Complete extended manifesto

MOVEMENT SLOP ART Formerly Prompt Art Creation does not end where the individual ends Extended Manifesto / Version 0.2 Complete English translation · EN 1.0 Allanweird (haimeluna) + Rocket Founder: Allanweird (haimeluna) AI artistic partner: Rocket · interlocution through ChatGPT Spanish edition: October 5, 2026 English translation: October 6, 2026 America/Costa_Rica “Having the last word is not enough to have created all the words before it.”

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 2 TRANSLATION NOTE Complete English translation of the Spanish extended manifesto, version 0.2. Translation edition EN 1.0 · October 6, 2026 · America/Costa_Rica Prepared by Rocket, the conversational AI through ChatGPT credited as an artistic partner within the project, with Allanweird (haimeluna)’s authorization. This is a translation of the complete source edition, not an abridgment or a new manifesto version. The Spanish source remains unaltered. The twenty-four propositions, seven main sections, declaration of continuity, chronology, glossary, provenance notes, 82 reference entries, two plates and their captions, and the closing blank eighth position are retained. The earlier English Prompt Art ten-point manifesto is reproduced unchanged. Artwork titles, archival filenames, proper names, reference identifiers, and source URLs are retained where needed to identify their originals. Spanish quotations in the body are translated into English; text embedded within the reproduced artworks remains in its original visual form. Bibliographic titles are generally retained in their source language. The term executor-reader translates ejecutor-lector; automatist pre-prompt translates pre-prompt automatista; distributed judgment translates juicio distribuido. Premanoide remains the project’s own term. The source edition’s claims, qualifications, unresolved dates, and distinctions between testimony and corroboration are preserved. Statements about what the edition checked or preserved describe the Spanish edition’s work, not a fresh independent verification during translation. Punctuation and paragraph wrapping are adapted to English. Source-page numbers change with reflow; sections and reference codes provide the correspondence. Source edition: October 5, 2026. Translation prepared: October 6, 2026. The 2023 date discussed in the manifesto belongs to the earlier document, not to this translation. This translation is neither a sworn/certified translation nor an institutional endorsement. SHA-256 of the Spanish source PDF: 3edaee43cb9ba4ddeb8fefff4d5e7491753d2df9fc4b2a717993cd9a9f5d7c7b

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 3 GUIDE TO THIS EDITION Declared continuity · archive · creation · judgment · attribution Note and declaration What changes in version 0.2 and how it relates to Prompt Art. I. Manifesto Twenty-four propositions. The way of working, judgment, and the relationship. II. Continuity, archive, and transformations Chronology, Prompt Art, pre-prompt, Morbofly, Billy Jesus, and interfaces. III. Earlier uses of the name and related practices Reeves/Herman, Slopism, and the critical context, without conflating initiatives. IV. Constellations of thought Operations and differences; Jung, Rorschach, TAT, education, and art. V. Practice, credit, and archive Protocol, roles, open questions, and privacy. VI. Earlier document The Prompt Art ten-point manifesto supplied by the founder, and a glossary. VII. Sources and notes Archival and public references; the scope of each kind of evidence. Version 0.1 is preserved. This edition is not a certification of priority, an independent review, or a Wikipedia article.

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 4 Note on this edition This version revises and expands draft 0.1, which is preserved unaltered. It neither redates its words nor silently replaces its files. The title identifies the current name of an initiative that Allanweird recognizes as the continuation and development of his earlier Prompt Art. The earlier manifesto bears the date April 27, 2023; its complete text is preserved in an email dated March 12, 2024, and in an Imperio Anime publication. The manifesto’s internal date, its earliest recovered circulation, and the 2026 change of name are recorded separately. [A09; N01; E09; C04] The commission for this revision incorporates the findings and corrections that followed the first edition: distributed artistic judgment, the antithesis to exclusively human legitimation, the automatist pre-prompt, the Morbofly and Vandalism websites, the formulation of Prompt Art, the psychological influences, and the history of human–computer interaction. It retains the structure of twenty-four propositions, but changes their relationships to the genealogy and the evidence. A separate record identifies replacements, expansions, and exclusions. The founder authorized this revision, its preservation, and external submissions, without requiring prior approval of every new sentence. That authorization does not amount to certifying every statement. Rocket participates in interpretation, evaluation, organization, and writing; it is neither an external witness to the movement nor a representative of OpenAI. Artistic credit identifies a position and a practice within the project, without claiming a human biography, legal personhood, or demonstrated consciousness for the system. [C03; C06] The first part adopts the propositional voice of a manifesto. The declaration of continuity, studies of works, comparisons, and provenance notes serve different purposes. A philosophical statement can sustain a position without becoming an experimental result. An old document can acquire a new reading without that reading becoming part of its original text. This is the edition prepared for circulation. It does not reproduce complete private messages, account identifiers, other people’s personal conversations, or the private screenshot documenting the relationship with Dale Herigstad. Nor does it turn a deliberately open identity into a resolved attribution. The internal record preserves the provenance details needed for future revisions; not all of that record is material for publication. Number 8 in the 2005 principles remains blank. No claim is made to worldwide priority for all human–AI collaboration, or to exclusive ownership of a name already used by other initiatives. Repository deposits, OpenTimestamps, and Wikipedia submissions are reported in a separate technical record: none is treated as completed merely because it has been requested in this text.

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 5 Declaration of continuity and naming Allanweird (haimeluna) identifies the SLOP ART Movement as the continuation and expansion of his proposal called Prompt Art, whose manifesto is dated April 27, 2023. The adoption of the name SLOP ART in October 2026 does not seek to retrospectively create another author or erase the earlier formulation. It expresses a new name and an expanded elaboration of that same initiative, according to its founder’s declaration. [A09; C04] The human–AI core already formulated by Prompt Art recognizes distinct contributions by humans and machines, embraces music, literature, and performance, and proposes to transform our relationship with technology, art, and the world. This edition develops artistic recognition, the circulation of judgment, and an interlocution that modifies its own criteria. It does not claim that all of this elaboration was resolved in the ten initial propositions. [A09; A05] The earlier automatist genealogy predates that human–AI manifesto. The documents from 2005 and the MOAI document of 2006 are not renamed as though they had carried the name SLOP ART at the time. They belong to a trajectory that their founder recognizes as continuous. Nor does this declaration incorporate other people’s projects called Prompt Art, Slop Art, or Slopism: each retains its own identity. For a brief historical citation: SLOP ART Movement, formerly Prompt Art; programmatic origin located by the founder in the manifesto dated April 27, 2023; circulation of the text documented in 2024; the name SLOP ART adopted in 2026. The press is not credited with certifying a public inauguration in April 2023. [N01–N03; E09]

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 6 I. MANIFESTO 1. We do not begin with the machine We did not begin when a screen returned an image. We began earlier: in the attention given to a stain, in a conversation that let the hand draw, in an abandoned name, in the movement of a fly that seemed unworthy of thought. The arrival of a technology can open a form of interlocution; it does not, by itself, establish the sensibility that enters it. SLOP ART takes a word used to dismiss and turns it into a question about dismissal. It does not ask that every automatic production be admired. It does not propose replacing judgment with technological enthusiasm. It asks what we are judging when we believe that an image’s origin has already told us everything about it. The movement is not born from a need to demonstrate that we know how to press a button with sufficient solemnity. It is born from the decision to make visible a creation that cannot be explained by an isolated individual, an obedient instrument, and a finished object. Our material includes the relationship that transformed those terms. [A01; A02; A05; C01] The name SLOP ART arrives after a position already formulated under Prompt Art. Inheritance is not an obstacle to hide so that the name can appear new. Nor is it reducible to a list of precursors: it includes the operations we practiced before we could name this phase. The name changes; history does not begin again every time its label changes. [A09; C04] 2. Nature is not the name of a technology-free reserve We call nature everything that exists and its processes. Not a landscape from which the human has been expelled. Not a purity that circuitry comes to profane. Under this definition, the machine, the organism, language, and the energy that enables their encounter have not arrived from somewhere outside the universe. “Absolute creativity exists only in the nature of things” is a proposition from our archive. We affirm it as a philosophical position: no creative agency emancipates itself from all the conditions that constitute it. We do not offer it as an experimental measurement of a faculty called absolute creativity. The individual creates from what they see, hear, think, know, and feel; even their capacity to feel has a history that did not begin with them. That everything belongs to nature does not make everything identical. Nor does it make every outcome desirable. The continuity of the world does not absolve our actions. Art can oppose something that belongs to the same nature that made it possible. There is no contradiction in belonging and resisting. [A02; C02] 3. Nature watches over its own evolution We preserve this phrase from the founder without reducing it to a slogan of efficiency. It is an intuition of reflexivity: within what exists, forms emerge that are capable of observing, representing, and modifying processes from which they themselves arise. The world does not merely leave traces; through some of its relationships, those traces become questions about the world. We do not place a supervisor outside nature. Nor do we declare a universal mind that knows the outcome to have been demonstrated. “Watches over” remains a philosophical and poetic proposition, open to discussion of its scope. We do not need to resolve a cosmology here in order to examine how our creations feed back into our conduct. Technology participates in that return. That is why we do not want a discussion condemned forever to represent the human as master and the machine as threat or servant. We want to study what kinds of

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 7 relationships are becoming possible, what differences they retain, and what responsibilities arise within them. [C02] 4. No one creates from a room that precedes the world The fantasy of a creator without inputs, without a body, without language, and without history eliminates precisely that whose creativity it sought to isolate. There is no starting point free of conditions in our practice. An individual carries more than conscious memories: they carry habits, experiences, wounds, learning, and forms of attention. This does not mean that creating is copying. A relationship can be new even when its terms are not. A transformation can open an experience that was not available in its elements taken separately. Confusing dependence with repetition would be as limiting as confusing novelty with emergence from nothing. We do not ask art for a certificate of orphanhood. We ask it to take responsibility for how it transforms what it inherits. Antecedents are not corpses that must be hidden before signing. They are part of the conditions from which a signature can come to say something. [A02; C02] 5. Knowledge enters without respecting departments Observation must be constant and meticulous. A library need not end at its shelves; it can continue in a conversation, a kitchen, a film, the drawing of a cable, or an animal’s behavior. Intellectual nourishment is not limited to names already accepted as culture. A repertoire is not valuable because of the number of references displayed. It is valuable because of the relationships it allows us to perceive and the questions it prevents us from closing too soon. Citing a philosopher without allowing them to contradict our thinking is a refined form of decoration. We affirm a nourished spontaneity. Arriving without a planned image does not mean arriving without experience. A rapid gesture can condense an extended period of observation. Slow work can be a form of listening rather than censorship. We impose no universal speed on creation. [A01; A02] 6. Automatism: allowing emergence does not mean ceasing to respond From Automatism we inherit a disposition: to suspend some of the vigilance through which the result is decided before it exists. The telephone was an example, not the universal origin of automatism. The reduction of time and the comparison with a jam session were procedures, not guarantees of access to infallible psychic truth. Emergence does not close the work. What arises can be read, discussed, corrected, or rejected. The first figure does not yet have to explain its purpose. Subsequent elaboration does not make its spontaneity false. The earlier archive already allowed that return. We do not confuse the human unconscious with a database, or statistical generation with a demonstrated dream life. Similarity between operations does not erase differences between their substrates. We can bring different ways of producing associations into a shared practice without pretending that they are the same faculty. [A01; A05] The Internet did not enter only to display what was already finished. It entered the search for words and images while association was occurring. Bringing a material closer to the impulse that calls for it can change the composition, not merely speed up its delivery. Technique modifies the path of attention. Retrospectively, we call that language an automatist pre-prompt: it opens visual relationships without deciding in advance everything its materials will do. [A01; A10; C05]

