Contemporary art often requires that critique or questions about the artwork be included in (or even as) the artwork itself. Self-referential art, or art that refers to other art, is commonplace and is the basis of art as a more or less systematic inquiry whose goal is knowledge. In science, a paper should question itself and refer to other work. This is, however, rarely the case with the computer-based arts, usually seen and presented as things (processes, systems…) in themselves. Much art refers to art history. Computer based arts in general do not refer to the history of computer-based arts. One can sometimes have the impression, too, that in new media art all must flow smoothly. A certain "glossiness" is often called for. Mistakes, failures, are rarely referred to, let alone exhibited or commented upon. Yet most other art proceeds by failure. Metaphorical "bugs" are generally celebrated as creative prompts. Ugliness is by no means ruled out. Not so often in the field of computer art. Images qua "Artworks", produced by AIs perhaps at the behest of Large Language Models, usually exemplify most of the above, and interactive artworks are often about the results of the interaction, not the experience or spectacle of the interaction per se. We are encouraged to look at the different forms of product, whereas the participants themselves and their behaviour and actions are often of more significance. As a provocative nudge to avoiding the above, examples are presented of this author's and others' work where what might otherwise be considered as professional "fouls" are in fact the point of the (often conceptual) work. Mistakes and lies are celebrated, and the smooth, even meretricious production of conservatively conventional computer-based artworks are derided. A means of causing an "AI" LLM to lie is presented. As a general rule, art that tries to "look like art" is not art, but decoration (unless ironic or bad-tempered) or is bad art. Computer based and new media arts, a fortiori.