#I have a solid baseline because I like learning about history so don't do this like. Full research process every time. It's just the gist

[serpentface]

how do you come up with the ways cultures in your setting stylize people/animals/the world in general in their artwork, i.e. jewlery, rock carvings, statues, etc? Each culture in your world seems to have a very unique "art style" and I love it a lot - makes them seem that much more 'real'. This is something I struggle with a lot in my own worldbuilding and I'd love to pick your brain if possible 😁

I think a starting point is to have a research process based in the material realities of the culture you're designing for. Ask yourself questions like:

Where do they live? What's the climate/ecosystem(s) they are based in? What geographic features are present/absent?

What is their main subsistence method? (hunter gatherer, seasonal pastoralist, nomadic pastoralist, settled agriculturalist, a mix, etc)

What access to broader trade networks do they have and to whom? Are there foreign materials that will be easily accessible in trade and common in use, or valuable trade materials used sparingly in limited capacities?

Etc

And then do some research based on the answers, in order to get a sense of what materials they would have routine access to (ie dyes, metal, textiles, etc) and other possible variables that would shape how the art is made and what it's used for. This is just a foundational step and won't likely play much into designing a Style.

If you narrow these questions down very specifically, (ie in the context of the Korya post- grassland based mounted nomads, pastoralist and hunter-gatherer subsistence, access to wider trade networks and metals), you can direct your research to specific real world instances that fit this general idea. This is not to lift culturally specific concepts from the real world and slap them into your own setting, but to notice commonalities this lifestyle enforces - (ie in the previous example- mounted nomadic peoples are highly mobile and need to easily carry their wealth (often on clothing and tack) therefore small, elaborate decorative artwork that can easily be carried from place to place is a very likely feature)

For the details of the art itself, I come up with loose 'style guides' (usually just in my head) and go from there.

Here's some example questions for forming a style (some are more baseline than others)

Are geometric patterns favored? Organic patterns? Representative patterns (flowers, animals, stars, etc)? Abstract patterns?

Is there favored material(s)? Beads, bone, clay, metals, stones, etc.

When depicting people/animals, is realism favored? Heavy stylization? The emotional impression of an animal? Are key features accentuated?

How perspective typically executed? Does art attempt to capture 3d depth? Does it favor showing the whole body in 2 dimensions (ie much of Ancient Egyptian art, with the body shown in a mix of profile and forward facing perspective so all key attributes are shown)? Will limbs overlap? Are bodies shown static? In motion?

Does artwork of people attempt to beautify them? Does it favor the culture's conception of the ideal body?

Are there common visual motifs? Important symbols? Key subject matters?

What is the art used for? Are its functions aesthetic, tutelary, spiritual, magical? (Will often exist in combination, or have different examples for each purpose)

Who is represented? Is there interest in everyday people? Does art focus on glorifying warriors, heroes, kings?

Are there conventions for representing important figures? (IE gods/kings/etc being depicted larger than culturally lesser subjects)

Is there visual shorthand to depict objects/concepts that are difficult to execute with clarity (the sun, moon, water), or are invisible (wind, the soul), or have no physical component (speech)?

Etc

Deciding on answers to any of these questions will at least give you a unique baseline, and you can fill in the rest of the gaps and specify a style further until it is distinct. Many of these questions are not mutually exclusive, both in the sense of elements being combined (patterns with both geometric and organic elements) or a culture having multiple visual styles (3d art objects having unique features, religious artwork having its own conventions, etc).

Also when you're getting in depth, you should have cultural syncretism in mind. Cultures that routinely interact (whether this interaction is exchange or exploitation) inevitably exchange ideas, which can be especially visible in art. Doing research on how this synthesizing of ideas works in practice is very helpful- what is adopted or left out from an external influence, what is retained from an internal influence, what is unique to this synthesis, AND WHY. (I find Greco-Buddhist art really interesting, that's one of many such examples)

Looking at real world examples that fit your parameters can be helpful (ie if I've decided on geometric patterns in my 'style guide', I'll look at actual geometric patterns). And I strongly encourage trying to actually LEARN about what you're seeing. All art exists in a context, and having an understanding of how the context shapes art, how art does and doesn't relate to broader aspects of a society, etc, can help you when synthesizing your own.

[lucem-stellarum]

I can't decide if this is a big brain or cursed thought moment, but...

At some point the Asset, despite not being human but definitely a person, gets infected by some kind of virus. Maybe it's just a natural progression as part of their learning program. Either way their own purpose that they were built for is so intrinsically tied to magic there's no world in which the Asset is magically inert. Regardless, they have or develop the ability to manipulate magic, but it comes at a cost. They can't produce their own magic because they don't have a core. But magic can exist seperately from a core, and demons, which are entirely magic, can cross the boundary without causing damage.

From Vincent's theory about why Lovely was so irresistable before they awoke their latency, their magic was building up in their blood because there was no outlet/use. That when they drink magical blood it's almost like a high to them, because of that higher concentration. But demon blood has too high levels, being almost pure magic, and is therefore poisonous to vampires.

So the only way the Asset can perform magic is by first taking magic, via the blood, from some other empowered. Or possibly demons. And they've got social programming. It would be easier and "logical" for them to find volunteers. But they're not human, never could be, never try to be, so they don't have the same moral hang ups. Or, if that reasoning doesn't suffice, they also have a history of people crossing boundaries to get what they want, and the Asset has an altruistic reason for existance, in the sense that they were literally designed and developed to do something that humans can't (regarding the boundary between Aria and Elegy, and the crossing thereof) with a level of disregard for their own safety (because nobody knows, can't assure them it's safe).

They very easily could have fundamental logic installed regarding "the good of the many outweigh the suffering of a few". Or "the ends justify the means". Either to create the mental baseline for their altruism as required by their fundamental purpose, or as part of their developement into something that will put themselves into peril, into known harm, to preserve human life (and the meridian).

So, technically speaking, the Asset is magically classified as a Vampire. And like vampires, uses seduction to maintain access to blood (magic). Because it's easier and logical to cultivate transactional relationships with willing victims. To avoid causing harm to humans, if they're "willing" participants. For the greater good.

They have a history of (others) crossing boundaries, and some unhealthy examples of how intrapersonal relationships are supposed to work. Between Marcus, and the way the other technicians treat them. They're not as bad as Marcus or in the same way, but being treated like a thing instead of like a person causes significant psycological damage to humans. And androids are created in our image. AI has a known problem of repeating racism and other biases present in the initial data load into their neural networks; who's to say that specific psycological tendencies can't also be... transmissable.

They have a solid justification for making morally questionable decisions. They're not human, and understand that humans are intrinsically different to them for a multitude of reasons. That overall (empowered) human survival is a major goal, and the intentional devaluation of their own self and autonomy; and that automony is negotiable/violatable in the right circumstance. And they require the blood (magic) of others to assist in fulfilling their purpose.

Cue "Love Bytes", a story about a vampire android who has to save the world.