Say what you will about other art of collections. I am not making comparisons here, but if you want to talk about variety this is exactly the core thesis of Arboreal Intelligence. It may look simplistic at first glance, but you have to understand what it is.
These trees are a collaboration between code generated computer art and layered hand drawn traits. Each character itself has its own DNA, and the code drawns the body, the branches, and multiple algorithmically plotted traits.
So every tree is unique before we even add the facial features. But when we add the feature the characters DNA determines where to place it, what size, what rotation. So two trees could theoretically have all the same traits but still look entirely different. Here are a few with the most common mouth trait and (basically) the same eyes.
Now, it might not be your style, that's fine. It might feel unsophisticated or low effort. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Is it art? Is it fine art? I like great illustration but technical craftsmanship alone does not make something art.
I usually feel some things about art, especially on interpretation, are better left unsaid. Since the point of art is to have a perspective. To give the viewer a window to see the world that might not be their own.
For me, the Arboreal Intelligence project is art. The context of how my art is created isn't always important for me to explain, but for this it is, because it informs how you experience the art and whether or not you will understand what comes next.