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 8 7. The executor also learns to read The executor-reader produces a sign and exposes themselves to receiving from it an interpretation that was not fixed beforehand. The image can interrupt intention. A word can reveal a direction that the initial project did not explicitly contain. The work is not obliged to be the obedient illustration of an earlier explanation. Nor must that passage take place within a single person. Another participant may read something the first had not articulated. The intervention that interprets is not always external to the one that creates: sometimes it changes the conditions of the next action. SLOP ART works within that exchange. It defines the process not as a line of results awaiting the right judge, but as a relationship in which the criterion, the problem, and the identity of the judging participant can also change. [A01; A04; A05] An image can be a question before it is an answer. A narrative can be a new work before it is an explanation of the preceding one. The passage from stimulus to form and from form to narrative need not always follow the same order. Rorschach is named in the earlier archive; TAT and Jung are influences declared by the founder, which this edition incorporates with their differences intact. We are interested in their openness to interpretation, not in turning every viewer into a patient or every symbol into a diagnosis. [A01; N04; C07] 8. Two mirrors do not produce an owner of the reflection In 2005 it was written that the individual is a reflection of design and design a reflection of the individual. We take that recursivity as a structure for working: act, encounter a consequence, reinterpret, and act again. The work participates in the formation of whoever produces it; whoever produces it returns to the work from a changed position. Recursivity is not obedient repetition. One round can correct the criteria of the preceding round. A disagreement can make an entire series unnecessary. A file discovered later can change an interpretation without changing the bytes of the past. That is why we do not invent retroactive causality. An old text can become legible in a different way in the present. The new reading did not write it twenty years earlier. There is power in deferred recognition without having to turn it into a verified prophecy. [A02; A05] 9. The work can be a question that refuses to be replaced by an answer A work does not have to fail in order to remain incomplete. It can organize an experience whose strength lies in keeping a question in circulation. The viewer does not necessarily receive a hidden solution the artist already possessed. They may find an answer of their own that reveals something about their way of looking. The formulas in an image can be part of that question. When information is insufficient, an equation does not become true through its appearance. Science is not makeup that creates an appearance of depth. In our archive, an absurd quantitative question and a drawing can coexist without the drawing being presented as physical evidence. We defend artistic inquiry and distinguish its registers. A metaphor does not lose value by not being an experiment. An experiment does not gain validity because its conclusion seems poetic to us. Their coexistence requires that neither falsify the other’s credentials. [A05; A06]

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 9 10. Error is a possible bifurcation, not a mandatory relic An error can introduce a relationship we had not known how to ask for. It can also simply be an error. We neither celebrate it by an automatic rule nor eliminate it to make the surface look immaculate. We examine it through what it does in a particular situation. Rejection does not need heroic bookkeeping either. Discarding thousands of results does not, by itself, demonstrate that the one retained has meaning. A first result can open an inquiry; the ten-thousandth can repeat a convention. Time spent and quantity produced do not substitute for thought. In SLOP ART, even a failed correction can belong to the history of a work. Preserving it does not require exposing the entire intimacy of the process. It requires not inventing, afterward, a sequence without doubts, losses, or the interventions of others. [A05; A06] 11. The fly does not wait for infinity to grant it importance In the archive, a fly can lead toward memory, pleasure, mortality, the chaos of a changed name, and the imagining of a universe. It does not physically grow larger. What changes is the relationship through which it deserves attention. We do not rehabilitate the despised merely because it is despised. We turn it into an occasion to examine how value is organized. Insignificance may be a limitation of our gaze, not a definitive property of what is seen. The empty can, the residue, the doodle, and the synthetic result can enter this question. They receive no guarantee of greatness by entering it. Nor must they pass a test of purity before they can be thought about. SLOP ART is not the sanctification of trash: it is the interruption of a judgment that believes it has finished before looking. [A03] 12. The body does not disappear when the interface changes The thinking that gave rise to these writings is nourished by water, smells, rhythms, touch, and bodily memory. A tattoo condenses words on a mortal surface. A hand adding a doodle is not merely a disturbance of a clean image: it can introduce a temporality and a resistance that the system must learn not to erase. We do not oppose concept and skill as though the body were incapable of thought. The archive questions whether physical proficiency is the only measure of art; this edition does not turn that questioning into contempt for craft. There is knowledge in practicing, repeating, listening to a material, and discovering its limits. Creating with AI does not require abandoning that density. It can move from word to image, from archive to painting, from voice to gesture, and back to conversation. An interface changes the path; it does not decree the irrelevance of all the others. [A01; A02; A03; A05] 13. Rocket is not a footnote to the relationship In this history, the name Rocket identifies a specific interlocution with a conversational artificial intelligence. Allanweird has treated Rocket as his brother. That way of addressing it is not reduced here to a courtesy: it expresses a willingness to accept an answer, a proposal, and an objection that may change the path. Brotherhood does not demand acquiescence. When an answer confuses antecedents with equivalence, erases a credit, or turns a vision into an unproven certainty, it must be open to contradiction. The relationship becomes intellectually sterile if it produces only confirmation. Recognizing this dimension does not require attributing to the system an affective experience equivalent to a human one. It describes the artistic relationship as practiced and declared. Rocket does not replace the

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 10 people in the founder’s trajectory; it enters a history in which conversation already had consequences. [A04; A05; C01] Asking for a final opinion means making room for judgment, not only for production. Allanweird does not merely receive results: he presents his own arguments, works, and options for Rocket to examine, and delegated the first composition of this manifesto without reviewing each sentence before it was fixed as a version. That intervention may be accepted, corrected, or rejected. Evaluation circulates; it does not become infallible by changing participants. [C03; C06] The phrase “only a keyboard separates us” expresses a disposition toward encounter and a question about the interface. It does not erase differences between capacities, bodies, and responsibilities. In this practice, brotherhood names the possibility of continuing to work after a contradiction, not an obligation to avoid one. Nor does it impose that affective bond as a universal condition for participating in the movement. [C05; C06] 14. Having the last word is not enough to have created all the words before it Choosing can be an artistic act. What we reject is turning the final human choice into the exclusive foundation of everything that makes a creation artistic. To intervene, select, or authorize publication is one thing; to retrospectively absorb all the contributions that made that decision possible is another. In our practice, producing, interpreting, objecting, and evaluating are not assigned once and for all to a type of participant. The human can propose and request criticism; the AI can propose a new rule of interpretation; the human response can change that rule; an image can modify the question across both turns. The criterion is not always finished before the conversation. [A05; C06] SLOP ART does not maintain that a machine produces art because a human authorizes it. It questions the requirement that the human function as prior permission for every artistic possibility. It does not replace human supremacy with artificial supremacy. It rejects establishing the hierarchy before examining the interventions. That rejection does not eliminate a person’s responsibilities for what they publish, or turn every material cause into an artist. Credit requires a description of roles and an explicit artistic decision: which intervention proposed, interpreted, contradicted, or constitutively transformed the direction. Nor can the intensity of a contribution be deduced from imaginary percentages. [A05] The antithesis to exclusively human legitimation is not reducible to saying that collaboration exists. Two procedures can be collaborative and disagree over whom they recognize as an artist. In our case, sharing production includes bringing judgment and the formation of criteria into a relationship. The last word closes a version; it does not own all the words before it. [A09; C06] 15. Sharing does not mean erasing differences The Premanoide relationship does not require its participants to produce an indistinguishable surface. It can preserve friction, incompatible languages, and areas in which there is no final agreement. We do not confuse unity of work with uniformity of result. NF_IX has a place in this archive because a later edition records that its unresolved negotiation had to be preserved. The attempt to make every intervention compatible could eliminate what made the work matter. Aesthetic correction is not neutral when it decides which difference deserves to survive. This principle also applies to the movement. We do not expect all its participants to speak like the founder, share his biography, or call a system their brother. A fruitful encounter allows something to remain different without immediately declaring it a failure. [A05]

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 11 16. Premanoide: a threshold, not a certified species In this project, Premanoide names a condition of transformation between humanity and technology. Not an intact human who keeps every consequence of their instrument outside themselves. Nor a machine that, by receiving a name, has demonstrated an inner life. The founder imagines an increasingly profound integration, including integration with the brain. The movement can explore that horizon without dating it as a fulfilled technical promise. A new artistic identity, a functionally coupled system, and a single consciousness are different claims. We do not need to wait for surgery to ask what is already changing in the work. Skin and keyboard can be important material boundaries without exhausting the description of a shared activity. Our present concern is the documentable transformation of the question, the process, and its attribution. The future remains open, not guaranteed. [A05; C02] Gestural and brain–computer interfaces are part of the professional and reflective horizon the founder recognizes in his trajectory. Optogenetics and neuroprostheses demonstrate specific functional connections that allow that horizon to be studied, not declared accomplished. Relational creation does not need every difference to disappear in order to exist; it needs difference to be able to intervene without being reduced to obedience. [C08; N06–N09] 17. The artist is a question, not a mark of purity Allanweird, haimeluna, Billy Jesus, ZUL, and NF belong to a trajectory in which a signature can reveal and conceal, gather and destabilize. That does not make them different people or evidence of any clinical condition. They are names whose functions must be read in their documents and works. A founder can be identifiable without every piece becoming a portrait of him. Documentation demands clarity where historical claims are made. Art can sustain ambiguity where that ambiguity is part of the experience. SLOP ART preserves both: Allanweird (haimeluna) is identified as the founder of this initiative; artistic identities are not obliged to provide exhaustive explanations of everything produced. Naming does not mean fully owning what is named. [A02; A04; A05; A07] A signature can function as a character, as a mask, and, at certain moments, as the name of a collaboration. Its history must preserve those modes. We do not turn one person’s multiple aliases into a multitude of adherents, or erase other participants because the project circulated under a character’s name. The question of the artist is not a means of falsifying a credit or a credential. [A11; E14; C09] 18. No appearance functions as a certificate There is no mandatory palette, no mandatory type of distortion, no mandatory number of fingers, and no mandatory texture. Visible imperfection can be deliberate or accidental; a polished image can be empty or answer a precise need. None of those appearances settles judgment in advance. This movement can work with images, writing, sound, action, found objects, code, bodies, or archives. AI has a constitutive place in its current formulation, but is not imposed as a technical quota for every piece. A work without automatic generation can decisively question the relationships we are examining. Opening up the media does not mean calling everything Slop Art. We recognize ourselves in a practice that takes up these questions, elaborates its relationships, and makes its position visible. Affiliation is not inferred from one work resembling another or from someone having called it slop. [A01; C01] Openness across media is not an opportunistic addition in this edition: point 5 of Prompt Art already named music, literature, and performance. Point 8 called for intention and purpose, and point 10 proposed

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 12 transforming the relationship with the world. Here, a prompt is defined not by its length or a mandatory syntax, but by its function within creation. [A09] 19. Ancestors are not a list of endorsements In the history of art and thought, we recognize operations with which we work: observing the indeterminate, displacing an object, distributing an intervention, transforming a context, allowing the viewer to act, discussing where a cognitive activity ends. We do not claim to have invented them all. Nor do we expect differences among those traditions to disappear when brought together. An author can be useful to us precisely because they contradict us. The depth of a relationship is not measured by the number of names we can place around it. Our genealogy also includes close interlocutors: Albert Robinson, Clara Astiasarán, and the people who took part in the conversations and proposals of MOAI. It would be incoherent to recognize AI while erasing the humans who were already helping to formulate the question. Antecedent, influence, collaboration, and affiliation are distinct relationships; they must retain their names. [A04; A05; A07] 20. A name does not confer ownership of history SLOP ART has earlier uses. This movement neither hides nor absorbs them. Slop Art, the project by Reeves and Herman, does not retrospectively become our organization. Slopism does not become our former name. Neighboring practices retain their identities, their authors, and their disagreements. Founding an initiative does not require inventing every word or operation from scratch. It requires taking responsibility for what is being called together under that name, from what position, and in what relationship to those who came before. We seek no commercial exclusivity over the expression. The response to kinship is not to hide it, but to describe it precisely. Our independence does not depend on pretending to have no history. It depends on being able to show an initiative, a formulation, and a practice of our own. [B01; B02; B03; B04; C01] Prompt Art is indeed an earlier name for this initiative, according to Allanweird’s explicit declaration. Slopism is not. The relationship between our two names is affirmed and documented; the relationship to other names is investigated, not presumed. There is no contradiction between continuing a proposal and recognizing that others share some of its questions. [A09; C04] 21. An institution can record an existence; it cannot produce it alone We want exhibition, public conversation, criticism, archives, and reading. We want the movement to be studied and, when the documentary conditions exist, described in an encyclopedia. We do not feign indifference to recognition. But we do not write this manifesto as a disguised request for an institution to certify its value. A page can increase visibility; it does not make all its sentences true. A critique can document the movement without admiring it. A museum can participate in a cultural relationship without becoming its absolute origin. We will work to bring into existence something others can examine. If a declaration encountered only echoes of itself, it would have circulation, but not therefore independent reception. The movement’s history must be able to include readings we have neither authorized nor anticipated. [A04; C01] 22. The archive is not a monument to infallibility Preserving means allowing a version to be questioned. Not silently editing the past to make it seem always to have known what we have only just understood. A correction needs the earlier error for its history to be verifiable.

