One of my favorite post punk/dark wave bands has released a new album this past month. Bragolin is a Dutch band known for their backwards-facing women album covers and cryptic-goth lyricism (among other more notable attributes). In all seriousness, they have a
“Bragolin, a Dutch post-punk/darkwave band, used generative AI (genAI) in the music video for their early 2026 single, ”Not All Are Real”. The band utilized this technology to create unsettling imagery that mimics human figures, aligning with themes from films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers to critique the fakeness of human replication by technology.”
Response: We want to clarify our position on the use of AI in the music video of Not All Are Real.
The song and video were inspired by The Thing and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, films about flawed human replication. Our AI imagery is used to amplify the fake and unsettling feeling of the video, reflecting how AI replicates human work today.
The video was created by us, scene by scene, not by the press of a button.
AI is not here to stay in our music or artwork, and it will not replace the creatives we work with.”
Later in the comments they say
“Tbh, the plan was to announce this after the release of the music video. But we want to prevent more questioning comments in the upcoming days with sharing the teasers.”
Am I defensive of them because they are one of my favorite bands? Sure. But I also think some of the reaction is not fair.
Some spite from this r/goth thread: “
Oh wow. Nothing screams „alternative“ as much as jumping onto some stupid trend that only spits out the absolute mainstream due to its database”
“I personnally think it’s gross as fuck from them. I don’t care about their illusion of an ethic use of genAI and any crass justifications they will make up, I don’t care that”it’s here to stay”, genAI is cursed and it’s ruining absolutely everything it touches. It’s stupid to believe and say the contrary, and it’s even worse coming from artists.
I’m disappointed and I’m not sure I’ll be able to enjoy their work anymore”
I think that commuity is often pretty miserable, so I don’t think people should waste their time on the opinion of reddit drones. Like
“You can also read some answers in the comments with the usual”genAI being here to stay and we should adapt and think of ethic use”.”
I mean this is just true? There is probably going to be a community of never-AI people, and I somewhat get the animosity towards AI (I detest many of the leaders of that industry and don’t want to support them, however), but its a losing battle in the long run. The generation that will have grown up with this from the get-go will see it as normal and then go on to use it. It’s just a matter of time. To each their own if they want to continue enjoying Bragolin, but to say it is “gross as fuck” like they were accused of sexual misconduct is strange. It’s literally just a music video that they said would be a one time thing. I don’t mean to be dismissive, but I think a “settle down” might be of order. At least Bragolin are honest about it.
“the”it’s here to stay”/“Genie’s out of the bottle” shit is so annoying because its only true if you let it be. fuck ai, i am never using that plagiarism, and fake information machine”
I mean it is here to stay. You can try to act like you can push back against it, and there will be communities that form, but it is here to stay. I do think that its fair to criticize the plagiarism aspect of it, and that should probably be apart of the conversation on “ethical use” of AI that Bragolin want. The whole “fake information machine” criticism is weird since the majority of fake info out there comes from human beings or just general bots programmed by humans, not generative AI.
” if genAI was really here to stay, big companies would’nt organize massive marketing campaign and asking state support all the time.” That’s not why they are doing it. They just want to stay with as little limitation and regulation as possible, and to expand as much as possible. Since that’s what a business does, for better or for worse. People are just rolling over for them in the hype, which I think is problematic. But this comment is wrong that their existence is somehow only held up by marketing and state support.
“nah, they are DESPERATE to make a profit, currently it’s a very expensive loss-leader. Thats why they’re trying to push it so hard” That’s true to some extent. It is a very speculative market at the moment (some consider it a bubble). But I think it is naive to think it will somehow go away, especially with global competitors. A lot of the bubble comes from expansion and devlopment, people wanting to get in on the “new”.
“There are plenty of things that are “here to stay” that are still choices. Something’s mere existence, no matter its level of popularity, does not compel you to use it. I have no interest in lazy plagiarism that requires intensely unethical amounts of electricity to operate. To paraphrase the best succinct take down of AI “art” I’ve read recently: if nobody took the time to make it, why should I take the time to watch or listen? I’m not the least bit curious about anyone’s AI fiddlings when so many people are still putting their real blood, sweat and tears into expressing their human experience”
The first two sentence I think are fair, but that isn’t the point of Bragolin’s use of AI. Yes its their choice, but they used it with more intent than just a shortcut. You can criticize their expression and intent still, but they still aren’t wrong with what they say. Other people won’t care as much about the abstract ethics of electricity use or plagiarism. I just don’t buy that absitence is how you handle the problem. On their quote, I can understand that perspective to some degree. It really just depends on how AI is used and for what intent. Believe it or not, but AI is just a tool. It’s a tool that can do a lot of things very easily and get rid of a lot of the “blood, sweat, and tears” in the art, but it’s still something that can be used for expression of their human experience. Human creativity knows no bounds. Granted, it’s possible that there is less expressiveness that can come from AI, but less does not mean none.
