The Interview I Art Collector Niwin

“I have forced myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own taste.” —Marcel Duchamp

In our series of interviews with digital art collectors, Kate Vass explores the motivations shaping today's digital art scene. This time, we talk with Niwin, a collector whose style resonates with Duchamp’s commitment to experimentation and challenging norms. Duchamp believed in questioning what art could be and supported ideas that broke with tradition. For Niwin, collecting is more than just ownership; it’s about encouraging innovation and supporting artists who push the boundaries of technology and creativity. By embracing works that defy conventional standards, Niwin embodies Duchamp’s ethos.

In this conversation, he shares how the fusion of art and technology captivates him, and why fostering innovation and challenging conventions is central to his collection. We hope you find his insights as inspiring as we did.

Dmitri Cherniak, Ringers #333, 2021

KV: In 2017, you mentioned a pivotal encounter with Ledger. What was your role or connection with Ledger at the time, and how did it shape your entry into the world of cryptocurrencies and NFTs?

N: In 2017, I was working in the tech industry, developing hardware storage products, when I had the opportunity to meet Eric Larchevêque and Joel Pobeda from Ledger. They introduced me to their groundbreaking device for securely storing digital currency. I immediately understood that blockchain was nothing short of revolutionary, a new technological paradigm that would reshape the future of finance and ownership. This encounter ignited my fascination with cryptocurrencies and led me on a path to explore the potential of NFTs, where digital art and technology merge in ways previously unimaginable.

Andreas Gysin, LCD 1 #11/32, 2022

KV: What sparked your journey into the world of generative art? Did you start as a collector, or did your role as a collaborator come first? How have these practices influenced each other?

N: My entry into generative art came after a period of deep immersion in the blockchain world. I had spent three years mining, trading, and investing, and in 2020, I purchased my first NFT on Rarible. Shortly after, I acquired a Cryptopunk, and then several more—instinctively believing this project and community was iconic and would stand the test of time.

It was during a call with Nahiko that I fully grasped the magic of generative art. The idea that art could be algorithmically generated, evolving autonomously yet bound by the constraints of code, felt revolutionary. Although I wasn’t creating the artworks myself, I quickly took on the role of a collaborator, helping artists navigate the then-unknown world of platforms like Artblocks. These two aspects—collecting and collaborating—enhanced each other, as my understanding of the creative and technical processes deepened, and my appreciation for each work grew more personal and emotional.

DEAFBEEF, Series 1 Angular - Token 129, 2021

KV: Many pieces in your collection feature a red and black theme. What personal significance do these colors hold, and how do they guide your choices?

N: Red and black have always held a deep significance for me. Red represents energy, passion, and the relentless drive to push boundaries—qualities that reflect my approach to both technology and art. Black, on the other hand, symbolizes depth, mystery, and the infinite potential of the blockchain and digital art realms. Together, they evoke a sense of intensity and boldness that resonates with the pioneering and disruptive spirit I love.

HACKATAO & Insight, Aleph-0 #382, 2023

KV: What criteria do you prioritize when selecting pieces for your collection—do you lean toward aesthetics, the artist’s vision, or something else?

N: Aesthetics, while important, are just the surface of what I look for in a piece. I’m drawn to works that carry an emotional weight, pieces with a strong vision behind them, where the artist is pushing the boundaries of what’s possible through technology. I seek out creators who are exploring uncharted tech territories, particularly in generative art, where the fusion of code and creativity brings entirely new dimensions to life.

Equally important is my connection with the artist. Understanding their process, their motivations, and their journey adds immense depth to the works I collect. I’m fascinated by how technology—particularly blockchain—enables artists to stretch their imagination in ways that were impossible before. This cultural and technological impact is often what sets a piece apart for me. It’s about supporting innovation, artistic bravery, and the intersection of creativity and technology, where new forms of expression are constantly being born.

Matt DesLauriers, Meridian #815, 2021

KV: As both a collaborator and collector, how does your experience in helping artists inform your approach to collecting? Do your insights shape your choices?

As a collaborator, I’ve had the privilege of guiding artists into the NFT space, particularly in the early days when platforms like Artblocks were still unknown to most. This experience gave me a front-row seat to the complexities of the creative process, understanding how generative art comes to life through algorithms and how blockchain adds layers of permanence, scarcity, and provenance.

This deeper understanding of the process informs how I collect. I look for pieces that reflect the same technical precision, bold innovation, and emotional resonance that I value in my collaborations. It’s not just about owning a piece; it’s about connecting with the artwork and its creator on a much deeper level. My role as a collaborator has sharpened my eye for detail, and my appreciation for how art and technology come together influences every decision I make as a collector.

Snowfro, Chromie Squiggle #446, 2021

KV: What’s been your most rewarding collaboration with Artblocks? How did your relationship with them evolve?

N: The most rewarding collaboration is with the brilliant Italian quantum scientists led by Salvatore Savasta (@insighbart) on a project that used quantum science formulas to render artistic representations of particles. While helping them shape the project for Artblocks, I also contributed with creative ideas. This project is a true fusion of art, science, and technology—a perfect example of how the blockchain can democratize complex concepts like quantum physics through the medium of generative art. The project even gained recognition at a TEDx talk in Italy, such a thrilling moment.

My relationship with Artblocks began through my friendship with Snowfro, the platform’s visionary creator. We’ve remained close, and being part of the early days of Artblocks was an incredible experience. Collaborating with the generative artist ge1doot, we brought three projects to life, including Ignition, which became Project #9 in the founding series of Artblocks. The thrill of launching such groundbreaking work is something I’ll never forget.

Insigħt, Quantum Collapses #59, 2022

KV: Science seems to be a recurring theme in your projects. How does your interest in science influence both your creations and your approach to collecting?

N: I’ve been fascinated by science from a very early age, it has always felt like the ultimate exploration of the unknown. I got my first computer at age six, and it opened new worlds for me, expanding my curiosity and imagination. Science, for me, is deeply intertwined with creativity. It represents both structure and chaos, logic and wonder, and this duality is what excites me in both art and technology.

In my collaborations and my collecting, I’m drawn to projects that blend science with art, where the precision of algorithms meets the unpredictability of creativity. I seek out art that challenges the boundaries of what we know, whether through scientific principles, generative algorithms, or technological innovations.

ge1doot, Ignition #414, 2021

KV: You’re often involved with projects that incorporate cutting-edge technology. Are there any recent tech developments that have particularly excited you or that you think could impact the art world?

N: I’m particularly excited by dynamic and interactive NFTs, which incorporate real-time data from the blockchain to create artworks that evolve and respond to external inputs. This dynamic approach brings a new level of interactivity and unpredictability.

The use of AI in art is another area that fascinates me. AI-generated art can feel like the realization of dreams, creating imaginative, surreal visuals that push the boundaries of creativity. We’re witnessing a transformation where machines are becoming part of the creative process, generating art that feels deeply personal and expressive.

Also artists like Sougwen Chung or Pindar Van Arman, who are pioneering the collaboration with robots in this space, excite me deeply.

Autonomous artistry is perhaps the most thrilling frontier: robots that can create and publish their own work, potentially reaching a point of singularity where they act independently of human creators.

Refik Anadol, MACHINE HALLUCINATIONS - MARS LANDSCAPES - Collector's Edition #13/30, 2020

KV: How do you live with digital art on a daily basis? Do you prefer physical displays or virtual platforms for showcasing your collection?

I enjoy both physical and virtual platforms for showcasing my collection.
In terms of physical displays, I love integrating digital art into my daily environment through mediums like sculptures, prints, or embroidery. I also collaborate with an embroiderer in France, to bring digital art into the physical world and currently looking for artists that have interest in that medium.

At the same time, virtual platforms are indispensable for experiencing the full range of what digital art can offer. The scale, fluidity, and interactivity of virtual environments allow digital art to live in its native form, where it can continually evolve and be experienced from new perspectives. Both physical and virtual spaces have their place in how I engage with art on a daily basis, but I find the interplay between them particularly exciting !

Hermine Bourdin, Christine, 2021

KV: Where do you see the NFT art space heading in the next five years? Do you expect continued evolution, or are there trends you think might fade?

N: In the next five years, I see the NFT space continuing to evolve, with dynamic and interactive NFTs that integrate real-time data, constantly transforming and reacting to the world around them. AI-driven art will also gain prominence, pushing the boundaries of imagination and technical sophistication, creating dream-like landscapes that feel almost ethereal.

Autonomous artistry—where robots collaborate, create, publish, and perhaps even sell their own work—could revolutionize the art world, pushing us closer to a singularity in creative expression.

100% on-chain art will continue gaining significance, offering permanence, provenance, and ownership in ways that no other medium can. And while the noise surrounding multiple blockchains and Layer 2 solutions will likely continue, I expect Layer 1 chains to remain dominant for high-value, grail-level works, ensuring the security and longevity of these pieces.

Vera Molnár & Martin Grasser, Themes and Variations #63, 2023

***

*The responses provided in this interview have been preserved in their original form, with no alterations to the interviewee's stylistic choices or grammar. - Kate Vass

Niwin on X: @NiwinEth

Collection:

https://opensea.io/Niwin_Vault

https://opensea.io/Niwin

https://objkt.com/@niwin/owned

The Interview I Art Collector Delronde

Aristotle once said, “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” This sentiment serves as a powerful reminder that collecting art transcends aesthetics; it’s about capturing meaning and essence.

In this installment of Kate Vass's interview series with digital art collectors, we speak with Delronde. Much like a curator selecting pieces for a museum, Delronde approaches his collection with discernment and a profound appreciation for the narratives embedded in each work. For him, collecting is not a matter of simple acquisition; it’s a mindful process, with each piece thoughtfully chosen for its unique contribution to the collection. His approach is unhurried and intentional, honoring the individuality of each artwork.

Delronde’s philosophy of collecting goes beyond the present moment. Reflecting on Aristotle’s words, he notes, "To me, the 'inward significance' of digital, generative, and AI art all flows back to one thing: human ingenuity. Art that celebrates or pushes beyond technical limitations resonates deeply with me, leaving you breathless, wondering, 'How did they do that?' Silicon chips are the cathedrals of our era, and digital art, the frescoes adorning them."

We hope you find this interview insightful, offering a glimpse into Delronde’s thoughtful perspective.

Learning To See: We are made of star dust #2 by Memo Akten, created 2017, minted in 2024

KV: Can you share some insights into your background and what motivated you to start collecting digital and on-chain art? 

D: I've been tinkering with and programming on computers since I was very young but I had not paid attention to digital art until NFTs. Specifically, ArtBlocks with its marriage of generative art and blockchains made me realize that the same skills required to build the software you're using to read this text now can also be applied to create beautiful art. Software, instead of being purely utilitarian can also create beauty, and blockchains enable you to own and transact these in their native "executable" form. From there I've slowly grown to appreciate all kinds of digital art.

Chromie Squiggle 3009 by Snowfro, 2021

KV: What was the first piece of digital art you acquired, and how did it influence your approach to future purchases?