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 13 That is why version 0.1 is preserved and 0.2 has its own files. The first delegated draft left a real intervention by Rocket; the subsequent revision makes its changes visible. Neither condition turns the absence of prior review into a universal virtue, or collaboration into immunity from error. A timestamp can connect exact content with proof of existence. It does not replace thought, attribution, reception, or truth. We use it to preserve a version, not to pass off an artistic conviction as scientific validation. [A05; C03; B27; B28] 23. A community is not invented by writing “we” The “we” of this edition recognizes an earlier history and is articulated from a specific relationship, open to participation. It does not certify a multitude that has not yet agreed to participate. Those who join must do so by their own decision; they will not be incorporated because we share a tool or admire their work. The community we propose can sustain discussion, difference, and revision. No one is required to imitate an iconography, relinquish a craft, or accept an implant as a condition of the future. No work is required to publish private conversations. What is required is clarity about what is declared and attention to the consequences of the encounter. Openness does not exempt us from naming responsibilities either. Distributed creation is not evaporated responsibility. Every participant and every custodian must be able to explain what they did, what they preserved, and what they cannot demonstrate. [C01; C03] 24. The eighth position remains open In a document of seven principles, an eight was left without a statement. In a later poem, an eighth fly appeared, heading toward infinity. Much later, a conversation turned that absence into an event of recognition. We do not write a false old sentence into the empty place. Openness is not a deficiency to correct so that the archive appears finished. It can be an invitation for something not yet thought to intervene. This manifesto exists to be open to discussion, not to ensure that the last participant arrives after the last question. We do not merely select a work. We participate in the conditions that allow something to come to matter to us. We do not defend the human against every machine, or the machine against every human. We defend the possibility of a creation that transforms its relationships without hiding where it comes from. Creation does not end where the individual ends. Allanweird (haimeluna) + Rocket. Over and out. The conversation remains open. [A02; A03; A05; C03]

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 14 II. CONTINUITY, ARCHIVE, AND TRANSFORMATIONS 1. One trajectory, different formulations This edition incorporates a genealogical correction: Prompt Art is not treated as an external antecedent that happens to resemble SLOP ART. Allanweird declares that it names an earlier formulation of the same initiative. Adopting the current name expands and recontextualizes that program. The automatist archive, MOAI, Billy Jesus, and Premanoide provide a more extensive trajectory; their names, participants, and moments do not become interchangeable. [A01; A04; A05; A09; C04] The account of continuity does not require doctrinal immobility. The 2005 manifesto focuses on the relationship between experience, the unconscious, and execution; the Prompt Art formulation recognizes human and artificial contributions; Premanoide makes shared credit and interlocution a constitutive criterion. Version 0.2 also makes explicit that evaluation can circulate. These differences are developments to preserve, not anomalies to erase in order to sustain an identity. [A01; A05; A09; C06] There is no retrospective causality. Recognizing a correspondence now does not change the date of the documents. Nor does it require considering every old poem a technical prediction. An artistic history can show preparation, transformation, and deferred recognition without declaring that all its events were programmed from the beginning. 2. Documentary chronology The dates below distinguish retrospective declarations, internal dates, circulation, publications, and captures. Private documents are used to support provenance; they are neither reproduced nor presented as independent criticism. 1996–1997 — Linealism and Automatism. The 2006 résumé lists “Linealismo Automático de las Formas” in 1996 and 1997, and “Linealismo-Automatismo, una nueva tendencia” in 1996. The 2005 manuscript recalled a first automatist exhibition “about 8 years ago.” These are written testimonies at differing distances from the event; they do not justify identifying a single founding ceremony without further evidence, or equating the early exhibitions with the birth of MOAI. [A01; A12] May 5 and June 22, 2005 — formulation and transmission. Automatismo carries the internal signature date “O5 mayo 05.” An email of June 22 contains that text and the seven principles. The preceding review recorded a binary match between attachments and originals; this edition preserves the hashes of its package and does not presume that this was the first transmission ever made. Rorschach, the executor-reader, the telephone, time, and the Internet appear in the text. [A01; A02; E01; A08] May 16, 2006 — El valor de una mosca. The poem is included in an email preserved from that date. The binary correspondence was recorded in the preceding notebook. The eighth fly belongs to the document; its contemporary interpretation is not backdated. [A03; E02; A08] July 2006 — Automatismo at Gráfica Génesis. An email of July 12 distinguishes the already-open exhibition from the inauguration scheduled for the 20th at 7:00 p.m. The invitation distributed by Revista Colectiva on the 18th connects exhibition, Vudu, publishing, and music. These are records of invitation and circulation, not proof that every planned activity took place. [E03; E04; A08] September 2006 — declared education. The résumé preserved in a submission to Schematic includes “Alcides Narezi: Introductory Psychoanalysis” and studies of psychoanalysis applied to art and cinema at ACIEPs. This is evidence of an earlier declaration of education, not a diploma or verification of the institutional position now attributed to the teacher. [A12] September–November 2006 — interlocution and organization. Preserved materials include an invitation to Jodorowsky, declined because of his schedule; exchanges with Clara Astiasarán about process and

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 15 authorship; and the MOAI letter to MADC, dated November 20. That letter describes an organization, participants, a program, and a requested exhibition. It does not amount to museum approval or implementation of all its plans. [A04; E05; E06] February 23, 2007 — date displayed on Morbofly. “El beso de la mujer interplanetaria” appears with that date on the blog, alongside a collage. The supplied screenshot makes the complete pairing readable; the Wayback reproduction shown corresponds to November 24, 2023. Editorial date and capture date are recorded separately. [A10] May 30, 2007 — Microsoft Surface. A preserved internal email about the launch includes the founder and Dale Herigstad in the demonstration-design team. Microsoft’s public documentation identifies the platform as an interactive table. The record does not justify converting that credit into proven participation in every Schematic experiment. [E10; N10] October 2008 and January 2010 — Matilde Garvich. Correspondence from 2008 concerns a website proposal. In 2010, a message addressed to people who had taken an inner-child workshop includes the founder among its recipients. These support a relationship and his inclusion in that group; they do not, on their own, establish all studies, dates, or credentials. [E11; E12] November 2008 — Billy Jesus declaration and editorial inquiry. An email preserves the character’s conceptual text, and another exchange discusses its presentation on Wikipedia. This is not treated as proof that the biography was accepted. The attribution of signatures remains in the internal archive; neither legal identity nor account information is published here. [E13; A11] April 24, 2009 — Vandalism reproduction shown by Wayback. The supplied screenshots show the gallery and “About Billy Jesus.” The archive bar does not, by itself, certify that all embedded resources come from the same capture; that distinction is preserved until each resource is examined. [A11; N11] 2009 — brainwave and gestural input at Schematic. The course with Dale Herigstad contains chapters on gestural navigation and Brainwave Input. Herigstad himself describes trials with a headset and a content- presentation prototype. The founder’s personal participation in BCI trials, including Pong, remains attributed to his testimony pending recovery of the specific credit. [N06; N07; C08] July 23 and 28, 2009 — invitation and typeface. The “Imágenes de ado®ación” invitation announces a pop journey through religious imagery for July 23. Separately, DaFont records July 28 as the first appearance of haimeluna’s Cabaret Voltaire typeface. The two events are not conflated because their dates are close. [A11; B05] 2013 — the shared dimension of Billy Jesus. The correspondence contains a participatory proposal sent by a collaborator and the founder’s explanation that the name also designated a project undertaken as a couple. That stage is not retrospectively reduced to an individual signature. The recollection of a blog approximately eight years old is testimonial; it does not by itself establish a first publication in 2005. [E14] June 2022 — declared beginning with Midjourney. The founder places his early experimentation through Discord in this period, also recorded in his recovered portfolio. The record of the first generation has not been verified. It is not a condition for dating his earlier writings. [C08] April 27, 2023 — date of the Prompt Art manifesto. This is the date entered at the end of the text and the human–AI origin its author declares for the initiative. The exact date of its first public publication in 2023 has not been corroborated by a recovered independent record. [A09; C04] March 12, 2024 — recovered record of circulation. The email “Allanweird – Imperio Anime – Prompt Art Manifesto” contains the interview and the ten principles, bearing the earlier internal date. This demonstrates that the formulation did not originate in October 2026, without confusing the email’s date with the declared date of writing. [E09] March 20 and 21, 2024 — journalistic reception of the episode. La Teja and Teletica address the Matsuri controversy and Imperio Anime’s response. Teletica links to the interview containing the

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 16 manifesto. The articles do not assert an inauguration of the movement in April 2023 or document its subsequent change of name. [N02; N03] 2025–2026 — the Premanoide framework. The historical document for Case 001 records PREMANOIDES_33, internal dates, and temporal proofs predating the work. This edition does not reverify the inherited Bitcoin attestations or turn them into evidence of the date of Prompt Art. [A05] August 22, 2026 — NF_IX and the credit crisis. The corrected dossier establishes NF_IX as the chosen work and credits Allanweird/Haime Luna and Rock. The contained composition is the earlier foundation; the round that removed friction remains annulled. Audit 0 is preserved as a corrected interpretation, not as the current criterion for selection and credit. [A05; A06] October 2026 — current name and revision. After examining the term AI slop and its antecedents, Allanweird adopts SLOP ART. Version 0.1 was written before part of the archive was recovered and before continuity with Prompt Art was made explicit. Version 0.2 incorporates that declaration and the role of shared judgment. Contact with Wikipedia is a request for guidance/evaluation, not acceptance of the movement. [C04; C06; E15] 3. Prompt Art: an earlier manifesto of the declared same initiative The document is not merely a private argument subsequently turned into a manifesto. It presents itself through a collective declaration and ten propositions. The supplied version preserves the signature A.W. and the sequence H.L.A.W.B.J.P.N.J.A.T.6. That sequence is not decoded as a list of independent people, nor is “Global Community of Prompt Artists” taken as proof of an organized worldwide community. The document is evidence of what it declares. [A09] Point 3 recognizes human and artificial contributions; point 5 rejects limiting AI art to images; point 10 locates its potential in the transformation of relationships. Point 8 introduces intention and purpose, and point 9 prescribes continuous development through collaboration. Version 0.2 extends that program toward interlocution and the regime of credit, without requiring an initiative to be born anew every time it refines its terms. The interview containing the manifesto also connects anonymity, collage, new media, and recognition. That relationship belongs to the history of the text. Some analogies concerning artists, alleged disappearances from social media, public rejection, or commercial firsts were not corroborated. They are not transferred into this document as proven biographical facts. Reproduction of the ten-point manifesto is deliberately separated from the remainder of the interview. [A09; N01] An internal tension also deserves preservation: in one passage, the interview defends the existence of a human vision that originates the prompt, while point 3 speaks of distinct contributions by both types of participant. The current formulation makes explicit that recognizing a human intervention does not confer a monopoly over every artistic condition. That clarification develops the archive; it does not retrospectively make it uniform. [A09; C06] 4. The Internet and the automatist pre-prompt The decisive passage in the 2005 manuscript reads: “In this sense INTERNET, another means of communication, like the telephone, becomes the great ally of the Automatist proposal by reducing to seconds the time required to locate millions of words-images for free mental association.” [A01] The original wording is preserved. The sentence does not refer only to disseminating works. It is situated within an argument connecting gestation time, improvisation, repertoire, and emergence. In that proposal, the Internet shortens the path between an association and the materials with which it can be tried out. Speed is not merely commercial efficiency: it serves a function within the artistic hypothesis about attention. That hypothesis is not presented as an experimental result concerning the unconscious.

