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. Every brief has its own PDF, and all twelve are in the bank PDF. 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.