D: This Colorglyph was one of my first acquisitions, back in October 2020. I knew nothing about art or NFTs at the time. I saw autoglyphs trading for 6e (~2k USD) and thought they were interesting, but way too "expensive". So I bought a colorglyph for 200$ instead. I've kept it to this day as a reminder to trust my instincts, do my research and that sometimes, "cheap" can cost you dearly.

Colorglyph #307 by Larva Labs, 2019

KV: What draws you to collecting historical generative and AI pieces, and how important is their preservation to you?

D: I believe we're in an incredibly special moment in time. Right on the cusp of widespread adoption of two major technologies. AI which promises nearly free and infinite digital content and blockchains which provide provenance, scarcity and ability to transact. Most people are still underestimating how much impact AI is going to have on our lives. The tokenization of digital art and the birth of a new form of intelligence will occur only once. I'm incredibly thankful to have been in the right place and the right time to collect meaningful works of both these significant milestones. 

Early AI art in particular is personally very meaningful to me. It's hard to overstate how big the AI revolution will be and just how fast progress has been made. I keep going back to this to remind myself what used to be considered "impossible". And in 3(!) years, we're well past that. In a span of ~7 years or so we've gone from a highly experimental form of art that only those at the cutting edge of technology and art were capable of creating to something anyone in the world can use. I consider the 2015-2022 period very special, something that cannot be repeated. 

AlignDraw, A stop sign is flying in blue skies #3, by Elman Mansimov (2015), minted in 2023

KV: In your opinion, how does on-chain verification add value to digital artworks beyond establishing provenance? Does the underlying blockchain play a crucial role in the collecting process?

D: I believe blockchains are a 10x improvement in transacting digital art over traditional mechanisms. They provide 24/7 global liquidity, instant settlement, transparent price discovery, and unforgeable provenance. In addition, the collector's collection is public by default. I have discovered so many new artists and works just by browsing the collections of others. It's in stark contrast to most high value traditional art which are locked away inside people's homes only seen by the owner (or worse, not seen at all, in case of freeports). Putting art onchain means that anyone can enjoy it for free while having a single indisputable owner.

As to the blockchain itself, it matters. But it does not matter as much as people think. I do collect on Tezos and other chains. They do deserve a discount because it's unproven if they will stay around as long as ETH, but it probably should not be as severe as it is right now.

#26 - RCSA, LCAO by BoldLeonidas, 2023

KV: You’ve highlighted Deafbeef as the king of on-chain art. What qualities do you think set his work apart from others in this space? 

D: Deafbeef is one of the few cryptoartists who fully utilize and explore the blockchain as a medium. Tokens with user customizable audiovisual outputs, tokens that degrade on transfer, onchain slot machines, innovative ways to tie physicals to disappearing tokens and many others that show deep technical mastery of many fields and serve as astute commentary on the space. 

HASHMARKS #63 by Deafbeef, 2023

KV: Are there certain artworks in your collection that hold a special significance for you or have an interesting story of how it was acquired?

D: As a whole, my early AI art collection is very special to me. Others like JediWolf have a more comprehensive collection, or CyborgDAO have more pieces from significant artists. I've landed somewhere in the middle with at least one piece from every artist and collection that I consider significant. Fellow AI art collectors know how difficult it is already to acquire these works, and I think it is going to get exponentially harder to assemble every subsequent set. 

As an individual work, this piece by Califormetry stands out. A custom commission in his signature "vector hyperrealism" style of a place that I owe a lot to. 

The Golden State by Califormetry, 2023

KV: What criteria do you use to assess an artist or artwork before adding it to your collection?

D: When I collect a work, I ask myself if I'm collecting for the work itself, the artist, the narrative/story or the timestamp. Most works only have one or two elements going for them, but my most prized pieces have all of the elements. For example, a genesis period Botto or an aesthetic "Day 0" squiggle. Recently I've begun to appreciate a fifth factor, which is the community around the artist and their works. The standout example here is XCOPY, the impromptu performance with the "Black Hole" piece was only possible because of the dedicated community.

Communicate Displace by Botto, 2022

KV: How do you incorporate digital art into your daily life? Do you display pieces in your home, or engage with them in other ways? Do you also own traditional artworks, like those by David Young?

D: I focus almost exclusively on digital art. The only exceptions are a few Ukiyo-e prints (Kawase's Meguro Fudō is a personal favorite), or cases where the physical is integral to the NFT like Deafbeef's Hashmarks or the oil painting of David Young's GAN art which is very interesting to me as an early example of human art being influenced by AI art.

It is unfortunate that most of us spend the majority of our waking hours staring into screens and yet the only exposure most people get to digital art is their wallpaper. I greatly enjoy browser extensions like arttab.xyz (or Google Arts and Culture if you prefer traditional art) which show you a new piece of art whenever you open a new tab. 

Meguro Fudo by Hasui Kawase

KV: How do you perceive your role within the digital art ecosystem? What impact do you hope your collection will have on the future ? Do you see it a legacy?

D: I try to keep a low profile, I would rather let my collection speak for itself to those who share similar tastes. I collect for my personal satisfaction, and because I believe some of these works will be almost impossible to acquire for any reasonable price in the future. Time will tell if I'm right on the significance of these works, and I'm willing to be very patient.

AI Generated Nude Portrait #7 Frame #111 by Robbie Barrat, 2018

KV: If you had to describe your collection in three words, what would they be?

D: I can do it in one: Pioneers. I've aimed to collect digital works and artists that broke new ground in some significant way. My first goal when I started building this collection was to acquire a full set of Artblocks Curated Season 1-8, and am now focusing on early AI art. I hope to call it done soon.

Learning Nature (b38,4016,16) by David Young, 2018

KV: Could you tell us the story behind the name Delronde? Does it hold any particular meaning? 

D: Ha ha, it is based on Elrond from Lord of the Rings, and my PFP is a pixel version of Elrond commissioned from thepixelportraits.me. 

Math Art (1980-1995) - Math Art 95 - No. 9 by Herbert W. Franke

KV: Aristotle said, “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” How do you believe digital art, generative art and AI art reflect this idea?

D: To me, the "inward significance" of digital, generative and ai art all flow back to one thing: Human ingenuity. Art that celebrates or surpasses technical limitations is what resonates with me. Where you are left breathless wondering: How did they do that? Silicon chips are the cathedrals of our era, and digital art the frescoes. 

K-Meanearest Neighbors by Helena Sarin & Dmitri Cherniak, 2021

***

*The responses provided in this interview have been preserved in their original form, with no alterations to the interviewee's stylistic choices or grammar. - Kate Vass

Delronde on X: @delronde

Collection: https://opensea.io/0x183AbE67478eB7E87c96CA28E2f63Dec53f22E3A

The Interview I Art Collector Archivist

As the philosopher Walter Benjamin once observed in his Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction in 1935: “In even the most perfect reproduction, one thing is lacking: the here and now of the work of art—its unique existence in a particular place.” This notion resonates deeply with Archivist’s mission to preserve the unique stories embedded in each digital artifact, ensuring that the essence of blockchain art is recognized and valued within its specific context.

Kate Vass continues her series of interviews with digital art collectors, and this week, she speaks with Archivist. Much like a paleontologist meticulously unearthing fossils to piece together stories of ancient life, Archivist treats his collection of digital art with the same care and reverence. Each piece he collects is a fragment of history, a clue to the ever-evolving narrative of art on the blockchain. For him, collecting is not about accumulation but about preservation—capturing moments in time and ensuring they endure, both for today and for the future. His role as a collector is akin to that of a fossil hunter, finding rare and meaningful pieces and placing them in a context where their value extends beyond the present moment.

We hope you enjoy reading the interview and finding deeper insights into blockchain art from the Archivist collection as much as we did.

Obvious, Ryan O Reily, 2018

KV: You collect both digital and physical artworks. How do these two forms complement each other in your collection, and what unique qualities does each bring?

A: Honestly, my physical collection is much smaller than my digital one, especially compared to collectors who mainly focus on physical art or collectibles. I’m pretty minimalist and not that materialistic, which means I only have a few physical pieces. That forces me to be really picky and only go for things that deeply resonate with me or that are truly standout. So, in my case, I’m more spontaneous and driven by instinct when it comes to digital art, while I’m super selective about physical pieces. Even though blockchain gives digital art a tangible quality, there’s something irreplaceable about being able to see something physically. Most of my physical pieces are also from periods before blockchain existed or are works that wouldn’t make much sense in a digital format.

Robbie Barrat & Ronan Barrot, Infinite Skull #18, 2018

  KV: You have an impressive fossil collection. What draws you to collecting fossils, and how do they complement your interest in more modern or digital collections?

A: I started drawing dinosaurs when I was about five or six, and by the time I was seven or eight, I was collecting small fossils and stones. Like a lot of kids, I dreamed of becoming an archaeologist or paleontologist. My interest in high-end fossil collecting is more recent, though. It really took off when I became friends with a French paleontologist during the COVID pandemic. Without connections in that world, it’s hard to get started collecting these without either overpaying for hyped-up pieces at auctions or settling for lower-quality ones from the public market. But once you’re close to the source, you get a real sense of how the market works and gain access to significant ones before they hit the public or auctions. Collecting fossils—life testaments that are 65 to 300 million years old—humbles you in a way. These objects come with stories that make you reflect on the world. It also makes me a better collector overall because it teaches me how to track, authenticate, and appreciate truly rare pieces. That focus helps keep me from chasing after every new trend or “next big thing,” as it’s difficult to create more fascination for me than these artifacts.

Hope's Horn

KV: Could you highlight one or two curatorial projects that were particularly meaningful to you? What was the concept behind these projects?

A: To be honest, I tend to avoid collecting things that are already heavily curated. That’s just my personal preference. When I come across something that catches my interest—whether it’s an artist, a technical innovation, or a project—my first instinct is to dig into what was maybe done before and actually not curated nor documented. That’s how I fell into the never-ending rabbit hole of historic blockchain assets, and I haven’t stopped since.

Vogler, Face 5, 2015

KV: You often mention documenting historic assets. Why is documentation a significant aspect of your work, and how does this connect with your pseudonym, "Archivist"?

A: I guess I answered this partially in the previous question. I’m really drawn to the idea of “firsts”—the first of anything, really. These moments often represent rarity, innovation, or historical significance, and sometimes all three. But the more you dig into the history of something, the more you realize that there’s almost always an older or earlier iteration hiding somewhere. That’s what led me to start documenting my discoveries. I realized that if I wanted to label something as a “first” in my public documentations, I had to be as certain as reasonably possible. And the more you research, the more you find, the more you document, the more you need to research to corroborate, and so on. It became this ongoing hobby—researching, documenting, cross-checking—to the point where it just became natural. The thrill comes when you uncover something others haven’t yet, and you get the chance to document it before it becomes widely known. Over time, I’ve come to see education and accuracy as essential, especially in a space where misinformation spreads easily, like with claims about Cryptopunks being the first NFTs. As blockchain becomes more mainstream, understanding the foundation it was built on is crucial. That’s how I ended up with the pseudonym "Archivist"—it just reflects my passion for archiving blockchain history.

