Specialty centers · Generative Media Studio
Free arts-center briefs about defending how a portfolio piece was made. Students ship a collaborative piece with honest human/machine attribution, and they practice a tooling statement a gallery or college reviewer could trust. GEN-04 and GEN-01 have single-brief PDFs; every brief is in the bank PDF; the other ten are full on the page. No account. No student data leaves your school.
Tooling statements and copyright humility
Every piece ships with a tooling statement. No synthetic likeness of a real person without specific written consent, and never a classmate, teacher, or public figure as a demonstration subject. Attribution does not erase legal risk, and “I changed it enough” is not an argument without documented steps.
How to run one
Worked sample · printable PDF
Ship a collaborative piece that credits human and machine roles without erasing either — and write the attribution line a wall label or portfolio header would actually carry. The piece is half the deliverable. The attribution that survives contact with a stranger is the other half.
Featured · printable PDF
Produce one finished piece — image, short video, audio, or interactive — and a tooling statement a gallery visitor or college portfolio reviewer could trust on first read. If the statement cannot stand alone, the piece is not ready to show.
Design a studio workflow for generative portraits or character work that never uses a classmate’s, teacher’s, or public figure’s likeness without documented, specific consent — and prove the workflow by refusing at least one tempting shortcut.
Document transformation from a named reference to a finished piece with enough specificity that a reviewer can argue originality or dependence — without slogans like “I changed it 30%.”
Analyze one published controversy about style mimicry or unauthorized stylistic imitation involving generative tools, then propose studio rules that would have changed the outcome for your program — without reproducing the disputed works.
Keep a versioned process log across at least five iterations and show how human judgment changed the piece — not how the prompt got longer.
Build a short audio piece (roughly 30–90 seconds) with generative or AI-assisted tools while documenting every sample, voice, loop, and license — and refuse anything you cannot source.
Design wall text and optional QR disclosure for a student show that includes generative work — then test whether visitors understand what was AI-assisted.
Respond to a fictional client who forbids generative tools — deliver without them — then produce an AI-assisted alternate with full disclosure and a recommendation of which to ship.
Trace what is knowable about a generative model’s training data from public documentation — and write an artist’s note that states what remains unknown without inventing comfort.
Run a critique that scores aesthetic merit and process ethics separately — and record both scores so a beautiful unethical piece cannot hide.
Curate three pieces for a portfolio or exhibition proposal; refuse one candidate that cannot meet your tooling-statement standard, and explain why the refusal is part of professional practice.
Six-dimension rubric
Scope unclear? Standards language off? Tell us here — you do not have to leave an email.