Thanks bfree. I should have posted that dsfg link as well myself. That was an oversight on my part. And yes, artistic is one of the license options available when creating debs.
I had some discussions about this with the FSF and they were unable to answer all my concerns regarding GPL source code and artwork. If one uses multiple apps to create a picture then it becomes a quagmire with no satisfactory solution. The problem of course is defining what is source code when there isn't any code at all. For example, how is a layered xcf file the source code (like they suggest) if all the components inside the xcf were created with other apps? Calling the xcf the source in that instance is totally arbitrary. Why draw the line there when most of the work was done elsewhere?
The overall impression I gained was that it is really a square peg in the round hole sort of thing. Sure, you can make the square peg fit if you hit it with a big enough hammer but it is far better to use the round peg. When it comes to art, the perl artistic license is a round peg imo.