 FUCK YEA, 2012 (Namecoin)

KV: You've analyzed the intricacies and misconceptions of digital assets and blockchain technology through articles you've written. What inspires you to explore these complex subjects, and do you believe that education and investigation are essential roles for a collector?

A: My conviction is that the purer your collector spirit is, the more fascinated and passionate you are about what you collect, the more you want to study it and become an expert about it. As you become more knowledgeable and exigent, you realize how important it is to really understand the details. When it comes to blockchain history, it's kind of like traditional history or archaeology. There’s always excitement and debate surrounding new discoveries, with some people getting overly enthusiastic and others being skeptical. You can’t make everyone happy, but in the blockchain space, at least you can document and prove a lot of things with blockchain data and timestamps.

That being said, I don’t think documenting is a requirement to be a collector. But if you’re the kind of collector who discovers or patrons, it’s an important responsibility to give the subject the visibility it deserves and to be accurate and transparent in how you document it.

 Jonathan Monaghan, Mothership, 2013

KV: You have a notable interest in on-chain art. What attracts you to on-chain art, and what potential do you see for it in the art world?

A: Fully on-chain art is the most permanent form of art we’ve ever had, thanks to blockchain. If you look at art throughout history, preservation has always been a major challenge. Imagine if Egyptian art from thousands of years ago was still as fresh as the day it was made—that’s the kind of permanence that fully on-chain art offers. I also see blockchain as a medium in itself, like canvas or paper. Some artists are pushing the boundaries of what’s possible with it, and that’s the type of on-chain art I’m most drawn to—the kind that can only exist because of the blockchain.

I don’t think all art needs to be fully on-chain, though. Sometimes the costs are too high, or it doesn’t make practical sense. But I do encourage artists to consider using the blockchain, even if it’s just for part of the provenance of their work, to partially preserve their art or intent in a more permanent way. We’re still in the early days of blockchain, but if you think about it 100 years from now, a lot of today’s digital art may no longer be accessible. Fully on-chain art, however, will still be there. We have many examples, such as Ascribe or KnownOrigin cases, showing us that onchainness is more and more important to preserve art. The sad reality is that a drawing on paper has a higher chance of lasting longer than most of today’s art NFTs.

Chainleft, Chaos Road #52, 2023

KV: Do you think that in the future, collectors will become chain-agnostic? If so, what leads you to that belief?

A: I think some collectors will definitely become chain-agnostic, especially casual collectors who are more focused on the art than the underlying technology. But for collectors who are really interested in the specifics of the medium, each blockchain will have its own significance. Personally, I appreciate the differences between blockchains, but I also enjoy collecting from different ones. Maximalist or purist collectors will always exist, and that’s not a bad thing—they often bring a lot of knowledge and depth to the space. In short, I think casual collectors will go wherever the trends and artists lead them, while more serious collectors will still have their preferences based on the blockchain technology.

0xfff, You Are Here 42161, 2023

KV: Can you share a story about one of your collected works that was particularly challenging to acquire, or perhaps a piece that has personal significance for you?

A: If you don’t mind, I’ll share two pieces—one digital and one physical—because it’s too hard to pick just one.

The digital piece is called 'SOLD'. I’ll not dig that much into the story of it, as I wrote a dedicated article you can find here: https://archivist-eth.medium.com/sold-stamp-of-the-first-non-fungible-asset-trade-in-history-2011-f8c491a2e78a, but basically, after two months of deep research and investigations into this matter, I managed to identify the first non-fungible asset to ever have been transferred (and traded) on the blockchain. Transferability is such a key aspect of NFTs/blockchain assets, so it was important for me to document this. It turned out to be a Namecoin name called 'd/radio', which was sold for 5 BTC on May 6, 2011. That’s when the original owner marked it as 'SOLD' in the name’s value when they transferred it. I was lucky to track down the current owner in 2022 and acquire it. That was probably my most satisfying acquisition, given the effort involved in finding it and the slim chance of actually being able to own it.

On the physical side, there’s 'Hope’s Horn' (that you can see in questions #2 of this interview), a baby triceratops horn showing healing from a large pathology caused by an adult T-Rex's bite, indicating 'Hope' survived an encounter with Earth's most dangerous predator to date. It’s one of the few pieces of evidence we have proving that T-Rexes were predators, not just scavengers. This piece is unique to me without any doubt, also for sure the most fascinating piece of my entire collection, but also unique and fascinating within the paleontological world, for the few who know about it so far. This piece is incredibly rare and special to me, not just because of its historical significance, but also because I acquired it through a private trade before advanced studies were done on it. I’m currently working with my paleontologist friend to document it further. I even managed to identify another smaller trace of the bite pathology myself on the piece, a dream come true for the dinosaur-loving kid in me.

SOLD, 2011

KV: How do you view your role as a collector in both the digital and analog realms? Do you consider your collection to be a part of your legacy?

A: I see myself, as a collector, as both a custodian and an educator. As I mentioned earlier, collectors have a responsibility to preserve the pieces they own and share knowledge about them. When it comes to passing pieces on, I believe it’s more rewarding to find someone who genuinely appreciates the work rather than simply selling to the highest bidder. This is especially true for artists, where finding the right collector can sometimes bring more long-term value to the work than going with someone who just has the most money or followers.

As for my collection being part of my legacy, I’m still figuring that out. I’m 33, I don’t have kids yet, and I’m not sure if I’ll hold on to everything forever. There’s always the possibility that a piece could go to someone else who’s as passionate about it as I am, especially if it’s the right time for me to let it go. That being said, I do hope that the research and documentation I’ve done over the years will become a small part of blockchain legacy, yes. In that sense, I’d like my contribution to live on, even if I don’t keep every piece in my collection forever. I can also imagine myself writing a book about blockchain early history in the future.

Han, Screensaver, 2023

KV: What advice would you offer to new collectors or those just starting to collect digital art?

A: Avoid FOMO at all costs. Collecting out of fear of missing out usually leads to bad decisions and pieces you don’t truly care about. Before buying anything, ask yourself if you’d still love owning it even if no one else knew about it, or if NFTs and blockchain technology never took off again. You want to collect pieces you’ll treasure regardless of their market value, and ideally, at a price you’re comfortable with.

It’s also a good idea to diversify a bit. That doesn’t mean you have to buy from every medium, but finding three or four areas of interest—like AI art, on-chain art, or historical assets—and spreading your budget across them can help. Overall, the best advice I’ve ever heard came lately from @TokenAngels: “Be your own museum.”

Mathcastles, Terraform #3254, 2021

KV: One of the ongoing challenges is how to display and integrate digital art into our living spaces. How do you approach this? Do you have any digital works displayed in your home? Do you believe it’s important to see art every day?

A: I have to admit, I don’t currently display any of my digital pieces at home. The cost of multiple screens and the energy consumption are real issues. My dream, though, is to one day have my own gallery, where I could display my collection alongside pieces curated from other collectors and creators I respect.

As for seeing art every day, I don’t necessarily feel the need for it. Sometimes, the absence of a piece can make it more powerful when you revisit it after a while—like rediscovering something you love. Just like when you enjoyed taking your binders out of the shelf and opening them to look at your Pokémon cards. Of course, there are exceptions where certain pieces connect with you in a way that makes you want to see them constantly, but I think it really depends on the relationship between the collector and the artwork. And it’s definitely an intimate relationship in the end.

Diid, Machine in the Ghost #1, 2024

***

 *The responses provided in this interview have been preserved in their original form, with no alterations to the interviewee's stylistic choices or grammar. - Kate Vass

Archivist on X: @punk3606

Collections:

https://deca.art/archivist/on-chain%20art%20collection

https://opensea.io/punk3606

https://opensea.io/punk3606_vault

The Interview I Art Collector antagonist4ever

1.     In the world of digital art collecting, it takes a unique vision and a pioneering spirit to commit to build a collection that both embraces the cutting-edge technology, and anticipates the artistic innovations of tomorrow. Through ups and downs of the market cycles, it’s the collector who brings the support of the vision of emerging creators, often before the market catches on. Their role is foundational to fostering new ideas, pushing boundaries, and ensuring that innovative, often challenging works find a place in collections and therefore digital history. In many ways, collectors are collaborators in the cultural narrative, making them indispensable to the progress of art itself.

Kate Vass continues her mission to understand the perspectives of a new generation of collectors. In this interview, Kate speaks with antagonist4ever—a thoughtful art collector who values diversity in both artistic expression and social impact, with a conscious focus on supporting female artists and highlighting underrepresented voices, while maintaining a clear vision.

We hope you find as much insight and inspiration in this conversation as we did learn more about the mindset behind his collection.

100 Series: “Portraits of Imaginary People”, 2017/21 by Mike Tyka

 1. KV: What inspired you to focus on digital art rather than traditional art forms or do you also collect more traditional art?

A4: To answer upfront, art investments were not part of my portfolio before. Since diving deeper into Bitcoin in 2017, I became aware of the significance of digital assets. The basic idea of blockchain, complemented by smart contracts, enabled NFTs to provide a way to verify proof of ownership in the digital world. Whether and how much the art world would be impacted by this and whether artists would benefit from it only became clear to me over the course of 2021. I started researching art genres and artists and created a correspondingly long "buying list" of artists and works – somehow, it keeps getting longer instead of shorter.

Glitch Morning by Itzel Yard, 2022

2. KV: How do you decide which pieces to add to your collection?

A4: As with other investments, in my decision-making process, I incorporate experience, research, as well as my gut feeling.. An artwork must have an impact when viewed. I have a collecting strategy in mind, and depending on the price and the theme I’m currently engaged with, I then make the decision for a particular piece.

OG flowers #10 by Cornelia Sollfrank, 2022

3. KV: What role does personal taste play versus investment potential when acquiring art?

A4: Even in the digital art market on blockchains, it’s all about supply and demand. Fortunately, many of those who shaped the demand in the past were merely monetarily motivated and are now busy with topics other than art. In my opinion, the current environment offers long-term art collectors a great opportunity to combine investment potential with personal taste in art purchases. I wouldn’t acquire a work if it didn’t appeal to me aesthetically. Currently, I believe there is an opportunity to build a significant collection. Art is certainly an asset class, but I have no intention of ever selling the collection. Optimizing it in terms of quality and personal taste is more appealing to me in this context.

[[[vessel_within_vessel_0099]]] by Sofia Crespo, 2019

4. KV: How would you define your collection?

A4: “Diverse” probably describes it best. In the beginning, I was mainly interested in works that were in motion. Later, a specific idea of collecting took the forefront. It was about focusing not just on artists and genres but also on social issues. When I acquire a work of art, I know exactly how it can be presented to the public one day. In the early days, I acquired works by Itzel Yard, Sofia Crespo, Jen Stark, Sarah Zucker, and Sabrina Ratté. Not because I intentionally wanted to focus on works by female artists, but because I liked the art. This naturally led to a more conscious effort to include works by female artists in my collection. I believe it’s important to show that the space is not just dominated by a “bro culture.” It’s about acceptance and appreciation of art, which is why I also made purchases on International Women’s Day (e.g., Helena Sarin) in March this year. Besides that, there are many other wonderful themes and genres I’m passionate about.

