manifesto)

AI art is a medium which has certain strengths and weaknesses, certain peculiarities and qualities, certain aesthetic bents, certain social movements in how it is utilized, and a particular relationship with political economy. This does not preclude the ability to use it effectively for expression. Rather, we can use the medium in ways that utilize its strengths and minimizes its weaknesses effectively. and those strengths and weaknesses are not objective truths! They are subjective understandings rooted in particular analyses, and the artistic visions each individual brings to the project from out of the context of their unique experiential data and aesthetic knowledge and sensibilities.

It is not valuable to disregard an entire burgeoning medium because you think its stupid or looks like shit. there's nothing in essence distinguishing between that and people who consider Marcel Duchamp's Fountain a demarcation point of the "fall of Western Civilization." It is a reactionary impulse.

Deep AI Mr. Beast YouTube thumbnail upon you.

[poor-boy-orpheus]

I think folks have really lost the plot when it comes to AI.

Imo, the issue we are faced with is not how to prevent ai from being utilized or advancing, frankly I think that ball is already rolling. The issue also isn’t designating sacred work that can’t be touched by AI (I’m sorry to say, art is not inherently better than manual labor). The issue we are really faced with is now that we are embarking on a world wherein AI is rising and gaining genuine ability to match or exceed humans, how will we ensure we are taking care of our people?

A lot of folks seem to be really concerned with protecting the idea of intellectual property, but at the same time don’t we believe in an egalitarian sharing of knowledge? Should we really be prizing exclusivity of access to media or materials? I don’t really think so, but the challenge we face is how to ensure that a society that will increasingly have less and less need for human labor (particularly in data analysis or data entry jobs that AI tends to be the best in) will still see its citizens financially secure.

I have no problem with AI making art, regardless of whether I think that art is “good” or whether someone a machine makes can even be defined as “artistic” to begin with. Frankly, I don’t care. I do care that many artists will be out of a job and we don’t have a mechanism for ensuring they’re taken care of.

And that is where the discourse is so often falling short in my eyes. Many leftists who claim to want to leave the idea of personal ownership behind become the most forceful advocates for protecting intellectual property. A development that should be spurring on the greatest advance in humankind’s ability to universally take care of everyone is instead demonized on the left for somehow being theft and largely ignored on the right as a pipe dream.

AI is growing more powerful exponentially. Our lifetimes will see a shift on the level of the invention of electricity or the internet (if not much much greater) and we need to be prepared for that. The outcry cannot be “You used AI tools and therefore your work is invalid” but rather it must be “How are we restructuring ourselves to better absorb this new change?”

Universal basic income has to become a default. Removing healthcare from being tied to a job is a necessity. Eventually moving past currency might even be a possibility.

You can’t stop the world from turning, you can’t stop this progress from happening. But we still have time to focus our efforts on taking this change and handling it well. History will watch what we say, what we do, and how we addressed this.

[alcrego]

Hi, I've been following you for a while now and just want to say I'm sad to see so many people speaking before they know what they are talking about and unjustly attacking you and the validity of your art (as if their opinion even matters to what you will choose to do?). I also don't like the purely internet-trained AI generated art I see more and more of, but I just ignore it. I have never used the technologies firsthand but I think it should be pretty obvious what you are doing is not in the same category or even context to that stuff at all. I think the best analogy I saw you make was saying "should I also not use a camera [or other technological tools]? It reminded me of how the electric guitar and digital music of any form was looked down on for not being "true art" either. Canvas stretched on a frame, paints and brushes etc are all technological tools and were all new at some point in history as well. I enjoy your art and how you use the computer itself to take your art to new levels. Some of the best modern musicians (imho) understand that the medium and the machines they use to record to that medium are like another member of the band itself and they embrace this and cognitively, purposefully utilize it to further their creativity. I think you are doing a very similar thing with visual art (and music) and just wanted to say I have been enjoying your stuff on here for months now. Don't listen to the haters. :)

Deep gratitude for those who can see and understand further than the noise... Truly! 🙏🥹

And the same here, I neither like the internet-trained AI generated images (I wouldn't even call it art), but in the same way I don't like the 'artists' that steal and copy styles of other artists (as it's happening to me since more than a decade ago), but this is ok, no?🥹👍

People should start to understand that for some (most) AIs are a way to obtain an image, but for few others is a tool to create our own resources/ingredients that later we mix/cook/modify to achieve our own ideas, in the same way we ALWAYS used images from the web, magazines, ads, street, etc... to achieve our ideas.