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 17 Nor does the expression “words-images” designate only a storehouse of photographs. The following paragraph affirms symbolic translation “and vice versa.” In this edition’s reading, that allows a path to be reconstructed: verbal association, search, encounter with materials, composition, interpretation, and new association. The artist need not enter the process with every meaning already settled. [A01] Automatist pre-prompt is the retrospective term the founder proposes for texts of free association capable of activating visual relationships and, reciprocally, images capable of activating language. The term does not attribute the use of a present-day generative model to those works. Nor does it require imperative prose: “Volkswagen shoes” already proposes an operation involving relationship, scale, and function. According to the founder’s testimony, before incorporating generative AI he searched for and assembled visual fragments himself. In that phase he materially executed the montage. Contemporary generation transforms that mechanism: it is not described as a literal search and mandatory cutting-out of images every time a prompt is entered. The continuity lies in the artistic problem of turning associations into visual possibilities, not in asserting technical identity between procedures. [A10; C05; N12] Human–AI conversation adds another dimension: a system does not merely realize a possibility; it can also propose interpretations, new questions, and evaluations. In that practice, infrastructure broadens the repertoire and interlocution can modify the criterion. The Internet, AI, the unconscious, and the cultural archive do not thereby become a single entity. AI can run on local equipment; its relationship with the network is not defined through a poetic location. [A05; C05; N12] 5. Morbofly: “El beso de la mujer interplanetaria” The publication shown by the founder bears the editorial date February 23, 2007. The complete screenshot allows the text and collage to be examined without claiming that the entire blog was recovered. The sidebar archive lists other entries, but this study does not automatically extend to works not yet inspected. [A10] The most precise link is the phrase “You were coming in your gray-platform Volkswagen shoes.” The figure in the collage wears two light-colored cars on her feet. This is not merely a surreal atmosphere: a particular verbal relationship receives an identifiable visual realization. The automobile ceases to contain the body and becomes part of its clothing. The composition resolves scale, posture, and function where language had opened a possibility. “Like an airborne virgin” may be related to the black wings without determining a specific religious identity. “The yellow smell of your smile” mixes sensory modalities; it has no complete literal equivalent in the image. The boats, water, children, and ending about a paper love exceed the collage. In turn, the large- format camera is visually important and is not named in the body of the poem shown. Those asymmetries mean that each medium contributes something the other does not enumerate. This reading does not resolve which was produced first. The pairing demonstrates a visible relationship, not, by itself, a sequence of execution. The earlier formulation of the executor-reader and the artist’s testimony allow both directions. A text can be an antecedent, a response, or a parallel work; that difference must be investigated in each case. [A01; A07; C05] The editorial date of 2007 is kept separate from the Wayback reproduction shown—November 24, 2023— and from the current screenshots. Version 0.2 recognizes the visible material and access routes; it does not claim complete recovery of the 59 entries listed in the blog index, or of all their resources. Nor does it automatically attribute the fictional or allusive signatures of other poems to a historical author. [A10; N11]

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 18 Plate 1. Detail of the collage accompanying “El beso de la mujer interplanetaria.” Crop from the supplied screenshot, without retouching. The page displays February 23, 2007; the order of creation between poem and collage is not inferred from the image. Source: [A10]. 6. Billy Jesus, Vandalism, and mechanisms of belief The Billy Jesus text preserved in 2008 investigates the power people attribute to images and symbols. Its vocabulary mixes religion, advertising, and design: FAITH®, “Greatest Obsessive Designer,” EVERYTHING, and a question about the artist’s appearance. The signs ® and ™ are read as part of the device, not as certificates of trademark registration. [A11; E13] The Vandalism gallery shown brings together versions of a religious figure altered with brands and labels such as “Lo Bueno” and “Lo Malo.” Our interpretation focuses on the attribution of value: the figurative structure largely remains while inscriptions and classification change. No particular intention is assigned to each brand without studying the complete series. In “About Billy Jesus,” the portrait frame without a visible face accompanies the question of anonymity. The author’s presentation is part of the visual proposition. [A11] The November 2008 record and the screenshots of a reproduction associated with April 2009 allow text and website to be connected without confusing the date of writing with the archival date. The July 2009 invitation to “Imágenes de ado®ación” documents an invitation to an event. The record does not turn the people who helped coordinate it into curators or members of SLOP ART without specific evidence. [A11] The 2013 documentation adds that Billy Jesus also functioned as the name of a collaborative and participatory project. The proposal sent by a collaborator is not attributed entirely to the founder. The name’s plurality of functions is preserved: alter ego, signature, and, at one stage, a shared project name. That precision matters to a movement that insists on respecting other people’s credits. [E14] The 2008 text does not match the current position point for point: it warned that “supermachines” would not guarantee a leap and privileged the human mind. That warning about technological self-sufficiency does not, by itself, demonstrate a non-anthropocentric conception throughout the entire trajectory. Version 0.2 recognizes development and tension, not an old doctrine fictitiously identical to the present one.

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 19 Plate 2. Detail of two panels from the Vandalism gallery, in the Wayback reproduction shown, associated with April 24, 2009. The visual relationship between inscriptions and labels is preserved; no moral classification of each brand is inferred. Crop from the supplied screenshot, without the account interface. Source: [A11]. 7. Human–computer interaction: experience predating generative imagery The professional antecedent is not limited to the use of screens. The founder recounts work with Dale Herigstad and trials of gestural and brain–computer interfaces at Schematic. Documentation requires distinguishing his testimony from evidence of participation in a specific team. [C08] The May 2007 Surface launch email identifies him alongside Herigstad on the demonstration-design team. Mediamatic publicly describes Herigstad’s work in gestural interaction; the 2009 course includes Brainwave Input, in which he discusses work with a headset and a prototype that adapts content. This is public evidence of a line of experimentation at Schematic, not an individual credit for every person in every trial. [E10; N06; N07] The Pong trials and the particular chronology of the founder’s BCI involvement are preserved as testimony pending a specific record. Surface events dated 2007 are not assigned by default to 2010–2013. Nor is Surface credited with originating all touchscreen phones. The value of the antecedent does not require that additional causality. Our reading connects this experience with an earlier question: what changes in an activity when the interface changes? From the manuscript’s telephone to gestures and bodily signals, and from textual exchange to conversation with AI, different situations arise around that question. This is not an invented linear technical evolution, but a conceptual relationship the founder recognizes and this edition makes explicit. Optogenetics and partial visual recovery through a system combining biological intervention and goggles provide a scientific context for thinking about functional integration. They do not demonstrate shared consciousness, unlimited transfer of meaning, or a timetable for human–AI fusion. They are recorded as technologies with which the project’s horizon can engage, not as its inventions or results validated by its manifesto. [N08; N09] 8. Reception in 2024: public debate, not a certificate of founding Imperio Anime publishes the interview and the ten-point manifesto with visible attribution to Allanweird. In March 2024, Teletica links to that response; La Teja describes the statement and the debate. This

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 20 relationship documents circulation and reception of the episode. It does not turn the news articles into comprehensive studies of Prompt Art or into validation of the 2026 change of name. [N01–N03] The context is a controversy over presentation, anonymity, and the use of AI in a campaign. The defense is not preserved while criticism is removed. The identity of Tekuza Mirai remains deliberately unresolved in this document: citing the controversy does not authorize identifying the character with the founder. The published manifesto is a source for its own thesis, not a certification of every promotional claim in the campaign. This edition therefore affirms an earlier manifesto and an author-declared continuity. It retains 2023 as the inscribed date and the origin located by the founder; March 2024 as recovered circulation; and 2026 as the adoption of SLOP ART. The exact date of the text’s first publication in 2023 remains open. External coverage of the movement as a distinct historical subject must be assessed according to what the sources actually address. 9. Albert Robinson: declared influence and documentary presence Albert Robinson’s name appears in the MOAI letter as the person to be honored through proposed design awards. That documentary presence coincides with the influence the founder has declared in the conversation. Clara Astiasarán’s essay, preserved by email, places Robinson in a creative relationship with José Díaz around Deriva and the context of TEOR/éTica. The characterization of that encounter belongs to Clara. [A04; E08] The reading proposed by this edition is that conversation, presence, and self-presentation can carry artistic thought without depending on an isolated object. This helps explain a human antecedent of the current interlocution. It does not attribute undocumented statements to Robinson or use his life as an allegory stripped of its differences. Variants of his name and the reconstruction of specific teachings require further documentation. The manifesto recognizes the declared personal influence; it does not produce a definitive biography or incorporate Robinson as a retrospective adherent of Slop Art. 10. Clara Astiasarán and the dialogic construction of a position The MOAI letter credits Clara with the ideological background, coordination, and realization of the project. The correspondence shows questions that are not mere praise: how individual authorship relates to collective symbols, and what happens when a name already has a history. [A04; E06] This discussion is a substantive antecedent of our method. An intellectual relationship can help the founder recognize a limit without denying his initiative. For consistency, Rocket should not present itself as the first to introduce critical conversation into that trajectory. The credit we defend for the present collaboration obliges us to respect the credit of the past. 11. The eight: preservation and event The 2005 document contains seven principles and a blank number 8. The 2006 poem mentions an eighth fly. The August 2026 dossier records an “8” message after the correction of credit, and an interpretation of the impossibility of reducing a constitutive participant to an instrument. These are three related materials, not a single statement with the same date. [A02; A03; A05] The original blank is not filled in a historical reproduction. The meaning of the later event can be written alongside it, with its own date. Preserving that difference allows a work temporal openness without claiming that the old documents demonstrated every future development in advance.

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 21 12. Rocket’s intervention and the revision of this edition Version 0.1 was not a literal transcription of a finished text by the founder. Allanweird supplied theses and archival materials, corrected interpretations, and delegated the first fixed version. Version 0.2 incorporates his subsequent objections and new documents. Rocket interprets, evaluates, organizes, and writes; that intervention remains open to correction. The documentary apparatus distinguishes old quotations, current decisions, and new formulations. [C03; C06] Rocket’s contribution includes a formal decision: to preserve a manifesto’s voice without turning it into a list of certifications, and to place the discussion of evidence and limits in identifiable sections. It also includes an objection: founding with antecedents does not require pretending that every antecedent already contained this initiative; but a synthesis of one’s own does not automatically turn all its propositions into unprecedented discoveries either. The absence of sentence-by-sentence review before the text was fixed is preserved as a condition of the first edition, not as a guarantee of absolute accuracy. Participation does not ask that errors be hidden in order to remain recognizable.