Wavelength by Jen Stark, 2021

5. KV: Can you share a story behind one of your most cherished pieces?

A4: I don’t know if it’s one of the most valuable artworks, but it was my first commissioned piece, and it holds a special meaning for me: Interdependence Day by Sarah Zucker. The initial idea came from me asking if Sarah Zucker could create a piece related to one of the UN SDGs. Sarah chose "Life on Land" and interpreted it in her characteristic and, in my opinion, captivating way. We then arranged a minting date – which was very exciting and new for me at the time. 

Interdependence Day by Sarah Zucker,2021

6. KV: How do you evaluate the authenticity and provenance of digital art in your collection?

A4: I believe blockchain is the best proof of authenticity one can imagine. Tokenization of real-world assets and investment funds on the blockchain show that this is just the beginning. On CT, you often see “maxis” of certain blockchain ecosystems; I’m personally not a fan of that. I believe that different blockchains will coexist. In my opinion, many good artists are active on Tezos; anyone interested in art will surely find something there. “Here for the Art” was the slogan for many. I hope that the provenance of Tezos will gain a similar standing as Ethereum’s; it would certainly be a win for the art world. 

Monogrid 1.1 CE, 2022 by Kim Asendorf

7. KV: What trends do you see currently shaping the art market?

A4: Currently, it’s mainly about AI and the marketing of early AI art and bringing it onto the blockchain. Getting into this topic requires a lot of time. Should one start with CNN, RNN, or GAN? Is it about the artists or the creators of the technology? How is the model trained? Which applications are being used? I don’t think there’s a right or wrong here. I’ve found my own path: I like art that is recognizable as such and has a unique character. The art that has its own character and appeals to me. I try to build my own style of collection, which I think I’m doing quite well.

Deeper Meditations #1, 2021 by Memo Akten

8. KV: How do you balance supporting emerging artists with acquiring established works?

A4: If I like something or find it meaningful, I acquire it, regardless of its fame. I believe my portfolio has a healthy mix. I still remember the first purchases of Kim Asendorf or Leander Herzog. Both were special. I could watch Kim Asendorf’s pixel sorting forever; Alps by Leander Herzog also spoke to me as someone who loves the Alps but also minimalism. I think very few people on CT knew these names back then. But were these artists up-and-coming or already established? Perhaps up-and-coming for CT, but already established for some curators. 

Alp 1637543494, 2021 by Leander Herzog

9. KV: How do you see the role of NFTs in the evolution of digital art collecting?

A4: For me, ownership of digital assets is the new zeitgeist that most people haven’t yet grasped—neither with Bitcoin nor with NFTs concerning digital art. I am firmly convinced that traditional art collectors will increasingly engage with this topic. In my opinion, we are still very early in the development phase. The significance and value of a collection acquired today will only become evident in decades. 

The Prophecy, 2020 by Osinachi

10. KV: What challenges have you faced as an art collector?

A4: As I mentioned earlier, many market participants in the past (and CT loudspeakers) presented themselves as purely financially driven. Their passion is not art, but gambling. The current market is thus undergoing a cleansing process. As a result, many artists currently face only a few long-term oriented collectors, whose purchasing power is not unlimited. Neither is mine, which means that I always have to reassess my buying list in terms of the prioritization of works. In my opinion, the digital art market will emerge stronger from this. 

Sun Spot, 2021 by Zach Lieberman

11. KV: How do you see the relationship between digital art and physical spaces, such as galleries or museums, evolving in the future?

A4: I hope that children in schools will be introduced to the blockchain medium at an early stage. This can happen in IT classes, economic policy courses, or even in art classes. Schools as exhibition spaces would be a great first step. It would generate interest and awareness. The more digital our society becomes, the more I see the need for physical spaces to display art. I have no doubt that new museums focusing on digital art will emerge. However, it’s capital-intensive if the presentation is to be appropriate for the occasion. Impressive private collections are currently being assembled and will certainly be presented at some point.

No 700 V.26, 2022 by Krista Kim

12. KV: One last question—what inspired you to come up with the name "antagonist4ever"? Does it hold any special significance related to your collection style or artistic vision? I'd love to hear the story behind it!

A4: I am “antagonist4ever” because I see myself as a quiet yet determined forward-thinker. My decisions don’t have to be loud or dramatic – but they are always thoughtful, focused, and driven by a vision that goes beyond the obvious. Both art and life sometimes require exactly this: the willingness to swim against the current, to be bold, and to walk your own path while thinking in more than just two dimensions, discovering possibilities that others might overlook.  

1111 #0464, 2021 by Kevin Abosch

***

*The responses provided in this interview have been preserved in their original form, with no alterations to the interviewee's stylistic choices or grammar. - Kate Vass

antagonist4ever on X: @antagonist4ever

Collection links:

https://deca.art/Antagonist4ever/1of1

https://deca.art/Antagonist4ever/women4rt

https://deca.art/Antagonist4ever/gen-4rt

https://deca.art/Antagonist4ever/4i-4rt

The Interview I Art Collector seedphrase

Kate Vass is excited to continue her exploration of the evolving role of collectors in the digital art world by sitting down with one of the most prominent figures in the Web3: Daniel Maegaard aka Seedphrase. In this interview, Kate seeks to delve deeper into the shifting landscape of art, where digital identity, ownership, and creativity are being redefined by blockchain technology and NFTs.

Seedphrase, known for his early investment in rare CryptoPunks, has emerged as a leading voice in this movement. His journey began in 2013, and his conviction in NFTs as both art and identity has only grown. One of his most notable acquisitions is the iconic "seven-trait" CryptoPunk, which has become a symbol of his brand. His commitment to the space extends beyond collecting, as he also explores music, gaming, and the fashion world, all connected to his digital presence.

Through this conversation, Kate Vass explores what drives Seedphrase’s passion for NFTs, his views on the cultural significance of digital art, and how he sees the future of Web3 collectors in reshaping the art market

Daniel Maegaard aka Seedphrase

KV: What is your earliest memory of engaging with art, and what motivated you to start collecting?

SP: From a young age, I was deeply captivated by art. I attended art classes in school and made it a priority to visit exhibitions and galleries, which enriched my cultural understanding. However, it wasn’t until late 2018 that I began to see art as more than just a passion—it became an investment. The emergence of digital art on the blockchain opened my eyes to new possibilities beyond traditional canvases. Witnessing the significant appreciation of my digital art investments in the following years inspired me to refine my approach and build a collection that has since become well-known.

“Autoglyph #149” by Larva Labs (Daniel Maegaard's Collection)

KV: When did you begin collecting NFTs, and does it relate to your background in any way?

SP: As a teenager, I spent a lot of time online, often immersed in video games alongside my studies. This naturally led me to discover crypto, especially as Bitcoin started gaining attention in forums and the news in early 2013. By the time Ethereum NFTs emerged in 2017, I was already a seasoned crypto enthusiast with over four years of experience in the space. Initially, I didn’t fully grasp the significance of pixels on the blockchain, as I was more focused on the liquidity and volatility of coins. However, my background in gaming made me keenly aware of the potential for NFTs to gamify digital economies. The realization of how NFTs could leverage their non-fungible nature to build unique digital ecosystems was a lightbulb moment for me. This insight gave me the confidence to start building an NFT collection alongside my crypto portfolio.

KV: What was the first NFT piece that you acquired for your collection, and why that particular one? 

SP: The first NFTs I acquired were Axie Infinity land parcels. My goal was to create a passive revenue stream, and I believed that land ownership within the game would be the most effective way to capitalize on its growth. This decision proved to be pivotal, as I became one of the largest landowners for many years as the game gained popularity. The revenue generated from this investment provided the additional capital needed to expand my digital art collection.

“Fidenza #456” by Tyler Hobbs (Daniel Maegaard's Collection)

KV: Your iconic CryptoPunk headpiece is a significant part of your identity. What does it symbolize in your life? 

SP: Seedphrase is more than just a profile picture; it’s the embodiment of The Maegaard Collection and a reflection of my journey in the Web3 space. It symbolizes the fluid and evolving nature of identity in the digital age—how we can craft and shape our personas in ways that transcend traditional boundaries. Through Seedphrase, I aim to inspire and connect with people both online and offline, using curation and art as the mediums to explore and express these new dimensions of self.

This headpiece serves as a beacon, guiding others into the mysterious and rapidly evolving world of Web3. It’s a reminder that in this space, identity is not fixed but malleable, allowing for endless possibilities of self-expression and creativity. Seedphrase encapsulates the pioneering spirit of the digital revolution, where art, technology, and identity converge to create something truly unique and transformative.

“CryptoPunk #8348” by Larva Labs (Daniel Maegaard's Collection)

KV: Your collection varies greatly in terms of taste and style, incorporating crypto, generative, and AI artworks. What is your main approach when selecting an artwork for purchase?

SP: Having built my career on investing in crypto fundamentals, I’ve applied the same rigorous approach to my digital art collection. My primary focus is on the historical and cultural significance of each piece, as I believe these factors are key to creating a collection that stands the test of time.

For instance, I invested $150,000 in a complete set of 10 Autoglyphs, despite the significant premium at the time. I recognized that owning the first-ever onchain generative art collection was essential for establishing a truly impactful collection. Similarly, I acquired a full set of AlignDraw Paper Prompts, the first-ever text-to-image AI prompts, because I understood their pioneering role in the evolution of AI-driven art.

In essence, my approach is guided by a deep appreciation for the transformative milestones within the digital art space. I seek out artworks that not only resonate with me personally but also hold the potential to shape the future narrative of digital and generative art.

“RAREPEPE #263 - Series 1 Card 1 - The Nakamoto Card” (Daniel Maegaard's Collection)

KV: Could you elaborate on your current 'collecting style' and how it has evolved? Is there a consistent theme, element, or style that ties all the works in your collection together?

SP: My collecting style has evolved significantly, reflecting both market trends and my own expanding interests. Initially, my focus was on gaming-related NFTs, driven by their potential for long-term passive income and the emerging concept of play-to-earn, which I foresaw as a major catalyst for mass adoption in the crypto space. This early investment strategy still generates returns today and laid the foundation for my collection.

As the NFT space evolved, I began to notice the growing trend of using NFTs as profile pictures, which naturally led me to CryptoPunks. Immersing myself in the CryptoPunks community, especially within the early Discord, was pivotal. It was here that I connected with pioneers like Snowfro, VonMises, NateAlex, and others who introduced me to the significance of generative art. This new understanding guided me to Autoglyphs and the early projects on Art Blocks, marking a shift in my focus towards the intersection of art and algorithm.

By the end of 2020, Nifty Gateway was gaining prominence in the digital art space, which inspired me to start collecting works from leading digital artists—those who would go on to define the industry. Around this period, my interest in AI art began to grow as well, leading me to acquire pieces from artists like Refik Anadol and DeepBlack. However, it wasn’t until recently that I experienced another lightbulb moment, prompting me to significantly increase my investments in early AI works, recognizing their potential impact on the world of art.