“their responses showed they weren’t really interested in a genuine conversation, and the language they used is so insidious. Lame loser shit.”
I mean they gave their reasoning for using it and their intent to use it as a tool for artistic expression. That’s more than you can say for other artist who use AI generated album covers that look cool and call it a day. If Bragolin is really comitted, then we will need to see how they continue this conversation as opposed to just IG statement and then dip.
“
My concern is that artists will use it as a shortcut then claim they’re making a ‘critique’ or ‘artistic statement’ afterwards just to quell the incoming backlash.”
This would be pretty obvious to deduce based on the theme of the work no? Bragolin clearly said they used it reflect the non-humanity of the theme in their music. You can certainly criticize that excuse as being pretty shallow (and I can forsee a lot of people using AI for similar shallow artistic reasonings), but I think its not fair to say this is just cope on their part.
“Im in a subculture to be subversive to the standard, not to”adapt and join in”. Kick these losers out.”
The standard is not AI, if anything using AI “ethically” is subversive, though I understand this persons point. I would just point out that, again, with change of times comes change of tools. In so far as much as you see AI as a tool for artistic expression, it is no more subversive than when Dark Wave artist started using keyboard synthesizers like mainstream bands. Also this is for a music video mind you.
IG comments:
“I kicked a puppy but its cool as it was to demonstrate that kicking puppies is not ok and was inspired by the move ‘Kicking puppies is fun’.(although the people that made ‘Kicking puppies is fun’ were not compensated in any way for their art being used to train the our puppy kicking robot”
The argument here hinges on “kicking a puppy” as comparable to “generative AI use in a music video”. Clearly that’s not the case. You can replace this comment’s argument with something more banal that would support the AI use, but it still wouldn’t be a good argument since its not a good equivocation. Either way, the whole “kicking puppies is fun” analogy is clearly a misrepresentation of their comment and intent, so not really a serious criticism anyway. I could break down this comment more
“Screams tone deaf to me. I’ll be unfollowing”
Might be tone deaf in fairness, but that’s why they are making this statement, since they believe someone has to.
“You reference a good piece of human art as inspiration for why you used AI? That’s exactly part of the problem, is AI scrapes and steals uniqueness and creativity from human made things. There is enough use of AI as is, and the environmental implications make this especially disturbing. You missed the mark here, the message would have been stronger with hand drawn unsettling imagery, claymation, ANYTHING. it’s disappointing both creatively and ethically.”
Potentially there was better non-AI alternatives they could use. But that wouldn’t capture their two-pronged intent of the artistic expression and the conversation around that technique of expression. You can criticize either, but the artistic message was not the sole reason they did this. Also I am always just curious if you tracked the use of AI use of these people, how much of it do they use? I also take issue with “environmental implication” arguments. I can sympathize, but that can be a hard line of reasoning to be consistent on given so many thing’s environmental detriment. Obviously, AI for video generation is easier to ignore though.
For a positive comment
“I’m honestly getting sick of the people who say”All AI is bad!” without any nuance or research whatsoever. Yes, current usage of AI to create generative AI slop is bad. AI used as a tool to augment or complement naturally creative work is not bad, and is literally how society and art progresses.”
I think its fair to say that shallow forms of artistic expression can be “slop.” I will also push back on “how society and art progress” because I do think AI is fundamentally different. It can be used as a tool, but its very easy to overstep that line to poor usage. But that’s why I think Bragolin’s bringing of the conversation helps. Where that “line” is needs to be discussed. Some people will think the line shouldn’t exist while others think tolerating any line beyond where we stood before (i.e., no AI) is what’s necessary. I lay more on the outside, but how far away from where we stand I am not sure. I understand the caution from those upset though.
“I recently started listening to Bragolin purely because of your original art. I love what you guys create. Even if AI is here to stay, it should not blur our perception of true art from artificial. Taking the AI route can cause loss of credibility as an artist.”
I think this is just true. I do think there will be poor uses of AI in the future. Whether or not Bragolin’s will be that in retrospect, I am skeptical of. In fact I think there’s will be rather tame, and not have contributed to the normalization of it. I think that is inevitable.