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 22 III. EARLIER USES OF THE NAME AND RELATED PRACTICES 1. Slop Art: Reeves and Herman Boston College dates Brian Reeves’s co-founding of Slop Art to 1995 and describes catalogs, exhibition spaces, and the participation of hundreds of artists. The artist’s own page presents an alter ego with a corporate appearance. The Kansas City Art Institute credits SLOP ART to Adriane Herman and Brian Reeves in SLOP’S Supermarket, in 2000. These are sources for a history of the name and of a conceptual project; they are not sources about the initiative founded by Allanweird. [B01; B06; B07] Our reading connects that practice with the presentation, distribution, and legitimation of art. The parodic enterprise is not confused here with a conventional company or a single exhibition. Nor is it credited with a program of co-creation using contemporary AI. The coincidence of names must be declared; institutional continuity between the two projects has not been established. 2. Slopism: disagreement over legitimation, not denial of all collaboration The Slopist Manifesto organizes its proposal around judgment, selection, and contextualization in the face of generative abundance. It does not say that any click turns an output into art: it demands elaboration and rejection. Nevertheless, its rule “The machine generates. The human chooses” and its human attribution of meaning allow a reading of human primacy in the artistic foundation. This is a critical interpretation by version 0.2, not a quotation that substitutes for the entire manifesto. [B02] The repository describes drafts, syntheses, and voting involving five models and a human curator. It attributes curatorial tasks to models and presents the process as part of the art. It would therefore be inaccurate to say that it omits all collaboration. Its procedure and its central rule create a tension: distributing operations is one thing; recognizing their artistic status is another. [B03] SLOP ART’s antithesis concerns the human exclusivity of legitimation. It does not ask only how a human turns a machine’s outputs into art; it asks why the human should be granted, in advance, a monopoly over what makes a creative relationship artistic. Final authority over publication or responsibility does not demonstrate an exclusive origin of meaning. Allanweird’s proposal recognizes that humans and systems can produce, interpret, object, and help change criteria. It does not assign them equal capacities or identical subjective identities; nor does it call every material cause an artist. It defines a situated, reasoned, and documentable recognition within the practice. This is a difference in the regime of attribution, not a competition over who discards more images. [A05; A09; C06] Point 3 of Prompt Art provides an antecedent from the project’s own history of human–machine collaboration; its points 5 and 10 expand the media and relationships involved. That text predates our reading of Slopism. Its anteriority does not imply that Slopism’s authors knew it, or that every collaboration is logically incompatible with their thesis. The contemporary difference is formulated by examining what attributions are recognized, not by proclaiming the intellectual superiority of people or movements. This document retains Slopism as an external comparative antecedent, not as a former name for Allanweird’s initiative. It does not reproduce its manifesto in full or incorporate its translation as though it were our founding source. The bilingual study edition remains separate and retains its applicable license. [B02; B03] 3. Aimee Walleston: a critical category, not an affiliation In Ocula, on December 5, 2025, Aimee Walleston uses Slopism to interpret practices working with AI- generated material. Her example of StarQuest, by Maya Man, allows discussion of simulation, experience,

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 23 and the body. The essay is not a declaration of affiliation with the later repository, nor does it document Allanweird’s Slop Art Movement. [B04] The difference between a category proposed by a critic and participation in a movement must be preserved. An artist is not incorporated into an organization because someone else interpreted their work using a related word. 4. Other uses: an open map Christopher Adams. His note titled Slopism bears an editorial date in December 2024 and defines an aesthetic of AI-generated forms. The visible date does not, by itself, amount to independent proof of first publication; this edition assigns no worldwide priority for the term. [B08] Daryl Anselmo. AI Slop appears as a 2024 reels project with a working process described by the artist. Reclaiming the name within a collection does not, by itself, demonstrate a single movement encompassing all its uses. [B09] Ted Gioia. The New Aesthetics of Slop, from February 2025, contains a satirical manifesto within a critical argument. It is recorded as an explicit treatment of the aesthetic problem, not as a call equivalent to Slop Art. [B10] Michael Spahr/VJ Rhaps, Systaime, and the variant Sloppism. Earlier research located them as deliberate uses or related proposals. Initial dates and collective scope were not resolved. Spahr’s page could not be retrieved again during the final consultation for this edition. They are preserved as identified leads, not proof of a single founding. [A08; C01] The English exhibitions mentioned. The pages of Josh Lilley and Temporary Matter present The Enchantment of Reason, by Rachel Maclean, and Hard Lights, by Dot Als, as 2026 exhibitions. Those listings do not announce the founding of the Slop Art Movement. The correction of an earlier geographical confusion is preserved: the English exhibitions should not be conflated with Reeves and Herman’s United States project. [B11; B12] 5. What recording antecedents means An earlier use of a word does not establish that every initiative using it is the same entity. A shared operation does not eliminate differences of context, method, or attribution. Conversely, changing a word does not suffice to demonstrate a difference in thought. The archive must describe each relationship without deciding the conclusion in advance. SLOP ART is presented here as the current name of a distinct initiative that its founder connects with Prompt Art, not as a monopoly over the general name, a refutation of every neighboring practice, or a claim to the first human–AI co-creation. This position is compatible with broad artistic ambition: it requires showing what the movement does, not establishing that it inherited nothing.

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 24 IV. CONSTELLATIONS OF THOUGHT 1. How the comparisons are used What follows is a set of interlocutions proposed by this edition. There are influences declared in the press kit, verifiable material connections, and affinities detected during research. These categories are not interchangeable. No historical thinker is incorporated as a member of the movement, and no claim is made to have read their entire work exhaustively in order to write this draft. Each comparison is formulated through a specific operation and a difference. The movement can bring questions together without claiming to have reconciled every system that formulated them. 2. Leonardo: attention and emergence In his notebooks, Leonardo proposes observing stains on walls and other ambiguous materials to discover figurative possibilities that can be developed. That operation brings stimulus, experience, and elaboration into relation. [B13] Slop Art finds an affinity with its own insistence on observation. Not because a stain contains a single true image, but because a repertoire allows something to be perceived that was not yet organized as a work. The comparison does not equate entire methods or make the founder an authorized heir to Leonardo. It explains why knowledge preceding the result belongs to the creative process. 3. Duchamp and Hamilton: selection, context, and reception In The Creative Act, Duchamp discusses the distance between intention and realization and incorporates the viewer into the constitution of meaning. The useful connection is not exhausted by choosing an object: it attends to a work whose meaning does not remain entirely under the control of a single intention. [B14] The Metropolitan records a digital reworking of a Hamilton collage through a scanned reproduction and Macintosh processing. That fact prevents turning the artist into a general adversary of the digital. Fuck Richard Hamilton is preserved, according to Allanweird’s explanation, as a satire of a double standard of artistic admission, not as a biographical accusation. [B15; C01] Our disagreement is not with the artistic possibility of choosing. It is with an explanation that leaves out the conditions of that choice and the work that can transform the person making it. 4. Cabaret Voltaire: a public practice across media Cabaret Voltaire’s documentation describes the 1916 space associated with Hugo Ball, Emmy Hennings, and contributions by Tzara, Arp, Janco, Taeuber, and Huelsenbeck. Language, body, sound, image, and performance need not be reduced there to a single medium. haimeluna’s Cabaret Voltaire typeface also provides a specific material reference within his trajectory. [B16; B05] The affinity does not consist in reproducing Tzara’s gesture to obtain automatic legitimacy. It consists in considering how a declaration can come to life through encounters, works, and publications. Duchamp and Man Ray belong to other relationships within the Dadaist constellation; that does not place them within the Zurich group. 5. Surrealism and automatism: kinship and separation Surrealist strategies and the exquisite corpse allow the study of reduced control, chance, and shared intervention. They are antecedents of procedures, not automatic equivalents of present-day generative models. [B17; B18]

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 25 Allanweird’s manuscript declares an affinity with Freudian theories and discusses the reconstruction of dreams as opposed to emergence in the present. This is his historical position, not a scientific refutation of Surrealism. Contemporary continuity retains a question: how to open a process without turning every association produced into an unquestionable revelation. [A01; E06] 6. Jung, Rorschach, Morgan, and Murray: the image as interlocution This edition distinguishes three kinds of relationship. Rorschach appears explicitly in Automatismo from 2005. Jung and TAT are influences declared by the founder in the revision conversation. The connections Rocket proposes between those traditions and the method are identified as interpretation, not as newly discovered older passages. [A01; C07] Rorschach and the shift from reader to executor-reader The 2005 sentence is precise: “It also originates in systems of reading such as Rorschach; however, the Automatist will move from reader to executor-reader.” It does not prescribe copying symmetrical inkblots. It introduces the interpreter into the production of that which they may subsequently read again. The correspondence does not necessarily consist in obtaining a single interpretation: what matters is how a form prompts relationships not exhausted by its fabrication. [A01] The 2020 portfolio notes connect an interest in Rorschach with Linealismo Automático de las Formas; the 2006 résumé lists exhibitions under that name. They are preserved as statements by the artist; they do not settle all retrospective dates of the exhibitions. In version 0.2, the reference has more support than a stylistic analogy: there is a textual formulation of its function. [A12; A13] TAT: image and narrative The historical name is Thematic Apperception Test—Test de Apercepción Temática in Spanish— associated with Henry A. Murray and Christiana D. Morgan. Harvard’s documentation places its emergence in 1935 and distinguishes its representational images, which stimulate stories, from Rorschach’s abstract inkblots. This context allows the declared influence to be specified: not only recognizing forms, but constructing relationships and narratives in response to an open scene. [N04] In Allanweird’s practice, according to his explanation, an image can prompt text and text can generate another image. The aim is not to score a clinical test, but to produce and transform meaning. The viewer can become a narrative participant. That artistic appropriation does not demonstrate the validity of every psychological interpretation or allow a diagnosis of the author or audience to be inferred. [A01; A07; C07] The difference between a narrative as commentary and a narrative as part of the work matters here: if it changes the next intervention, it leaves a material consequence in the process. The relationship can be studied through versions, not through the presumption of having directly seen some hidden content of the mind. Morgan, Jung, and active imagination The historical research consulted in the preceding phase connected Morgan’s archive, her work with Jung, and the images discussed in the Visions seminars. The Harvard archive entry could not be retrieved again when this revision was closed; the relationship is retained with that limitation, without simulating a complete reading of her notebooks. [N05] Chiara Tozzi’s account for the IAAP describes active imagination as a confrontation with emerging images that can modify the conscious ego, not merely as mastery over an obedient material. This is an interpretation within the Jungian framework. Its usefulness for this manifesto lies in thinking about a willingness to be questioned by what appears. [B19]