The consistent thread that ties my collection together is my commitment to pieces that represent significant milestones in the evolution of digital and generative art. Whether it's the early play-to-earn gaming assets, iconic profile picture NFTs, pioneering generative art, or groundbreaking AI creations, each piece in my collection embodies a pivotal moment in the digital art landscape. My collection is a testament to the transformative power of these technologies and their ability to reshape the way we create, collect, and perceive art.

“Winds of Yawanawa #464” by Yawanawa & Refik Anadol (Daniel Maegaard's Collection)

KV: What sparked your new interest in collecting AI art, and why did you decide to start acquiring these pieces?

SP: I initially dabbled in AI art a few years ago, but it remained a relatively small part of my collection. However, everything changed with the release of ChatGPT 3.5. This marked a turning point for me, as I quickly realized that AI is poised to fundamentally alter the fabric of our lives. Whether we embrace it or resist it, AI is going to impact every single person on the planet in some capacity.

Understanding the profound implications of this technology, I began to see AI art not just as an emerging medium but as a historical artifact of a pivotal moment in human evolution. I recognized that future generations will likely look back and ask, "Where did it all begin?" And art, with its timeless ability to capture and reflect societal shifts, will be one of the most powerful ways to trace that history.

This realization compelled me to start heavily investing in AI art. I’m fascinated by how AI can push the boundaries of creativity, offering new forms of expression that were previously unimaginable. By acquiring these pieces, I’m not only supporting the artists who are pioneering this frontier but also preserving a critical chapter in the ongoing story of technology and human creativity. AI art represents the intersection of art and innovation, and I’m excited to be part of its evolution.

KV: Which piece in your collection are you most proud of, and why?

SP: There are a few pieces in my collection that I hold in particularly high regard: CryptoPunk #8348, Autoglyph #149, also known as "The Bear Glyph," Rare Pepe "Nakamoto Card" and my complete set of AlignDraw paper prompts. Each of these pieces represents a significant cultural or technological milestone in the digital art world.

The Rare Pepe "Nakamoto Card" holds profound significance within the digital art and blockchain space. It stands as an early exemplar of the intersection between meme culture and technological innovation. Minted on the Counterparty protocol in 2016, this particular card is both a cultural artifact and a rare collectible; symbolizing Satoshi Nakamoto's legacy while pioneering the concept of digital ownership. Its scarcity, combined with its historical importance, makes it an essential piece in the narrative of NFT evolution and the broader discourse on digital art.

CryptoPunk #8348 is especially meaningful because it was part of the pioneering wave that sparked the entire profile picture (PFP) collection craze. It’s not just a digital avatar; it’s a symbol of the early days of NFTs and the birth of a new cultural movement.

Autoglyph #149, "The Bear Glyph," is another piece I’m immensely proud of. Autoglyphs are the first on-chain generative art series, marking a technological achievement in the art world. The fact that these artworks are created and stored entirely on the blockchain sets them apart as a true innovation in digital art.

Finally, my full set of AlignDraw paper prompts holds a special place in my collection as they represent the earliest examples of text-to-image AI art. These pieces are at the forefront of the intersection between artificial intelligence and creative expression, showcasing the potential for new forms of art that blend technology and imagination.

Together, these works embody the cultural shifts and technological advancements that define the digital art landscape, and I’m proud to be a steward of these pivotal pieces.

"A yellow school bus is flying in blue skies #84" - alignDRAW (Daniel Maegaard's Collection)

KV: As an advocate for musical expression through NFTs, how do you see the potential of music as NFTs in this space? What unique opportunities do NFTs offer to musicians and the music industry?

SP: Music has always been a powerful force for bringing people together, and I believe that music NFTs have the potential to extend this tradition into the digital age in unprecedented ways. Even in a world where music is more accessible than ever, fans still crave deeper connections with their favorite artists. Music NFTs offer a revolutionary way to facilitate these connections, creating new avenues for fan interaction that were previously unimaginable.

With music NFTs, fans can gain exclusive benefits like early access to concerts, limited-edition merchandise, and even opportunities to go backstage or interact directly with the artist. These digital tokens transform the traditional fan-artist relationship, turning it into a more interactive and personalized experience.

For musicians and labels, NFTs offer greater control over their work, bypassing traditional distribution channels and allowing them to directly reach their audience. Beyond monetization, NFTs can be used to build a dedicated community around the artist, fostering a sense of belonging among the most passionate fans. This direct engagement not only enhances the fan experience but also creates a sustainable ecosystem where artists can thrive independently.

In essence, music NFTs are more than just a new format for distributing music—they represent a transformative tool for artists to deepen their connection with their audience, create unique experiences, and ultimately, redefine the way we experience music in the digital world.

KV: What are your thoughts on NFTs that combine visual art with musical elements? Have you invested in any such pieces, and what potential do you see in this type of multimedia NFT?

SP: I'm a strong believer in the power of storytelling and its ability to ignite the imagination. Combining visual art with musical elements creates a richer, more immersive experience that resonates on multiple sensory levels. This fusion is a natural fit for Seedphrase, given my deep involvement in both the digital art world and music.

I’ve been experimenting with audio-visual NFTs for some time now, exploring how these mediums can enhance each other and create a more compelling narrative. One artist who has particularly inspired me is Anyma. His work exemplifies the seamless integration of music and visual art, and I’ve been fortunate to collect his work SuperRare.

I see immense potential in multimedia NFTs. They open up new avenues for artists to express their creativity and for collectors to engage with art in a more dynamic way. As the technology and platforms supporting these NFTs continue to evolve, I believe we’ll see even more innovative and impactful works that push the boundaries of both art and music.

“Gazers #402” by Matt Kane (Daniel Maegaard's Collection)

KV: What inspired the creation of your new song, “ANGELS", and how does this track connect with the Web3 communities and CryptoPunk? 

SP: "ANGELS" was deeply inspired by my formative experiences during my early days in the Web3 scene in Los Angeles. The time I spent there in 2021 and 2022 was pivotal in shaping both my personal journey and the evolution of my Seedphrase persona. Los Angeles became more than just a backdrop; it was the birthplace of my real-life identity as Seedphrase, a persona that bridges the worlds of mainstream culture and the Web3 community.

It was during this period that I had my iconic helmet crafted by the same talented team who created Marshmello's helmet—a symbolic piece that became central to my identity within the CryptoPunk and broader Web3 communities. Additionally, I forged key connections with industry leaders, including the music management team at ThreeSixZero, and signed with an agency, further solidifying my role as a cultural ambassador between traditional and digital worlds.

"ANGELS" captures the essence of this transformative chapter in my life. The track symbolizes the birth of Seedphrase as more than just a digital avatar—it represents the merging of music, art, and technology, embodying the spirit of innovation that drives the Web3 community. This song is a tribute to those early days in Los Angeles, where the vision of Seedphrase began to take shape, and where I first envisioned using music as a medium to connect and inspire both the Web3 community and the world beyond.

“The Answer” by Anyma (Daniel Maegaard's Collection)

KV: What are the biggest challenges you face in advocating for the digitization of high-end luxury goods?

SP: One of the biggest challenges in advocating for the digitization of high-end luxury goods is overcoming the gap in education and technology adoption. Many people still struggle to associate luxury with digital assets, as the concept of luxury has traditionally been tied to physical, tangible items. This is why we often see digital luxury goods paired with physical counterparts, where the digital twin offers additional utility or exclusive access.

However, the process of setting up digital wallets and managing self-custody remains a significant hurdle for many potential adopters. The complexity and unfamiliarity of these technologies can be intimidating, which slows down broader acceptance and integration into the luxury market.

As augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and other digital innovations continue to evolve, and as a digitally native generation begins to mature, the perception of what constitutes luxury will inevitably shift. While these changes are on the horizon, the current challenge lies in bridging the gap between traditional luxury consumers and the emerging digital landscape. It's a gradual process, but one that is essential for the future of luxury in an increasingly digitized world.

“Anticyclone #470” by William Mapan (Daniel Maegaard's Collection)

***

*The responses provided in this interview have been preserved in their original form, with no alterations to the interviewee's stylistic choices or grammar. - Kate Vass

Seedphrase on X: @seedphrase

Website: https://www.seedphrase.com

Collection link: https://opensea.io/DANNYSECURE

The Interview I Art Collector Zaphodok

In the shifting tides of both contemporary and digital art, one constant remains: the crucial influence of collectors. They are the architects of the ecosystem, molding and guiding its evolution with every acquisition. Their passion, foresight, and unwavering dedication don't just sustain artists—they actively propel the cultural trend. In a series of interviews, Kate Vass seeks to peel back the layers and get to the heart of what drives a new wave of collectors—their connections with artists and the deeper motivations behind their digital art collections.

In this discussion, we had the distinct pleasure of speaking with zaphodok, a passionate art collector who has been pushing the boundaries of art at the intersection of internet culture since the beginning. His collection, a treasure trove of generative and AI-driven works, offers a rare glimpse into the future of art.

We hope you find as much inspiration in this interview as we did in bringing it to you.

'Shower' by neurocolor, 2020

KV: Can you recall your first encounter with art and describe what motivated you to start collecting?

ZP: I'm afraid I cannot; the creative industries have been my natural habitat since a young age, and I am grateful to have been able to turn my innate passions into a career. The motivation to start collecting digital art specifically, stems from the fascination with the revolutionary underlying technology that allows us to do so in a native way.

KV: You began collecting digital art relatively early, starting in 2018. What inspired you to start collecting digital pieces?

ZP: The first non-fungible digital collectible I can think of was a documentation of one of my own analog works, minted on Bitcoin via Ascribe in mid-2015. Having been familiar with the concept of Colored Coins, I was drawn to Ascribe's innovative approach to authenticating creative works of any kind. It ultimately remained a one-time experiment.

Fast forward two years and a few months after going astray in the Cryptokitties craze, I dabbled into SuperRare. A publication platform and marketplace for digital art powered by Ethereum smart contracts with a simple and compelling value proposition for artists and collectors alike. Peer-to-peer trades between artist and collector, permissionless transfer of ownership, instant payments with magic internet money, and baked-in royalties on secondary sales, among other features were, an inspiring vision of a sustainable autonomous zone for art in the digital age.

‘AI Generated Nude Portrait #2’ by Robbie Barrat, 2018

KV: Do you have any formal education in technology, finance or art? Do you collect items other than digital art?

ZP:I am an architect, artist, and educator with over two decades of work experience. In 2020, I left my tenured academic position to prioritize family matters and my newfound passion for art on the blockchain. I do not collect items other than digital art except a few analog companion pieces, oddly labeled as “phygital”.

‘Learning Nature (b59b,8282,15)’ by David Young, 2019

KV: How did you acquire the very first piece in your collection, and what was this work?