Thanks a lot for these words, and don't worry, it's funny for me to 'listen haters' bc they NEVER had idea about what they talk about. Those who know what is this about can have a respectful, deep and meaningful conversation, and despite sometimes I don't agree, I totally can speak with them.

Big thanks!!

[bylerween]

We are very excited about the upcoming Byler Halloween week: BYLERWEEN!!! We'll be celebrating all things Byler + Halloween from Sunday, October 27th - Saturday, November 2nd. 🎃🦇👻

We are inviting all fans to create artwork, fanfics, video edits, gifs, moodboards, memes, analysis, and more (the sky is the limit!) for the event to help us celebrate a very spooky Bylerween!

Our daily Bylerween themes are here!

Meet the Mods: Ayla @howtobecomeadragon, Lex @foodiewithdahoodie, Liv @longtallglasses, and Sam @krakoansam.

🎃🦇👻 GENERAL GUIDELINES:

In order to participate, just create a tumblr post with your fanwork based on the Bylerween themes on the appropriate day during the event, and tag us so we can reblog your work to the Bylerween tumblr. No need to sign up!

Tag your posts with which day your post is for (#Day 1, #Day 2, etc) AND which daily theme(s) your post is based on (for example, #Horror AU, #Demo Creatures, #Summon, etc).

All fanworks featured during Bylerween must be NEW.

Late entries are allowed until November 23rd, 3 weeks after Bylerween ends.

Other background ships are allowed to be featured. However, Byler must be included in all works.

All AO3 works must be added to the Bylerween 2024 Collection (link to be added soon!).

Explicit works are allowed, but only for explicit violent content. We are not accepting any works with explicit sexual content. Our AO3 Collection will be moderated and we'll be verifying each fic's content before adding it to the Collection.

No AI is allowed in the creation of fanart, fanfiction, or any other fanwork for this event.

🎃🦇👻 TRIGGER & TAG RULES FOR HORROR CONTENT:

Posts with triggering content need to be tagged with the standardized tw tags: tw jump scare, tw gore, tw blood, tw flashing, tw violence, tw cannibalism, etc. The full and comprehensive tw list will be linked here soon.

For artwork with explicit violence, gore, or body horror: add applicable trigger tags and a trigger warning at the top of the post. Artists should use their best judgement and can put art under a Read-More cut if they think that would be best, but this is not required.

For fanfic/ficlets: Utilize the AO3 tagging system when posting on AO3, using appropriate tags, warnings, and ratings. If you just post your fic on tumblr, please add any applicable trigger tags and a trigger warning at the top of the post. If the writing includes detailed gore or violence, writers can put it under a Read-More cut, but this is not required.

Feel free to ask us any questions! And please REBLOG to spread the word! We'd love to reach a lot of people so that Bylerween can be as fun and interactive for everyone as possible!

We're so excited to get spooky with you all this Halloween!

amazing art by @magentamee!!

[burtoo]

Today I learned of Tumblr's plan to begin (or continue) selling user content to OpenAI and Midjourney, which is the last straw for me and my presence on the site. Regardless of their claims that users can opt out of this, I frankly just don't believe them.

I've used Tumblr since 2010 when I started photography, and this blog is the largest existing archive of my work on the internet. It's a liability for me to continue to allow it to be hosted on a site that is now actively contributing to the theft of art, directly from artists. I know my photos have already been stolen, repurposed and claimed countless times over the years from Tumblr and other sites, but I have to draw a line here. I will unfortunately be removing all my past work from this blog, perhaps something I should have done when the suspicions first arose about Automattic's greed.

Many aspects of my creative career have been negatively impacted by AI already, I just see this as one less path in which to be exploited.

That being said I want to thank all of you for the support over the decade plus I've been active on here, I stuck around much longer than most because of my appreciation for a website that was a huge influence to my early creativity as a kid. I still think it was the best format for social media, and I really am going to miss Tumblr and the creative community it used to be.

I will still do my best to utilize this blog as a place to make announcements about any new projects, such as my upcoming book I aim to release at the end of the year.

You can still find me and my (Glaze/Nightshade protected) work elsewhere on the internet at Instagram, Twitter, and my website.

So long,

Brendon

[sirfrogsworth]

I found these replies very frustrating and fairly ableist. Do people not understand that disabilities and functionality vary wildly from person to person? Just because one person can draw with their teeth or feet doesn't mean others can.

And where is my friend supposed to get this magic eye movement drawing tech from? How is he supposed to afford it? And does the art created from it look like anything? Is it limited to abstraction? What if that isn't the art he wants to make?

Also, asking another artist to draw something for you is called a commission. And it usually costs money.

