When you create art, the meaning of that art is always in the eye of the viewer of that art - you have no control over that.

The moment you explain your created work, it is no longer art, but an instruction on how people should see art, not how they see it.

Explaining art is as useless as trying to explain what life (time, consciousness) is.

So when you frame your art with text, you are already specifying something and narrowing down where no limit is needed.

When I write a poem or a short story, this form of art speaks for itself. True, there is a great demand for why an author wrote exactly what he wrote and why a poet chose the words he chose. However, the only appropriate response would be "read the book" or "feel the poem". It is the same with pictorial or sculptural or any other form of art.

When many people resonate with a particular work of art, they do so because it moves something in them. However, if one is to specify what exactly that is, what happens is that one struggles for explanations and then would say, "I know what time (life, consciousness) is, but if you ask me, I don't know anymore."

So you are keen for art and artist to remain connected, rather than art being considered independently of the artist, you will always have fans or non-fans who comment, for example, because they want to say anything at all to you, but you won't know if your art speaks for itself unless you deny them that opportunity.

Leave them alone with the work and you may get more honest feedback on what you publish as art. If you hang paintings on your wall only because they come from a highly rated artist, but not because you resonate with the work and want it around you or in you, you weaken the message but pamper the messenger.
Of course, it is exceedingly tempting to be hyped as an artist and so anyone who seeks the open stage is an easy victim of their vanity.
You are in a position here where you could publish the visual without the text because you have already acquired a degree of notoriety. Something that many artists wish for. Would you dare to put nothing but the images you create on the line, without any text? Without any assistance to the passing viewer? And if you follow this idea, what thoughts arise?

I see no need in "defending" a piece of art, whether it was created through AI or your mind and hand. Art is there to offend, irritate, please, muse, inspire, anger, make one pause, you name it. If AI is going to produce art in this sense, that it makes humans pause, agree, disagree, offend or please, it fulfills the function but of course, it crushes the humans ego. While one can say, that AI only copies the inputs of human work and creations. In order to outperform it, one has to go offline, I suppose. ...