ZP: It was on April 28th, 2018, at 4:50 PM UTC (had to look this up on the blockchain), that I was determined to buy a tokenized artwork on SuperRare. Browsing through the nearly one hundred highly diverse pieces available felt like taking a walk on the wild side. Eventually, I left-click-bought a digital painting entitled 'Ship' showing a tanker sinking or cruising in the desert, created by an anonymous internet artist. For a brief moment the surreal subject matter brought to mind 'Aircraft Carrier City in Landscape', a provocative project by Austrian architect Hans Hollein from the early 1960s. But I didn't bother with any further research or classification whatsoever; I was simply relieved that the wallet successfully processed the transaction and that the piece appeared in my wallet address on Etherscan. To be honest, even with a decent understanding of the underlying tech, the notion of spending 0.1 ETH (around $68 at the time) on a JPEG from the internet was quite intimidating.

Aircraft Carrier City in Landscape project, Exterior perspective by Hans Hollein , 1964, copyright @MoMA

KV: What defines your collecting style? Is there a common theme or element that unites your collection?

ZP: I embarked on this journey with an open mind, and no expectations, and allowed myself to be drawn into this new realm of digital collecting. When I approach artworks, I don’t typically experience a strong emotional response or get caught up in introspective contemplation. For the most part, I view them as critical, thought-provoking vessels of encoded knowledge, brought to life through the most radical form of human expression. As Florian Schneider, a former member of the electronic band Kraftwerk, remarked, "If I wasn't making music, I could just say it" highlighting the unique property of artistic practice to convey what ought to be said in a way that language alone cannot. I am currently exploring various thematic avenues, including medium nativity, EVM art, renitent systems, and historical digital art. However, I believe the unifying theme of my collection is the pursuit of art as a catalyst for creating new perceptual and conceptual categories in the digital age.

‘You Are Here 68719476735’ by 0xfff, 2024

KV: How do you see your role as a collector in the space and how did your collecting style evolve over the last 6-7 years?

ZP: As an advocate of cypherpunk values and ideals, I prefer to maintain a low public profile. If cypherpunks are touted to write code, then collecting art is my humble contribution to timestamp the associated ideals on the blockchain. I do not define myself by any specific role. Every now and then, people approach me and credit me with integrity and good instincts, which is more of a compliment than I could wish for.

Just as no man ever steps in the same river twice, collecting is a dynamic and iterative process. It’s a journey that demands curiosity and the courage to evolve and grow. As I encounter new artists, curators, and collectors, I find myself drawn to their unique perspectives and experiences. Throughout this ongoing journey, I strive to keep a balance between open-mindedness, experimentation, and a commitment to the core values of the Cryptoart movement.

KV: If you had to highlight one or two artists or an artwork from your collection, who would they be and why?

ZP: Rhea Myers’ “Is Art” (2014). A piece that represents the epitome of blockchain sculpture, a minimalist test install of Cryptoart, on the test fabric of Ethereum, anticipating the main properties of smart contracts and digital ownership on an open permissionless world computer. All of Rhea's works are, first and foremost, a delight for the synapses.

Anna Ridler’s “Bloemeveiling”(2019). There is nothing to be seen here, nothing to look at or listen to. A series of tokenized, tantalizing AI-generated tulips that wither and die the moment you gaze upon them is just a poor digest of the critical depth, the historical references, and the overall brilliant execution. A masterpiece that I was fortunate enough to witness at the time it took place.

(After watching the Tulip for one week, the smart contract automatically burned the token from the owner's wallet - Burn transaction)

‘Bloemenveiling (Tulip #25)’ by Anna Ridler & David Pfau, 2019

KV: Could you share a memorable story from your collecting experience, perhaps a funny/sad story, or a near miss?

ZP: A memorable story happened during the 2018 Christie's Art+Tech Summit in London. After announcing it on Twitter some weeks prior and twice earlier on the day of the event, Jason Bailey informed the audience during the concluding panel that the gift cards containing the tokenized artworks by Robbie Barrat could be found in the giveaway bags at the entrance—one bag for each participant. As an admirer and early collector of Robbies’ work on SuperRare I looked around the room, but there was zero reaction from the audience. I got up, quietly left the conference room, grabbed my belongings, and hurried down the stairs. The bags were lined up on the counter, with no one else around. I politely asked the receptionist if I could possibly have four of them. She agreed with a smile. I quickly disposed of the unnecessary inserts in a nearby park and rushed back to my hotel room to redeem four frames of “AI Generated Nude Portrait #7” which later became the lore of “The Lost Robbies”.

It wasn't until weeks later, after the initial excitement had faded, that I realized I had claimed more pieces than I should have. To truly preserve the value of an artwork in a decentralized network, its stewardship must also be distributed—one bag, one participant, and one pair of shoulders. With this idealistic conviction, I set out to divest the excess pieces. I donated one to XCOPY's 2019 charity auction through his XERO Gallery and later sold two others for a modest sum to well-known collectors. However, the remaining piece is a permanent fixture in my collection, never to be parted with.

KV: Have you ever collaborated with artists or other collectors in the NFT space? Can you share a particularly meaningful experience?

ZP: Since 2019, I have been involved in various blockchain art projects, both as a member of multidisciplinary teams and as an advisor to curators and institutions. I've also commissioned several pieces from artists. However, I have yet to collaborate with fellow collectors in a way that feels truly meaningful and productive. I plan to prioritize this in the months and years ahead. Nevertheless, the most enduring experiences will always be those in-person occasions when people from the space come together and share a good time.

'@XCOPYART 2021-02-13 13:26:35', 2021

KV: Where do you see the future of the digital art market heading?

ZP: Industry reports indicate that, compared to the traditional art market dominated by analog art forms, media arts remain still niche and insular. How can one expect that the 2021 NFT hype would make any difference in this dynamic? However, the growing awareness of digital assets, demographics, efforts in financial and digital literacy, and innovations in showcasing technologies i.e. are likely to contribute to a broader acceptance of born-digital art forms. It is reasonable to expect the current active web3 user base to increase substantially over the next decade. The writing is on the wall of the Vienna Secession Building "To each age its art, to art its freedom", a reminder of the inevitable evolution of artistic expression alongside human progress.

'CENTS' by Rutherford Chang, 2024

KV: They suggest that the traditional art world's reluctance to embrace digital culture stems from the challenges of integrating digital aspects into everyday life. How do you exhibit your collection? Are there any pieces that are always on display in your home, and if so, how do you present them?

ZP: There is arguably a need for suitable display solutions for native digital art, to evolve beyond its tech-savvy niche status and appeal to a broader audience. The current state of the market, with start-ups experimenting with subpar technology, established screen providers lacking cultural understanding, and high-end products with short lifespans, fails to meet the needs of this space.

In my personal IRL environment, I use a couple of NFT art screens for curated playlists, along with some self-assembled devices for real-time screen-based works, complemented by a few prints and analog collectibles. However, the vast majority of pieces have not had the chance to adequately see the light of day in my home.

‘Tokens Equal Text 21’ by Rhea Myers, 2021

***

*The responses provided in this interview have been preserved in their original form, with no alterations to the interviewee's stylistic choices or grammar. - Kate Vass

zaphodok on X: @zaphodok

Website: https://zaphodok.art

Collection link: https://gallery.so/zaphodok

The Interview I Art Collector TaCyTurn

Collecting art isn't just about acquiring objects; it's about curating stories that enrich our cultural tapestry. Collectors are the custodians of creativity, preserving and promoting the voices of artists who shape our understanding of the world. Their passion fuels a dynamic exchange where art transcends mere decoration to become a reflection of our shared human experience.

Through a series of interviews, Kate Vass seeks to understand the perspectives of a new generation of collectors, the relationships they build with artists, and what drives the formation of their collections.

In this conversation, Kate Vass had the pleasure of speaking with the art collector, aka, TaCyTurn, the degenerative Maths Lover, creator, and member of @fingerprintsDAO.

payaso, 2021 by Manoloide on hicetnunc

KV: What initially sparked your interest in art collecting?

TT: As a young kid in the 80’s, I’ve been fascinated by computers, programming, and graphics.

I started to play around with BASIC language and was triggered by graphics and animation created by demo scene creators, especially on Amiga or Atari…

But for 30 years I built my career and family and although I grew up with the internet, I didn’t pursue that much this path.

Then in 2017, I discovered Bitcoin and blockchains and honestly, I took a slap in my face!

How was it possible I didn’t find out about this earlier!!!

I spent some time in this rabbit hole, fascinated both by the technology but also the opportunity of making big money. sometimes I came across digital Art during this period: Money Alotta, Rare Pepes, Cryptopunks … but didn’t pay attention.

Then in early 2021, Beeple’s infamous sales ignited the NFT mania and then I discovered generative Art ...and took a second slap! I got back the tech, maths, and computer graphics vibes I loved 30 years ago and I happily dived into the so-called “NFT space”, on Ethereum and on Tezos with HicetNunc ( fun fact, I minted myself an artwork before collecting my first … hen #365 ).

KV: How do you decide which pieces to add to your collection?

TT: As a mathematics lover, I’m very attracted by pieces that play, and highlight the beauty of maths, whether the form: geometric, conceptual, or algorithmic, …

But my main interests are experimentation, technology, roughness, and weirdness … and of course my guts!

 CSRSNT-CAAI-066-of-128, 2021 by Caesuras

KV: What role does personal taste play versus investment potential when acquiring art?

TT: Way too much, lol !!!

I mean I collected a lot of pieces only because they are appealing to me, without overthinking.

I rarely buy pieces just for investment potential, although I’m convinced a lot of pieces and artists will become valuable in the long term.

Digital Zone of Immaterial Pictorial Sensibility, Series 3, Edition 54 by Mitchell F Chan

KV: Can you share a story behind one of your most cherished pieces?

TT: In March 2021, I discovered DEAFBEEF’s art @_deafbeef. He was just beginning at the time and not much was known.

I jumped into his discord, and then he organized a giveaway for a SYNTHPOEM. I will always remember that morning when I woke up and saw a discord notification and a new Direct message from Tyler: «  Hey you won, pls send me your ETH add » !!! This SYNTHPOEM allowed me a few times later to collect a GLITCHBOX, which is one of my favorite artworks and I became very involved in DEAFBEEF’s community, using his artworks to make experiments like “the Glitchbox Orchestra”. The story could end there but …

In 2021, I also discovered Mitchell F Chan's Digital Zone of pictorial. Reading the blue essay was a blast and triggered me so much that I translated it into French.  

In November 2022, Mitch announced the release of a gorgeous physical Blue Book for each token holder … Then my goal of acquiring a Digital Zone became an obsession. For 2 years, I asked several owners if they would agree to swap their Digital Zone for my Deafbeef SYNTHPOEM. I was surprised a handful were interested but according to the price gap were asking me to add some ETH …

Finally, in May 2024, another collector agreed to swap 1 vs 1 and with the help of Mitchell himself we processed the deal, and I am finally the proud owner of IKB 54.

I find it very telling and ironic that 2 of my most valuable pieces were gifted to me for free.

Glitchbox 205, 2021 by Deafbeef

KV: How has your collection evolved?

TT: My collecting volume has slowed down in 2023/2024, but I’m happy still to be able to acquire great artworks and opportunities when they appear.
fx(hash) and objkt.com are goldmines and allow me to discover and collect amazing pieces with a low budget. Verse is also a major platform for me.