I have been using the generative AI in Photoshop for a few months now. It is trained on images Adobe owns, so I feel like it is in an ethical gray area. I mostly use it to repair damaged photos, remove objects, or extend boundaries. The images I create are still very much mine. But it has been an incredible accessibility tool for me. I was able to finish work that would have required much more energy than I had.

My friend uses AI like a sketchpad. He can quickly generate ideas and then he develops those into stories and videos and even music. He is doing all kinds of creative tasks that he was previously incapable of. It is just not feasible for him to have an artist on call to sketch every idea that pops into his brain—even if they donated labor to him.

I just think seeing these tools as pure evil is not the best take on all of this. We need them to be ethically trained. We need regulations to make sure they don't destroy creative jobs. But they do have utility and they can be powerful tools for accessibility as well.

These are complicated conversations. I'm not claiming to have all of the answers or know the most moral path we should steer this A.I behemoth towards. But seeing my friend excited about being creative after all of these years really affected me. It confused my feelings about generative A.I. Then I started using similar tools and it just made it so much easier to work on my photography. And that confused my feelings even more.

So...I am confused.

And unsure of how to proceed.

But I do hope people will be willing to at least consider this aspect and have these conversations.

[cappuccino-bear]

While I love Warrior Cats I will not be quiet about my disdain of the current project for an animated series made by Tencent. While I am sure the artists who are working on it are quite talented, the use of AI art in any artistic endeavor is, in my opinion, inadmissible, as it's an unethical tool made with unethically sourced images that consumes too much electrical energy to be sustainably utilized.

It is also a slap in the face to a community full of talented artists who have, for decades, for free, tried bringing to life Warriors through animations and art, to give the rights for an animated series to a multicorporation who won't think twice about using AI. After shutting down Little Dragon Studios for their effort in making the Into the Wild series, threatening them with legal action because of their labor of love, and then turning around and giving money for this project is, for lack of a better word, disrespectful.

I won't support the animated series, and as far as I'm concerned, I might also not support the books if Erin Hunter and Harper Collins will defend them publicly.

PS: any racism towards the company or the artists is not tolerated here. I don't give a shit about the laws there, if I catch anyone going "this sucks because it's a Chinese company" or any variation I will block you. I do not condone racism in any way on this blog or out of it.

PPS: I don't care for the bipedal cats or the flower cats, that is a creative decision that I can dislike or like, but in the end is nothing more than that.

[spitblaze]

Kinda fucked up ur reblogging ai art as an artist yourself

Ah, I knew this would happen someday.

I've stated multiple times: I have no beef with generative art, in and of itself. I feel there are genuinely good reasons you can employ it, ranging from harmless fun to accessibility to actual artistic use. The issues I have mostly involve 1) acquisition of the dataset, 2) involvement of money, and 3) authorial intent. I have jumpy lizardbrain issues with 'machine what will steal my job' too, but the generative art that I reblog on purpose is stuff that I feel meets my criteria for 'ethical', as lame as I sound for saying that.

So let's look at this post I reblogged from @infiniteartmachine. This is a project from @reachartwork, a disabled artist who made their own dang generative program and dataset in order to facilitate their creative endeavors. To my knowledge, they have done the work to do this as ethically as possible. Criteria one passed.

Criteria two is the involvement of money. The pinned post on the Reach side is a patreon plug. Understandable to get jumpy at first sight, before remembering that not only did this person develop their own dang program and dataset, they also make art the old-fashioned way, and are mostly asking for money to help with living expenses for themselves and their partner. No ludicrous commission fees, no use to avoid employing the talent of human artists. Two, check.

Finally, authorial intent. Looking back both on what we know and the contents of the image, I feel like I can safely call this one fine. No intent to deceive, no intent to avoid the utilization or payment of a human artist, no intent to impersonate. Just the intent to generate interesting imagery.

I've said it before, I feel like generative art's biggest advantage is its capability for surrealism and uncanny imagery. To me, there's something inherently interesting about the construction of these images! The fact that it's not a thinking person creating something with intent is both its biggest downside and its greatest strength. It doesn't 'know' anything, it can't exactly replicate an image so it puts down pixels based on its training set. The imperfections, utilized well, turn from weird smudgey marks into something that elevates the inherent strangeness of the imagery and the system.

I understand people who have reservations with the entire idea of generative art, I get your jumpiness and want to dismiss all of it entirely. But I still stand by my assertion that a hammer is morally neutral, it just depends on what you're using it for. I've found no good arguments to sway me that even generative imagery that meets my personal requirements is 'bad' in and of itself. That's where I stand on it.