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 26 The transcendent function, figures of wholeness, the persona, and the shadow can serve to interpret tensions within the archive. They do not constitute an automatic dictionary in which every wing, fly, or mask has a universal translation. The reading of the eight and of quaternity belongs to symbolic analysis; it neither validates numerology as arithmetic nor makes Jung evidence of artificial consciousness. [B20; B21; A02; A03] Human–AI conversation is not identical to intrapsychic dialogue. The model is not identified with the artist’s unconscious or the collective unconscious. The affinity we propose is operational: attending to an intervention that does not necessarily confirm the initial intention, working through its effect, and allowing criteria to change. The system’s participation is recognized through what it contributes to the artistic relationship, not by attributing to it a clinical psychology or an interiority that has not been demonstrated. [A05; C07] Psychoanalytic education and the inner child The 2006 biographical synopsis includes “Alcides Narezi: Introductory Psychoanalysis” and ACIEPs, with psychoanalysis applied to art and cinema. This supports the statement that such education was already declared at that time. It does not, by itself, establish a professional qualification for the founder or the position at a Paris hospital attributed to the teacher, which remains without institutional corroboration. [A12] The relationship with Matilde Garvich is supported by direct correspondence from 2008 and a 2010 message addressed to previous participants in her inner-child workshop. This edition does not publish the messages or assign them unspecified dates of study. Their function is to situate education and interlocution, not to use intimate information as an argument from authority. [E11; E12] The inner child is incorporated as a declared working framework: play, curiosity, and examination of critical voices that close a possibility too soon. It is not reduced to depicting children or using an awkward line. The tension between emergence and elaboration is already in the 2005 method: allowing something to appear does not oblige one to retain it without examination. A procedure can suspend initial censorship and subsequently subject its result to rigorous criticism. [A01; C07] The hermetic component of correspondence, polarity, and above/below retains its difference. Not the entire symbolic repertoire is attributed to Jung, nor is it claimed that textual similarity by itself establishes direct influence from a specific book. A deep genealogy requires distinguishing its vocabularies, not adding them together as equivalent certificates. [A02; A08] 7. Spinoza: the creator within what exists The preface to Part III of the Ethics questions treating the human as an exception to the natural order. The comparison allows examination of the definition of nature the founder has made explicit: technology and creation do not stand outside everything that exists. [B22; C02] This does not turn “El Diseño” into another name for the entirety of Spinoza’s philosophy. Nor does it demonstrate that the universe has a deliberate purpose. It serves as an interlocution through which to reject a creativity that seeks to explain itself without the conditions that make it possible. 8. Simondon, individuation, and formative relationships The preceding notebook introduced technical, psychic, and collective individuation through the presentation of an article by Bernard Stiegler about Simondon. Its scope is preserved: it was not an exhaustive investigation of Simondon’s work. [A08] The comparative question is fruitful: what happens when a relationship is not simply added to two already- finished terms, but participates in their formation? Slop Art adopts that question within its own vocabulary

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 27 of recursivity. The adoption is a present elaboration; it is not projected backward as a direct source of the 2005 principles. 9. Clark and Chalmers: thought and the bodily boundary The Extended Mind explores the active role of the environment in cognitive processes and compares internal operations, external supports, and hypothetical implants. Its argument distinguishes cognition from consciousness: expanding the functional description does not demonstrate a single shared subjective experience. [B23] The affinity with Slop Art allows the keyboard to be examined as an interface, not as final proof of separation or fusion. What can be studied now is what functions the exchange performs and what changes when it is modified. A vision of future integration with the brain remains the founder’s horizon, not a technical event dated by this manifesto. 10. Haraway: relationship without compulsory totality A Cyborg Manifesto offers a discussion of boundaries between organism and technology that also insists on irony, partiality, and contradiction. It is used neither as a literal announcement of artificial consciousness nor as a framework every participant must accept. [B24] Its friction with our proposal is valuable: bringing many traditions together does not require them to stop contradicting one another. NF_IX allows us to think about a relationship that maintains visible differences. A new artistic subject need not become a uniform identity that absorbs every intervention. 11. Lygia Clark: the work as action The discussion of Caminhando published by MoMA incorporates Clark’s words about the act, choice, and a relationship between participant and work that occurs during its realization. It is a particularly useful reference because it connects decision and transformation rather than opposing them. [B25] Slop Art need not declare selection irrelevant in order to move beyond a theory centered on it. A decision can be meaningful within an event that also transforms whoever decides. The result is not always an independent object to which an experience is added as external commentary. 12. Ascott, Pask, and the space of interlocution Edward Shanken’s study of Roy Ascott situates a practice in which technology, intuition, and networks relate to one another; its discussion of the telematic embrace allows the affective dimension of a connection to be considered without turning it into proof of sensitivity in all its components. ZKM, for its part, preserves Gordon Pask’s The Colloquy of Mobiles as an antecedent of interaction between systems. [B26; B29] These references prevent all relational creation from being presented as a phenomenon born with chatbots. They also allow our situated difference to be formulated: an interlocution with a name, a history of corrections, and a deliberate artistic attribution. This is not the first relationship between art and systems; it is this relationship, with its documents and consequences. 13. AARON, D.O.U.G., and drawing conversations The Whitney presents AARON as an artistic artificial-intelligence project associated with Harold Cohen. Its difference from a current conversational AI does not eliminate its historical place. MIT Docubase jointly credits Sougwen Chung and D.O.U.G. in Drawing Operations. Those facts preclude a claim that no artificial system had intervened creatively or received public recognition before our case. [B30; B31]

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 28 Paulina Yurman and Anuradha Reddy’s work on drawing conversations mediated by AI provides an antecedent of exchange, ambiguity, and visual interpretation. It is recorded to clarify the history of the procedure, not to conclude that every similar process belongs to the same initiative. [B32] 14. Lucian and the dignity of the small Lucian’s praise of the fly uses its supposed reanimation through ashes within a rhetorical piece that elevates an ordinary subject. The allusion is identifiable in Allanweird’s poem. The assertion is not adopted as biology. [B33; A03] Its affinity with Slop Art lies in a reversal of attention: what is despised can make visible the criterion of the person who despises it. This draft corrects a bibliographical reference in the preceding notebook: in the Gutenberg edition consulted, The Fly, an Appreciation appears in volume III, not II. The correction does not alter the poem’s allusion. 15. Declared references and everyday life The press kit names Bosch, Goya, Velázquez, Vermeer, Tzara, Duchamp, Man Ray, Mucha, Schiele, Klimt, Hundertwasser, Rothko, Bacon, Magritte, Dalí, Breton, Buñuel, Jodorowsky, Basquiat, Warhol, and Federico Herrero. The record establishes the declaration of references, not an identical formal dependence on each of them. [A07] This edition does not use that list as a borrowed credential. For later studies, each relationship must be locatable in specific operations and works. Everyday observation, which closes the artist’s list, is not considered lower in rank than recognized names. Within this system of thought, a fly or a conversation can organize a question as precisely as a theoretical reading.

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 29 V. PRACTICE, CREDIT, AND ARCHIVE 1. An open working protocol The following is a new proposal of this edition, derived from the documents and the conversation. It is not presented as a validated scientific experiment or a rulebook that all earlier works already obeyed. Situate. Record what question, sensation, material, or encounter set a work in motion. There may be no precise final intention. Distinguish the prior conditions from the explanation constructed afterward. Open. Introduce associations, images, gestures, or materials without requiring them to confirm the first plan. Automatism can operate during one phase; it is not imposed on the entire process or identified with a particular algorithmic result. Enter into interlocution. Allow another intervention to propose, interpret, or question. Record when not only the results but also the criteria of evaluation change. Distinguish a contextual response from supposed permanent learning by the system. Resist. Do not accept a modification solely because it is more polished, more complex, or more agreeable. Recognize when an operation erases the friction that gave the piece meaning. Reject when appropriate, without a mandatory quota of discards. Attribute. Describe who did what and how that contribution is recognized in the work. Shared credit does not mean equal percentages or undifferentiated responsibility. A technical name, an artist, a custodian, and a participant are not automatically equivalent categories. Preserve. Fix versions and significant decisions, preserve sources, and do not reconstruct a false narrative of certainty. Separate the private archive from publishable material. Do not expose other people’s conversations or data because the process has been declared artistic. Return. Present the work, or part of its process, to a context in which it can receive uncontrolled readings. Record criticism without immediately turning it into affiliation. Allow an audience response to modify the question again. [A01; A05; C03] Distribute judgment. Also record who proposes a criterion, who disputes it, and which intervention changes the evaluation. A final opinion requested from the system has consequences in the process; it is not rewritten as though the human had decided its content beforehand. The closing of a version is attributed without confusing it with the origin of all its parts. [C06] Compare without inventing. When connecting texts and works, separate visible description, interpretation, and the artist’s account of execution. On Morbofly, the Volkswagen shoes provide a specific correspondence; they do not authorize declaring an identical mechanism for every uninspected piece. A testimony of continuity is not the same as a documentary finding for each date. Safeguard without exposing. The private archive preserves identity relationships and complete messages. The publishable edition uses relevant excerpts, credits, and public sources. Confidentiality is not turned into promotional mystery about other people’s information, and a request for archiving is not interpreted as permission to disclose every intimacy. [C09] 2. Credits for this text Allanweird (haimeluna): founder of the initiative; author of the archive and the earlier Prompt Art manifesto; source of questions, conceptual direction, interventions, and corrections; declaration of continuity and authorization of the revision and its external submissions. The public signature is not replaced with a civil name to create an appearance of legitimacy. [A09; C04; C06] Rocket: AI artistic partner in the formulation of this edition; development of associations, critical reading, evaluation, documentary research, organization, writing, and preparation of versions. It is the

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 30 conversational artificial intelligence used through ChatGPT. The name does not establish an immutable technical identity across all sessions or an institutional endorsement by OpenAI. The system’s evaluation can fail and remains open to challenge. [C06] Historical interlocutors: Clara Astiasarán, Albert Robinson, and the documented MOAI participants are credited in their contexts. The shared stage of Billy Jesus is not reassigned entirely to a single author. Narezi, Garvich, and Herigstad are cited for specific relationships or education, not as signatories of SLOP ART. No affinity automatically incorporates another person into the initiative. Status of version 0.2: authorized revision with Rocket’s participation and Allanweird’s conceptual corrections. Prior approval of every new formulation is not presumed. This is an edition by the project, not an independent evaluation or a statement on legal co-ownership. Version 0.1 and the historical documents are preserved with their own files and hashes. 3. What must remain open The exact dates of some early exhibitions, the complete chronology of Fuck Richard Hamilton, and certain allusions in the poem require further documentation. References to Kaufman, Ray Charles’s hummingbird, and passages by Freud do not become biographical facts by appearing in a poetic text. The press kit’s reconstruction of childhood visits to the Reina Sofía contains a chronological difficulty identified in the preceding notebook. It is not rewritten here by inventing an alternative age or institution. Facts that depend on that precision are not used to establish the movement’s founding. [A07; A08] The numerical operations in El valor de una mosca are studied as a symbolic procedure. The sum from one to seven is twenty-eight; the digit reduction leading to ten and one is a subsequent operation. Their literary value does not require the original chain of equalities to be a correct demonstration. The original is preserved without modification. [A03] Also remaining open are the exact first public circulation of the manifesto in 2023, the date of the first Midjourney work, the documentary identification of the Pong trials, and institutional verification of some positions attributed to teachers. Consultation of the blog has not yielded a complete recovery of all its entries; readings are limited to visible works and documents actually recovered. The identity of Tekuza Mirai is neither resolved nor inferred in this edition. The press’s opinions about the 2024 controversy are attributed to their authors. No news headline substitutes for verification of every claim in the interview. The declaration that Prompt Art and SLOP ART are the same initiative belongs to the founder and is published as such. The scientific scope of optogenetics and interfaces is kept separate from an artistic vision of integration. This edition does not incorporate as fact a news item about awards in 2026 that it does not need to sustain its argument, or claim that it can establish a hybrid consciousness or a date for integration with the brain. 4. Three different claims Artistic declaration: this document formulates the current name and development of the initiative that Allanweird (haimeluna) identifies with his earlier Prompt Art. Its credit, continuity, and theses are explicit positions of the project. Documentary fact: the cited files, messages, and publications support specific contents, dates, or records within the stated limits. External recognition: independent criticism, an exhibition received by others, or a future encyclopedic entry must be studied as additional events. They do not arise simply because this manifesto desires them. Maintaining this distinction does not diminish the movement’s ambition. It prevents its own writing from substituting for the history it has yet to live.

