So in other words, the moment one prompts an image into creation using words and explanations, as one does to generate an image, they've stripped away those elements you speak of.

The artform seen above depends on both words and images combined to make one.

I'm not sure how long you've been following my work but rarely does it ever come with an explanation of any kind. In the comment section at times I might point out some missed details, since so much is hidden intentionally as part of my style, but for the most part nothing was ever explained in the way you're suggesting even while being surrounded by words, leading to several over the years able to process the words and art individually and independently.

You're suggesting the people who've enjoyed my work over the years are dishonest and you're insulting their integrity. You need to know there's more to this world than the box you seem to want everyone to fit inside of.

And there is a time and place to defend the arts. That's why it's normal for a heckler to be kicked out of a comedy show, for instance. Other times organizations with an agenda apply "meanings" as you say, which are actually gross misrepresentations specifically designed to put pressure on the artists so they stop, aka censorship and cancel culture. That's when you defend your work. It's happened countless times in history, touching on all artforms, and it's even happened to me, so I speak from experience. Maybe you don't see a need, and maybe that's because you missed the point or "meaning" behind my words, and applied your own.

If you look closely at AI and how it's taking shape, you'll notice how it's already developing a standardized form of groupthink. And I don't just mean images. The words might sound perfect and the images might appear crisp but the actual freedom to be creative is stunted.

I've experimented myself, running some old writing through the machine, and the first thing it did was remove all the jokes.