I’m also more patient and can wait months, or years to collect a piece I’m eyeing. So in a word, I would say I'm more selective.

KV: What trends do you see currently shaping the art market?

TT: AI art, early or recent is a major trend right now, as it accompanies a ground-breaking emerging technology …

Generative Art hype is down from the @artblocks_io  2021 craze, and I feel a lot of collectors feel bored and worn, they believe everything has been made and there are no more surprises or innovations left… I’m convinced that artists will prove them wrong.

Last, I consider « net Art » ( Art that plays with the Internet )  and « blockchain Art » ( Art that plays with blockchains ) are for the moment very sharp niches with few artists and way few collectors but will gain traction and importance over the years.

Dining with Piranhas- All-They-Can-Eat Swimming Pool and Restaurant, 2021 by Helena Sarin

KV: How do you balance supporting emerging artists with acquiring established works?

TT: As a very early bird on Hicetnunc, supporting anonymous/emerging artists has always been part of my collecting habits.

Now, I’m still trying to balance my collection in volume, but the ratio in value is almost established by artists.

KV: How does the digital art world, including Crypto Art, influence your collecting habits?

TT: The main influence on my collecting behavior comes from friends, some artists I love, and a few institutions like LeRandomart, Verse.works, Feral File, Kate Vass Galerie …

In all that abundance of information and noise, they’re lighthouses that help me to keep track of what really cares for me and learn.

Anticyclone #470 by William Mapan (Seedphrase Collection)

KV: What challenges have you faced as an art collector?

TT: Funding is a major challenge as my pockets aren’t that deep and I rarely play the speculation game …

But for me, the main challenge now is to organize, curate, and build a beautiful and meaningful gallery where others could enjoy and appreciate the 20-30% pieces of my collection I want to display.

I know and have tried a lot of platforms: DECA gallery, oncyber, …

But it is really a hard and very time-consuming task to do …

A very good example of a perfectly displayed and organized gallery is @lemonde2d DECA gallery.

I hope I will soon find time and inspiration to pursue my own.

KV: What advice would you give to someone just starting their art collection? Can you recall your first encounter with art and describe what motivated you to start collecting?

TT: I think Artnome's infamous quote perfectly sums it all:

‘BUY ART YOU LOVE, from artists that you want to see succeed, for prices you can afford, with the assumption that you'll never be able to resell it again, and you will always be happy’ - Artnome

Also, I would add to find your thesis, your guiding line (whether it’s a theme, a technology, etc …) that will drive you and help you to grow your collection and stay focused in this ocean of digital art pieces …
For example, I would label mine as «an experimentation in technologies »

Lethologica #2 - There's No Going Back by Ryan Thompson

KV: What matters most to you as a collector? Is it a curated program or clear provenance? Or perhaps the work needs to be on-chain and on a specific blockchain like Ethereum or Tezos?

TT: I value a lot of experiments in the artwork or artist’s process, and for sure the fact that the artwork is on-chain is a major plus for me.

I’d say I'm chain agnostic in theory, but, in reality, it’s so hard and time-consuming to keep track of all platforms and wallets so I‘m mostly collecting only on Ethereum, Tezos, and Bitcoin/Ordinals …

Finally, I would like to mention that a side effect of collecting digital art is that I started to create myself with maths, code and lately code+AI.

I'm very happy and proud to be able to express myself with these artworks.

Also, to experience the joy of being collected by others.

And last, releasing a long-form generative series made me realize even more the difficulty and beauty of such collections: finding, and tweaking the good set of parameters to find the sweet spot where there are consistent outputs but diversity and variance are so too!

***

*The responses provided in this interview have been preserved in their original form, with no alterations to the interviewee's stylistic choices or grammar. - Kate Vass

TaCyTurn on X: @TacyTurnh

The Interview I Art Collector Jediwolf

Truly great collectors don't just aim to make money; they strive to live with major masterpieces, discover the work, and integrate it into their life experiences. The role of the art collector has always been crucial; without them, the art world wouldn't function, and artists wouldn't survive. Even the most impressive art museums owe much of their grandeur to donations from individual collectors.

Through a series of interviews, Kate Vass seeks to understand the perspectives of a new generation of collectors, the relationships they build with artists, and what drives the formation of their collections.

In this discussion, Kate Vass had the privilege to interview Jediwolf, a collector with a vision and dedication to collecting digital art on-chain. Jediwolf has significantly contributed to the provenance of early GANs creations. In a relatively short period, he has built an impressive UnderTheGAN collection, which focuses on early AI artworks verified by their tokenized nature. His influence in the digital art space is notable, particularly for his passion for the artist XCopy and his role in the formation of one of the most successful DAOs, The Doomed DAO.

We are fortunate to be the first to interview Jediwolf, who typically prefers to remain anonymous. Jediwolf describes his early love for art and his journey into collecting digital pieces, as his collection aims to honor the pioneers of AI art, emphasizing the critical need to understand and preserve the origins and evolution of this art form within the digital and blockchain realms. We hope you enjoy the conversation as much as we did.

Robbie Barrat, AI Generated Nude Portrait #7 Frame #163, 2018 ( Jediwolf’s the UnderTheGAN Collection )

KV: What's your earliest memory of art, and what led you to start collecting?

JW: I've been a collector since an early age. As a teenager, I acquired my first oil paintings online. They weren't expensive, but I adored them. Marine art resonated with me the most, and paintings by artists such as J.M.W. Turner and Ivan Aivazovsky were, and still are, breathtaking to me. Although I couldn't afford to buy their works, they were my first true love in the world of art.

Ivan Aivazovsky, The Sea. Koktebel, 1853

KV: What constitutes “art”? What makes a work of art – “art” from your perspective?

JW: You know, art and its perception is totally a personal thing. It's like... imagine you've got this secret, beautiful tune playing in your head when you look at something. The louder that song plays, the more the art hits home. It's tough to put into words, but I think it just clicks on a subconscious level. Everyone has their own 'song', I believe.

KV: How did you acquire the very first piece in your collection?

JW: My collection mainly consists of @XCOPYART art (overeXposed collection) and early AI art (UnderTheGAN collection). The first XCOPY piece in my collection was 'Taxmen' 2019, 20/20 KO edition, acquired in May 2022.

XCOPY, Taxmen, 2019, Edition: 20/20 KO ( Jediwolf’s Collection )

KV: How would you describe yourself as an art collector?

JW: I see myself as a curator-collector and researcher. I'm learning to trust my intuition, especially when it comes to collecting, and not just following the crowd. It's fine to follow others when it helps you discover new things and learn, but if you're doing it just for speculation, there's a good chance it won't work out. After all, the art market is incredibly tough to speculate in.

KV: What defines your collecting style?

JW: I would describe my collecting style as 'counter-intuitive’. Generally, I prefer to buy works that resonate with me but aren't yet in the spotlight. For example, I started collecting XCopy early editions in 2022 (after the NFT bubble burst, and I was the only 'big' buyer for quite a long time) and early AI art in 2023 (probably spending the largest amount of funds in this genre as an individual collector), both of which weren't obvious choices for most participants in the blockchain-based art space.

David Young, Learning Nature (b38,2555,3), 2018 ( Jediwolf’s the UnderTheGAN Collection )

KV: Have your reasons for collecting art evolved over time?

JW: Again, this motivation is hard to explain as, for me, it works on a subconscious level. When I see a piece that resonates with me and fits my collection, it becomes a bit of an obsession. It's something built into me, and I don't think it will ever change. However, curating my own collections, improving them, and supporting others gives me a lot of joy, and it's a somewhat new experience. The Doomed DAO is also a cool example of a mutual initiative where we collect XCOPY art as a group of over 120 people. I was one of the founding members.

KV: Describe your collection in three words.

Built with love.

KV: Is there a common theme or element that unites all the works in your collection?

JW: For my UnderTheGAN collection, I've focused specifically on 'early' AI art, created a few years before Midjourney and Stable Diffusion were released and before this 'genre' exploded beyond imagination. There are absolutely fantastic artists and pioneers who were training their own advanced AI models (2014-2019), putting lots of heart and soul into the process when no one really knew 'AI art' was even possible. I can see and feel it in each of these works.

KV: Do you have relevant education in tech or art? Do you pursue other hobbies or collect other things, and if so, why?

JW: For all my professional life, I've been in tech, and it probably made it a bit easier for me to understand tokenized/blockchain-based art faster than many other trad art collectors out there. I believe that eventually, we will reach a mass adoption where digital / blockchain-based art will be as 'normal' as trad art in the average person's perception. I would even say that youth will enter the art world through digital art, so I expect a major shift here. The reasons are quite obvious, I believe.

KV: What aspect of collecting do you enjoy the most?

JW: Probably the chasing aspect. Once I discover a work I really like, I do the research and conclude that it's something I really want to possess. The chasing part that comes next is definitely the most exciting. The acquisition journey (which can be very long, if it happens at all) brings emotions that will stay with me forever

KV: Can you share a funny/sad story or a “the one that almost got away” story from your collecting experience?

JW: One of the most emotional moments for me was acquiring 'Last Selfie' in 2022. I had been pursuing it for months (with no success), as it was the most coveted XCOPY artwork in my eyes and resonated with me deeply. Then, out of the blue, it was listed at an unimaginable price for a 10/10 edition: 200 ETH (around $700k today). My hands were shaking as I prepared and transferred the funds. An hour later, I discovered it was the very first minted edition of 'Last Selfie' (#1). The joy I felt was indescribable, and even now, that joy remains.

XCOPY, Last Selfie, 2022 ( Jediwolf’s Collection )

KV: Could you tell us more about your UnderTheGAN collection? Do you plan something additional with your collection?

JW: UnderTheGAN isn't just a collection; it's my personal AI art research project, recently brought to life within the early AI art timeline on Ethereum.

Today, AI art has surpassed all our predictions and continues to evolve at a breathtaking pace. But for me, what's truly crucial is understanding its origins - tracing back to where it all began. A small group of AI art pioneers, including Robbie Barrat, Mario Klingemann, David Young, Gene Kogan, Bard Ionson, Pindar Van Arman, Memo Akten, Mike Tyka, Alexander Mordvintsev (and others) were the true godfathers of the AI art revolution we're witnessing today. My mission is to share the knowledge I've accumulated through my research, shining a light on these foundational figures and their groundbreaking work.

The Definitive Timeline of Early AI Art on ETH V1, courtesy of Jediwolf (https://x.com/randomcdog/status/1798340316967116897)

KV: What is the most recent piece of art you added to your collection and why?

JW: My most recent acquisition is 'Cats' by Alex Mordvintsev, the creator of DeepDream. This piece was generated in May 2015, predating the July 2015 open-source release of DeepDream's code. It took nine years to secure Google's permission for Alex to 'release' this artwork, and I'm immensely proud to be its owner.

'Cats' is unique in my collection as a "retroactive mint" - generated in 2015 but only minted in 2024. I typically avoid retroactively minted artworks unless they meet two crucial criteria: historical significance (such as being among the first DeepDream works ever generated) and strong provenance. In this case, both boxes are checked.

