For me it kinda makes sense: the portrait/person is an important feature of the image, so it's heavily weighted in the generation, producing another image with that portrait/person, and so on. I find it more interesting that the visage itself is still recognizable between generations, as if it's not "any person", but a very specific visage.

It at least considers the original image adjacent to gore/violence, but there's something uncanny about how the "Loab" image itself is not a gory or violent image. There's something funky going on along a "concept axis" involving the upside-down triangles on the face, the rosacea, and the overall bleak composition of the image.