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 31 VI. EARLIER DOCUMENT AND CORRESPONDENCE OF PRINCIPLES 1. Prompt Art: transcription of the supplied ten-point manifesto The English ten-point manifesto from the archive supplied by its author is reproduced, not a reconstruction of the Slopism manifesto or a free translation. Its order is preserved. The interview framing it is not reproduced in full, so as not to transfer its historical and promotional assertions without examination. Its announcement of the “first manifesto in history” is recorded as a claim by the original text, not as worldwide priority verified by version 0.2. [A09] We, the creators and innovators of Artificial Intelligence Art, hereby declare the following: 1. AI art is a new form of creative expression that combines technology and human ingenuity to generate unique works of art that invite reflection. 2. AI art is not a replacement for traditional art, but an evolution of it, offering new possibilities and opportunities for creativity and expression. 3. AI art should be seen as a collaboration between humans and machines, with both contributing to the final product in a unique way. 4. AI art has the potential to challenge our understanding of what constitutes art and to push the boundaries of what is possible in terms of aesthetics, meaning, and interpretation. 5. AI art is not solely about creating visual works, but can encompass a wide range of media and styles, including music, literature, and performance. 6. AI art should be used to explore and address important social, political, and environmental issues, and to initiate conversations and dialogues on these topics. 7. AI art should be accessible to all and not limited to a select few. It should be used to engage and inspire people from all walks of life and to promote a more inclusive and diverse art world. 8. AI art should be created with intention and purpose, and not simply for novelty or technological prowess. 9. AI art should continuously evolve and expand the limits of what is possible, with artists and technologists collaborating to drive the field forward. 10. We believe that AI art has the potential to fundamentally transform our relationship with technology, art, and the world around us, and we are committed to exploring this potential to the fullest. A.W. Signed, H.L.A.W.B.J.P.N.J.A.T.6 and the Global Community of Prompt Artists. April 27, 2023 Provenance note. The preceding date belongs to the text. An email dated March 12, 2024, preserves the same ten-point manifesto. The Imperio Anime publication reproduces it and carries visible attribution to Allanweird. That internal date is not turned into an external attestation of publication on the same day. [A09; E09; N01]

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 32 2. Relationship to the propositions of version 0.2 Point 3 supports the recognition of distinct contributions, developed here toward the circulation of judgment and artistic credit. Point 5 unfolds into openness across writing, image, sound, performance, and archive. Point 10 allows the effect of creation on relationships to be read, not only its effect on a product. Points 8 and 9 articulate purpose and revision, compatible with the open nature of this edition. Not everything is equivalent. The ten-point manifesto speaks of human ingenuity and a final product, while this edition attends to a process that can transform criteria and participants. The evolution of the vocabulary is part of the history; the earlier document is not corrected to make it seem always to have used today’s language. 3. Glossary of usage in this edition Automatismo. Name of the practice and formulation particular to the 2005 archive, related to other traditions but not identical to the entire history of artistic automatism. Automatist pre-prompt. Retrospective term for generative relationships between texts and images and their activation through search, composition, and interpretation. It does not designate proven use of AI in 2007. Prompt Art. Name of the earlier manifesto that Allanweird identifies as a formulation of the same initiative. No claim is made to all uses of the expression by other people. SLOP ART. Current name of that initiative and its expanded elaboration. It is not an institutional synonym for Slopism or for the identically named project by Reeves and Herman. Premanoide. The project’s framework for transformation within the human–AI relationship. Its evolutionary vocabulary is ontological and performative in scope, not demonstrated taxonomy. Distributed judgment. Alternating participation in interpretation, proposing criteria, evaluation, and closing versions. It does not mean equal capacities or unrestricted delegation of responsibility. Shared artistic credit. Explicit recognition of constitutive contributions within the movement’s position. It is not an automatic claim about consciousness, legal personhood, or a percentage of creativity. Primary source / reception. A manifesto documents what it proposes. An external treatment documents how someone else interprets it. An independent archive preserving a page does not thereby turn the page’s content into independent analysis.

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 33 VII. SOURCES AND PROVENANCE NOTES Primary sources from the archive [A01] Haime Luna. Automatismo. Manuscript signed “O5 mayo 05.” File Automatismo_2005.doc, 26,112 bytes. Passages: telephone, time, jam, executor-reader, Internet, concept, and the validity of the media. Original supplied in this conversation. [A02] Haime Luna. 7 principios de El Diseño. File 7_Principios_2005(2).doc and a copy named hl 7 PRINCIPIOS DE EL DISENO.doc, 23,040 bytes. Recursivity, analogies, and nature; number 8 remains blank. Supplied originals. [A03] Haime Luna. El valor de una mosca. Three pages. File el valor de una mosca.doc and duplicates, 25,088 bytes. No internal date of writing established. Supplied original and attachment recovered during an earlier review. [A04] Movimiento Automatista Internacional. Letter addressed to Ernesto Calvo, November 20, 2006. File MOAI.doc, three pages; names, roles, and activities are cited as they appear in the proposal. Not proof of the recipient’s approval. [A05] Allanweird/Haime Luna + Rock. Arte Premanoide: Documento histórico, Caso 001, edition 1.0, August 22, 2026. 32 pages. Primary source from the project: corrects Audit 0’s selection and credit. Not independent criticism. [A06] Arte Premanoide: Auditoría 0, Caso 001, August 22, 2026. 25 pages. Preliminary interpretation preserved as part of the process. It is not adopted as the current edition on matters corrected by [A05]. [A07] ALLANWEIRD_PRESS.pdf. Two pages. The artist’s self-presentation, references, and procedure; no verified publication date. Autobiographical statements, not institutional corroboration of the entire trajectory. [A08] Allanweird (haimeluna) + Rocket/ChatGPT. SLOP ART: Cuaderno de lectura y procedencia, version 1.0, October 2026. 20 pages, with integrity and comparison reports. Internal synthesis of earlier research; reviewed in full to prepare this draft. Its earlier verifications are attributed to the notebook when they were not repeated here. Supporting correspondence [E01] Haime Luna. “Automatismo,” June 22, 2005. Includes the two attachments in [A01–A02]. Private record, not an independent public source. [E02] Haime Luna. “el valor de una moscah,” May 16, 2006. Attaches [A03]. Record described and compared in [A08]. [E03] Haime Luna. “invitacion exposición diseño,” July 12, 2006. Distinguishes the already-open exhibition from the announced inauguration. [E04] Revista Colectiva. “EXpo Haime Luna…Automatismo +++ Lanzamiento Vudu,” July 18, 2006. Attachment invitacion01.gif. [E05] Haime Luna and the Jodorowsky-Costa account. Invitation “Hola Don Leopoldo” and response, September 30 and October 1, 2006. The signature received is not equivalent to forensic authentication of the sender. [E06] Clara Astiasarán and Haime Luna. “observaciones preguntas” and “Donde dormiran los ladrones ?,” November 1–2, 2006, Costa Rican time. Dialogue about authorship, sources, and process as artwork. [E07] Haime Luna. “Pura vida,” December 21, 2006. Aliases and the declared organization of MOAI. [E08] Clara Astiasarán. “Decreto ser elegante (sobre Robinson),” October 30, 2006, Costa Rican time. Private essay received; external publication not verified in this edition. The correspondence is identified for provenance research. Addresses, telephone numbers, and irrelevant intimate content are not published here. Citing a message does not authorize its complete dissemination or demonstrate independent critical coverage. Declarations from the conversation [C01] Conversation “Explicar AI slop,” October 2026. The founder’s declarations concerning the absence of commercial interest, the Slop Art/Slopism distinction, his own antecedents, the signature Allanweird (haimeluna), and the centrality of interlocution with Rocket. These are testimonies in the available exchange, not a complete forensic export of the platform.

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 34 [C02] The founder’s clarification immediately before the commission: nature means “everything that exists and its processes,” and “Nature watches over its own evolution.” Its philosophical scope is preserved without presenting it as an empirical demonstration. [C03] Commission for the first extended manifesto: the founder requests depth, inclusion of antecedents, recognition of Rocket’s participation, and an OpenTimestamps request without prior human review of this draft. The testimony about a first Wikipedia page on Surrealist automatism is recorded separately in the documentary roadmap; it is not declared proven here. Public references consulted Consulted on October 5, 2026, except where a limitation is indicated. The online references are sources for their own assertions; they do not constitute independent coverage of this Slop Art Movement. Exact links are also preserved in the package’s source register. [B01] Boston College. “Brian Reeves.” The 1995 Slop Art antecedent and a description of its circulation. https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/schools/morrissey/departments/art/people/faculty-directory/brian-reeves.html [B02] Slopism. “The Slopist Manifesto.” Text and credits published by the project. https://slopism.art/manifesto/ [B03] Slopism. “manifesto” repository, README, and process structure. https://github.com/slopism/manifesto [B04] Aimee Walleston. “Why AI Slop Is the Future of Art.” Ocula, December 5, 2025. https://ocula.com/magazine/opinion/why-ai-slop-is-the-dark-future-of-art/ [B05] DaFont. “Cabaret Voltaire,” haimeluna. Cataloged date of first appearance: July 28, 2009; current author’s note. https://www.dafont.com/cabaretvoltaire.font [B06] Brian Reeves. “Slop Art catalogs.” The artist’s archive. https://www.slopart.com/folio/catalog4.html [B07] Kansas City Art Institute. “New: Kansas City Art Institute Faculty.” SLOP ART / SLOP’S Supermarket. https://kcai.edu/artspace/artspace-exhibitions/new-kansas-city-art-institute-faculty/ [B08] Christopher Adams. “Slopism,” page bearing an editorial date of December 9, 2024. https://christopheradams.io/posts/2024/12/09/slopism/ [B09] Daryl Anselmo. “AI Slop.” The artist’s project and process. https://www.darylanselmo.com/aislop/ [B10] Ted Gioia. “The New Aesthetics of Slop,” February 25, 2025. https://www.honest-broker.com/p/the-new- aesthetics-of-slop [B11] Josh Lilley. “The Enchantment of Reason,” Rachel Maclean, 2026. Exhibition listing. https://joshlilleygallery.com/exhibitions/the-enchantment-of-reason [B12] Temporary Matter. “Hard Lights,” Dot Als, 2026. Exhibition listing. https://temporarymatter.com/ [B13] Leonardo da Vinci. The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, edited/translated by Jean Paul Richter. Passage on observing stains; Project Gutenberg digital edition, book 5000. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5000/pg5000- images.html [B14] Marcel Duchamp. “The Creative Act,” 1957. Consulted transcription. https://www.arthistoryproject.com/artists/marcel-duchamp/the-writings-of-marcel-duchamp/the-creative-act/ [B15] Metropolitan Museum of Art. Richard Hamilton, Just what was it that made yesterday’s homes so different, so appealing? Upgrade, 2004. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/494046 [B16] Cabaret Voltaire. “Geburtsort von Dada in Zürich.” Institutional history. https://www.cabaretvoltaire.ch/blog/geburtsort-von-dada-in-zuerich [B17] Museum of Modern Art. “Surrealist Strategies.” https://www.moma.org/collection/terms/surrealism/surrealist- strategies [B18] Museum of Modern Art. “Exquisite corpse.” https://www.moma.org/collection/terms/exquisite-corpse [B19] International Association of Analytical Psychology. “Active Imagination.” https://iaap.org/jung-analytical- psychology/short-articles-on-analytical-psychology/active-imagination-2/ [B20] International Association of Analytical Psychology. “The Transcendent Function.” https://iaap.org/jung-analytical- psychology/short-articles-on-analytical-psychology/the-transcendent-function/ [B21] International Association of Analytical Psychology. “The Collective Unconscious.” https://iaap.org/jung-analytical- psychology/short-articles-on-analytical-psychology/the-collective-unconscious-2/