“Thank you for your forthrightness but I think using genAI as an artist is generally a bad move. I really like I Saw Nothing Good, I was looking forward to new music but now I’m hesitant. Using genAI in a finished work, in pretty much any capacity, calls into question *everything else* that is connected to that finished work. Now, there is a very insoluble doubt in me about the rest of this album. How can I be certain you didn’t use genAI for your lyrics? Or synth line? Or vocals? I choose not to believe that you would, but my uncertainty taints my enjoyment of whatever comes next. If you wanted to use the aesthetics of genAI to make some kind of social commentary, I think it would be more impressive to hire a VFX artist who could make something that resonates in the same uncanny way, but with a creative, original edge that helps drive your commentary home. As an artist, I think one of the greatest values of the creative process is the potential for human collaboration, and making connections. The only reason I could ever see a real artist, like you, genuinely using genAI, is because it’s so much easier than the effort it would take to make a real CGI animation. I understand that desire for convenience, and again, I appreciate your honesty where so many other”artists” are reticent to admit their obvious use of genAI.”
Long one, but I think the fact they were forward about this gives them some credibility. Especially because they seem to recognize this is just a “we can only get away with this once.” Granted, that can also come off as cope and backtracking from their part. A few other people also repeated the sentiment of “I think it would be more impressive to hire a VFX artist,” which would cost a lot more money and miss their point of wanting to open the conversation. Granted I think the repsonse to this would be “if you can’ afford it, figure out something else and be more creative.” I do think there should be an expectation for people to be transparent about AI use and how and why they did it. That is something that should be part of the conversation.
“It has been demonstrated many times that AI is an ecological disaster. Entire cities are devastated by AI datacenters, water and air are polluted by it so no. To those who keep saying « it’s all good as long as it’s used responsibly », no. No it’s not good and as artists, you shouldn’t give in to a system that steals art from artists to feed itself. The only responsible use of AI is a non-use of AI.”
FAct check
here’s a fun one
“Oh for fuck’s sake, that’s one hell of a disappointment. What do you mean”we used genAI to show the fakeness of genAI” ? That’s nonsense bullshit and unsensitive about the many, many costs of genAI technology.
It’s well known and documented now that genAI is an ecological disaster that costs to much labor and ressources, including our already limited access to clean water, minerals mined by children in poor countries, underpaid workers processing the datas and entire cities suffering from the proximity of data centers.
GenAI is here to stay because the big companies invested s much in it, they’re now forcing it down our throat with heavy marketing campaign and states support to try to keep it profitable for them as long as possible before the black hole swallow everything.
More useful use of computer technology will suffer from the focus of components manufacturers on furnishing datacenters, you’ll pay more for your tools because of that shit.
GenAI is a serious risk for web users, there’s too many institution giving the big companies way too much access to people data and creative work and it shoudl be really worrying everyone.
Cybersecurity experts have warned that the technology is evolving so fast they have a hard time keeping track.
We’re living in a capitalist society, that establishes the value of individual on their workforce, and genAI is a tool for corporations to dispense themselves of that cost. You’re artists, you have a good angle to realize how awful genAI is for your domain and it’s getting worse and it’s affecting many other workfields.
There’s many studies on the bias of genAI used as an advising technology, with actual people dying while using AI bot recommanded by national health or therapists and documented cases of how educations is suffering from the use of genAI.
Oh and your music video is about “flawed human replication” ? GenAI is now accurate enough you can forge documents with it that can fool most people. It’s already used for revenge porn and can be weaponized for criminal and political means.
And that’s only part of what you’re endorsing by using genAI as an “artistic expression” or whatever.”
The first paragraph I think is a fair criticism of the “shallowness” of their artistic use. But again, I think it misses that they had dual intentions. The “conversation” being the other one. The environmental one is difficult because it really depends on how much you believe this aspect is worthy of a boycott compared to other disasterous things (like cars!). Obviously, AI is easier to not use (at least directly and not companies that just throw AI in your face), so I get why there’s more pressure to boycott here. What they say about the data collection is true, but that misses the point of the “invevtability” they claim AI is. It’s a choice but they know people will choose it, so they want to figure out what is the best way to choose it. I actually think the concern about the indirect promoting the use of AI over human labor is fair, but that only applies for expression where the AI isn’t a focal point. In Bragolin’s case it was. But I can see this criticism when focusing on its service in the music video’s interior message.