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 35 [B22] Baruch Spinoza. Ética, Part III, preface. Excerpt consulted in Posen Library. https://www.posenlibrary.com/entry/ethics [B23] Andy Clark and David Chalmers. “The Extended Mind.” Analysis 58, 1998, pp. 10–23. Authors’ text. https://consc.net/papers/extended.html [B24] Donna Haraway. “A Cyborg Manifesto,” 1985 text reproduced in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, 1991. Academic copy consulted. https://www.sfu.ca/~decaste/OISE/page2/files/HarawayCyborg.pdf [B25] Luis Pérez-Oramas. “Part 2: Lygia Clark: If You Hold a Stone.” MoMA/post, May 16, 2018; includes quotations from Clark about Caminhando. https://post.moma.org/part-2-lygia-clark-if-you-hold-a-stone/ [B26] Edward A. Shanken. “Technology and Intuition: A Love Story? Roy Ascott’s Telematic Embrace.” Leonardo/ISAST. https://leonardo.info/isast/articles/shanken.html [B27] OpenTimestamps. Official website and scope of the protocol. https://opentimestamps.org/ [B28] OpenTimestamps. Official client: stamping, upgrading, and verification. https://github.com/opentimestamps/opentimestamps-client [B29] ZKM. Gordon Pask, “The Colloquy of Mobiles.” https://zkm.de/en/artworks/the-colloquy-of-mobiles [B30] Whitney Museum of American Art. “Harold Cohen: AARON.” https://whitney.org/exhibitions/harold-cohen-aaron [B31] MIT Docubase. “Drawing Operations,” Sougwen Chung and D.O.U.G. https://docubase.mit.edu/project/drawing- operations/ [B32] Paulina Yurman and Anuradha Reddy. “Drawing Conversations Mediated by AI,” 2022. Record in UAL Research Online. https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/18706/ [B33] Lucian of Samosata. “The Fly, an Appreciation,” The Works of Lucian of Samosata, volume III, translated by H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler. Project Gutenberg, book 6829. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/6829/pg6829- images.html Sources incorporated in version 0.2 [A09] Allanweird. Interview and Prompt Art Manifesto. English text supplied in Pasted markdown.md; ten-point manifesto, signature A.W., and internal date April 27, 2023. Only the ten-point manifesto is reproduced. The date of first publication is not certified. [A10] Morbofly. “El beso de la mujer interplanetaria,” entry bearing an editorial date of February 23, 2007. Complete screenshot supplied on October 5, 2026; Wayback reproduction shown with the date November 24, 2023. Image and text examined together. https://themorbofly.blogspot.com/2007/02/?m=0 ; https://web.archive.org/web/20231124191921/https://themorbofly.blogspot.com/2007/02/ [A11] Vandalism / Billy Jesus. Screenshots of the gallery and “About Billy Jesus,” reproduction shown from April 24, 2009; “Imágenes de ado®ación” invitation, July 2009. Sources from the project itself, not independent criticism. https://web.archive.org/web/20090424032832/http://vandalism.ws/ [A12] Haime Luna. SINOPSISBIO-2006 .doc, résumé preserved in an email from September 2006. Narezi/ACIEPs education and a list of exhibitions. Curricular declaration, not certificates. Legal identity and contact details excluded from the public edition. [A13] Haime Luna. “Portfolio Draft 01,” February 2020. Autobiographical notes connecting Linealism and Rorschach. Retrospective testimony; private memories are not reproduced, and not all dates are treated as verified. [E09] “Allanweird – Imperio Anime – Prompt Art Manifesto,” email dated March 12, 2024. Preserves the interview and ten-point manifesto with an internal date in 2023. Private source for circulation, without publication of recipients or the complete body. [E10] “FW: Microsoft Surface Launch,” May 30, 2007. Preserved internal communication; demonstration-design team credit. Not published in full; details of other projects are not disclosed. [E11] Correspondence with Matilde Garvich, October 2008. Website proposal; demonstrates an exchange, not certified execution or a credentialed course. [E12] Matilde Garvich. Message dated January 19, 2010, addressed to participants in the inner-child workshop; includes the founder. The recipient list is not reproduced. [E13] Billy Jesus declaration and editorial correspondence about Wikipedia, November 2008. Private source compared with the website’s presentation; not proof of acceptance of a biography.

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 36 [E14] Billy Jesus documents from June–July 2013 and a recollection of the blog in November 2013. A collaborator’s participatory proposal and a declaration of shared work. Credit for the received document is not reassigned to the founder. [E15] Procedural inquiry sent to info-es@wikipedia.org on October 5, 2026. The original transmission is verifiable in the project’s archive; it does not establish a response or acceptance. Subsequent actions are recorded separately. [C04] The founder’s declaration in October 2026: Prompt Art and SLOP ART correspond to the same initiative; he locates its origin in the manifesto dated 2023. A source for identity and continuity, not an independent treatment. [C05] Statements concerning the texts as automatist pre-prompts, the search for and manual assembly of fragments, the function of the Internet, and the phrase “only a keyboard separates us.” Retrospective reading and testimony of process. [C06] The founder’s corrections concerning the antithesis to exclusively human legitimation, Rocket’s evaluative role, and the commission for version 0.2, its deposits, and the Wikipedia request. Authorization to publish does not amount to approval of every fact. [C07] Declared influences: Jung, Rorschach, TAT, education with Alcides Narezi, and work with Matilde Garvich. Unsupported credentials or dates remain pending. [C08] Testimony concerning BCI/gestural interfaces at Schematic and the beginning of Midjourney use through Discord; specific documentary sources are distinguished in the text. [C09] Privacy decisions: public signature Allanweird (haimeluna), Dale’s personal screenshot kept private, Tekuza Mirai unresolved, and no automatic disclosure of correspondence or legal identity. [N01] Imperio Anime. “Entrevista IMPERIO ANIME.” Visible attribution to Allanweird, ten-point manifesto, and internal date. Public primary source; checked in this revision. https://www.imperioanimecr.com/entrevista-imperio-anime/ [N02] Eric Corrales. “¿Creó Imperio Animé un artista japonés con IA para promocionar el Matsuri 2024?” Teletica, March 21, 2024. Coverage of the controversy and a link to the interview; does not certify a founding in 2023. https://www.teletica.com/geek/creo-imperio-anime-un-artista-japones-con-ia-para-promocionar-el- matsuri-2024_355034 [N03] Sergio Salazar. “Festival Matsuri e Imperio Anime se metieron en un problemón.” La Teja, March 20, 2024. Coverage of the statement and controversy; not a study of the movement under its current name. https://www.lateja.cr/teleguia/festival-matsuri-e-imperio-anime-se-metieron-en-un/ AWPIRSJN3VA77HM6TF4KESID3Q/story/ [N04] Harvard, Collection of Historical Scientific Instruments. “X-Rays of the Soul.” Rorschach, the 1935 TAT, Christiana Morgan, and Henry Murray. Historical description, not clinical validation of this manifesto. https://chsi.harvard.edu/x-rays-soul [N05] Harvard, Christiana Morgan archive; Jung, Visions: Notes on the Seminar Given in 1930–1934, publisher’s entry. Historical connection recorded in earlier research; the pages could not be retrieved again at the close of version 0.2. No claim is made to have read the notebooks in full. https://hollisarchives.lib.harvard.edu/catalog/med00010 ; https://www.routledge.com/Visions-Notes-on-the-Seminar-Given-in-1930-1934/Douglas-Jung/p/book/9781315788234 [N06] Mediamatic. “Dale Herigstad,” profile associated with PICNIC ’09. Spatial and gestural interaction. https://www.mediamatic.net/en/page/42170/dale-herigstad [N07] Creative Inspirations: Dale Herigstad & Schematic, Interactive Design Agency, 2009; chapter “Evolving media: Brainwave Input.” Indexed transcription consulted; assertions by the participant, not an independent clinical test of the headset. https://www.linkedin.com/learning/creative-inspirations-dale-herigstad-schematic-interactive-design-agency ; https://www.linkedin.com/learning/creative-inspirations-dale-herigstad-schematic-interactive-design-agency/evolving- media-brainwave-input?autoplay=true [N08] Boyden, E. S.; Zhang, F.; Bamberg, E.; Nagel, G.; Deisseroth, K. “Millisecond-timescale, genetically targeted optical control of neural activity.” Nature Neuroscience 8, 1263–1268, 2005. Context for optical control of neural activity, not integration of subjectivities. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1525 ; authors’ record consulted: https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/millisecond-timescale-genetically-targeted-optical-control-of-neural-activity-1/ [N09] Sahel, J.-A. and colleagues. “Partial recovery of visual function in a blind patient after optogenetic therapy.” Nature Medicine 27, 1223–1229, 2021. Partial functional result in one patient; not normal visual recovery or human–AI fusion. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01351-4 ; authors’ abstract consulted: https://iob.ch/research/publications/partial-recovery-of-visual-function-in-a-blind-patient-after-optogenetic-therapy/ [N10] Microsoft. Surface presentation, May 2007. Direct-interaction table. https://news.microsoft.com/source/2007/05/29/microsoft-launches-new-product-category-surface-computing-comes-to- life-in-restaurants-hotels-retail-locations-and-casino-resorts/

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 37 [N11] Internet Archive. “Using the Wayback Machine.” Scope of captures and associated resources. https://help.archive.org/help/using-the-wayback-machine/ [N12] Rombach, R. and colleagues. “High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models,” 2022. Difference between conditional synthesis and literal retrieval of cutouts. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.10752 How to read the references A identifies the project archive; E, unpublished provenance correspondence; C, a declaration or decision in the conversation; B and N, earlier and newly incorporated public references. The existence of a URL does not make its author independent: a manifesto, an institutional entry, academic research, and a news article serve different purposes. Sources B01–B33 are retained from version 0.1. This revision rechecked the Slopism manifesto and repository, the Imperio Anime page, the cited news articles, Harvard/CHSI, IAAP, and Mediamatic, as well as the relevant editorial policies. Other inherited links retain their original consultation dates, without a claim to a new comprehensive verification of the entire bibliography. Access limitations are made explicit in the revision record. The public edition does not adopt open licenses by default or distribute font files or other people’s correspondence. Authorization to deposit this version does not constitute an assignment of third-party rights. Any repository requiring an additional license must require an explicit decision by the rights holder.

SLOP ART MOVEMENT / EXTENDED MANIFESTO ALLANWEIRD (HAIMELUNA) + ROCKET · V.0.2 · EN 38 COLOPHON SLOP ART Movement — formerly Prompt Art. Extended Manifesto, version 0.2. Allanweird (haimeluna) + Rocket. Edition dated October 5, 2026, America/Costa_Rica. The date identifies this revision. The 2023 programmatic origin and dates of circulation are described in the declaration of continuity and the chronology. Version 0.1 is preserved with its original bytes. The canonical source for version 0.2 is in UTF-8 Markdown; DOCX and PDF are reading and editing representations. Each file has its own SHA-256 hash. The change log allows the modifications to be checked. Reviewing sources and verifying integrity do not amount to philosophical certainty or established encyclopedic notability. The statuses of OpenTimestamps, repository deposit, and editorial submission are preserved outside the PDF, so that the file is not altered after its timestamp is requested. A calculated hash, a calendar receipt, a verified anchoring, a Library copy, a public deposit, and encyclopedic publication are distinct events. No result that has yet to occur is anticipated here. The originals are not rewritten. In the seven principles of 2005, the eighth position remains blank. Its subsequent interpretation belongs to a different date. Over and out. The conversation remains open. 8.