Alex Mordvintsev, Cats, 2015 ( Jediwolf’s the UnderTheGAN Collection )

KV: Has digitalization/blockchain changed the way you collect? Can you imagine collecting AI art without blockchain or NFTs?

JW: Yes, I must say I became very spoiled as a collector. The fact that you can trace the artwork from its inception, have 100% guaranteed authenticity, and can trade globally (and instantly) without any third-party risks takes a lot of burden off collectors' shoulders. It's hard to keep buying art IRL when blockchain is an alternative. So, I'd rather avoid it at this point, with some exceptions, of course. IYKYK

Robbie Barrat & Ronan Barrot, Infinite Skulls, 2019 ( Jediwolf’s the UnderTheGAN Collection )

KV: What or who has influenced you as a collector? Are there any collectors you admire or watch out for?

JW: Yes, there are many wonderful collectors whom I admire. If one is interested in early AI art, I recommend Zaphodok, Batsoupyum, WangXiang, Hackatao, 6529, TokenAngels, Coldie, Artonymousartifakt, Colborn and MOCA collections. For XCOPY - Liquid (@l1qu1d_), ModeratsArt, Cozomo, Krybharat and many others. What I appreciate most is their ability not only to appreciate art but also to have the conviction and guts to hold onto it through both good and bad times. All the individuals I've mentioned are remarkable collectors, and some of them are artists as well, which I find absolutely amazing.

KV: What has been your experience with the elitism associated with the art market, particularly in the realm of digital art? Do you believe the market for ‘grails’ is already well-developed?

JW: I must say it's quite well-developed. Many think NFTs are 'dead'. However, when you want to acquire a truly desired work such as a 'Lost Robbie' or one of XCOPY's top editions or 1/1s, you will have to pay Substantially, and there is no chance someone will 'dump it'. Also, the 'grail' buzzword is heavily overused. The number of artworks I personally perceive as grails is tiny and limited to only a few 'names' in the blockchain-based art space today.

KV: Where do you see the future of the digital art market heading?

JW: I believe the digital art market will eventually dwarf the traditional art market. However, this transformation won't happen overnight - it could take years, perhaps even more… The digital art space has its own masters and pioneers, figures who are pushing boundaries and redefining artistic expression. It's perfectly natural that it will take time for the broader world to recognize and appreciate their contributions.

KV: What are your top three pieces of advice for new collectors?

JW: Develop your own opinions. Aim to acquire pieces that are so rare and desirable that once you sell them, the opportunity to repurchase them is almost nonexistent. Acquire what you love and what is truly hard to obtain.

KV: What are your top three pieces of advice for artists?

JW: Sell only what you are proud of. Treat collectors as your ambassadors - there is a great power beneath each artwork held by an engaged collector. Be a collector of your own works.

***

Jediwolf on X: @randomcdog

Collection on Superrare: https://superrare.com/jediwolf

UnderTheGAN Collection: https://opensea.io/UnderTheGAN

The Art and Science of Alexander Mordvintsev

Alexander Mordvintsev is a researcher and artist based in Zurich, Switzerland. He is best known for creating the DeepDream algorithm, which was introduced in 2015 and marks a major milestone in AI image generation. DeepDream demonstrates how machines can assist in creating images that abstract reality in ways humans might not conceive on their own, offering a new way of seeing. It has since inspired a new wave of artists experimenting with AI. Apart from his significant contributions to this technology, Mordvintsev is also an active artist. In our article, we delve into both his invention and the beginning of his artistic journey. As we mark the 5th anniversary of our iconic “Automat und Mensch” exhibition, where we first showcased his creations, we are pleased to present a selection of his early pieces created before DeepDream was open-sourced (2015 July). These works, initially not offered for sale, are now available, providing collectors a rare chance to engage with an important moment in art and technology.

When Alexander was about six years old, father brought home an amazing thing: a computer and a bunch of books full of tiny programs that one could type in. Many of these programs displayed interesting geometric patterns on an old black-and-white TV that served as a monitor. That’s how Alex fell in love with computers and generative art. This was the beginning of an exciting journey full of meeting and learning about great people, discovering great ideas from the past, and observing recent developments. Simulations of emergent phenomena, when simple rules lead to complex and unpredictable behavior, were particularly exciting. Demoscene was another source of inspiration for Alexander and this interest culminated in the display of own work “The Flow” at an Assembly demo party in Helsinki in 2009. Soon after graduation from Saint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, Mechanics, and Optics Mordvintsev got heavily interested in Computer Vision. The challenge of teaching computers a skill that is so easy for us and so difficult for them was very deeply fascinating. After joining Google in 2014 Alexander got introduced to a modern generation of neural networks, and they certainly exceeded his expectations on what computers are capable of. This opened a new chapter for Alexander, in which he spent several years trying to figure out what’s going on inside. DeepDream happened to be one of the experiments trying to answer that question that got world attention.

Alexander Mordvintsev, Custard Apple, 2015/05

Alexander Mordvintsev Just before DeepDream: fractalization #3, 2015/04

At the time, Google led the field in neural network research with figures like Geoffrey Hinton and Jeff Dean, who headed the teams behind the Google Brain in Mountain View. In Mordvintsev’s initial years at Google, he studied key research papers and experimented with pre-trained recognition systems. He took advantage of Google's policy, which encourages employees to dedicate twenty percent of their work time to personally inspired projects, to delve into reverse-engineering image-trained neural networks. His goal was to unravel and visualize the inner workings of these technologies.

By early 2015, he had achieved some visually interesting results, but the true breakthrough came unexpectedly late on the night of May 18. Awakened from a nightmare at 2:00 am, he was inspired to start an experiment. When the experiment finally succeeded, he immediately shared the results on a company social network and then returned to sleep. The following morning, he received numerous comments from his colleagues at Google who quickly recognized the significance of his work. This initial interest in DeepDream was just the beginning of what would soon become a viral phenomenon.

Alexander Mordvintsev, DeepDream is like looking at the clouds, 2015/05 (Not for sale)

Mordvintsev's innovation allowed the computer some autonomy to "dream", thus revealing the complex and often surreal workings of its data processing. His experiment reversed the standard image recognition process in convolutional neural networks (ConvNets), primarily used for vision. These networks usually process images layer by layer, each interpreting and refining the data to construct a final image from basic shapes to detailed recognitions. Mordvintsev interrupted this forward processing to manipulate the mid-layers, coaxing the network to enhance and generate features from partial data, resulting in bizarre, hybrid creations. This exploration of neural networks' "hidden layers" provided valuable insights into their operation. Mordvintsev's work suggested a parallel between the function of these neural networks and human perception, both capable of identifying shapes and patterns where none explicitly exist. 

Alexander Mordvintsev, Father Cat, 2015/05

Alexander Mordvintsev DeepDream is looking for patterns everywhere #2, 2015/05

The final images that emerge from DeepDream are often characterized by intricate, hallucinogenic patterns and a dreamy, surreal aesthetic. Common visuals include enhanced textures and repetitive patterns, such as eyes or architectural forms, which emerge organically within the image. At the beginning, the system often created images that combined elements of dogs and cats into a fantastical creature. Mordvintsev utilized a pretrained neural network known as ImageNet, which has been a benchmark for image classification since its establishment around 2010. ImageNet is particularly noted for including 120 categories of dog breeds to demonstrate its capability for "fine-grained classification”. Due to this focus, there's a strong bias towards dog breeds in the dataset, which influences the results significantly. For one of his first experiments, he fed ImageNet a digital wallpaper image featuring a beagle and a kitten, each perched on tree stumps in a meadow. Interestingly, the output image was predominantly influenced by the dog category—despite the presence of the kitten in the image. This led to fragments of dog faces appearing in unexpected places throughout the image. The outcome was surreal, resembling something out of a hallucination, though its origins were not psychiatric or psychotropic but purely algorithmic.

Alexander Mordvintsev Just before DeepDream: 1000 classes #3, 2015/01

Alexander Mordvintsev Just before DeepDream: 1000 classes #2, 2015/01

Later, Mordvintsev published his work on DeepDream on Google’s public research blog, alongside his colleagues Christopher Olah, a software engineering intern, and Mike Tyka, a software engineer. The publication quickly captured the internet's attention. Within just a few days, the images were featured in over 100 articles, and spread across countless tweets and Facebook posts. The technology was made accessible to the public through a variety of apps and APIs, allowing anyone interested to create their own DeepDream images. This accessibility helped foster a thriving DeepDream community, significantly influencing public engagement with machine learning and computer vision. The impact of DeepDream extended beyond casual interest, inspiring some individuals to pursue PhDs in related fields and leading notable artists like Mario Klingemann to explore this technology and neural networks more broadly.

Alexander Mordvintsev, Sunset, 2015/05

At that time, Mordvintsev didn’t view himself as an artist and considered these images to be merely byproducts of his research. However, in 2017, encouraged by his wife, he began to produce more art using DeepDream and eventually embraced the title of “artist” alongside his role as a research scientist. Since then, his art has been showcased worldwide in prestigious venues such as the Barbican Centre in London, Art Fair Zurich, and Gray Area in San Francisco, CA.

We are proud to have been among the first to exhibit his artworks in 2019 at our "Automat und Mensch" show, which highlighted the evolution of generative art from the 1960s to the present, featuring both pioneering and contemporary artists. At this exhibition, we displayed “Cats”, one of the first pieces he created using DeepDream in 2015. Initially, his works were not for sale. Now, as we celebrate the five-year anniversary of our landmark show, we are excited to present exclusive early works, giving collectors the opportunity to enrich their collections with these historically significant pieces.

Automat & Mensch 2.0 - 5 years milestone

“The romance of art and science has a long history, albeit a mixed one. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), the artist and polymath active in the Florence of the Renaissance, still serves as the prominent example for the enormous creative potential flowing from the interactions of art and science.”

- Andreas J. Hirsch, The Practice of Art and Science – Experiences and Lessons from the European Digital Art and Science Network

As we walk into Kate Vass Galerie on this nostalgic May 29th, 2024, we feel like we're stepping back in time. It's been five years since the "Automat und Mensch" group exhibition fascinated everyone with its wide retrospective highlighting the history of AI and generative art in its attempt to cover 70 years of history in one location. Now, as we look back on this important milestone, we're taking a journey through how AI and generative art have changed since 2019, with both old favorites as our guides.

The exhibition, titled "Automat und Mensch", was curated with precision and foresight, showcasing a captivating mix of artworks by pioneering artists such as Nicolas Schöffer, Herbert W. Franke (still alive at the age of 91), Frieder Nake, Vera Molnar (still alive at the age of 95), Roman Verostko, Manfred Mohr, Gottfried Jäger, Harold Cohen, Benjamin Heidersberger, Cornelia Sollfrank, and Gottfried Honegger.

The show featured several generative works from the early 1990s by John Maeda, Casey Reas, and Jared S. Tarbell. Works by Matt Hall and John Watkinson, Harm van den Dorpel, Primavera de Filippi and Manoloide were also on display to represent the contemporary scene.

While the show’s focus was on the historical works, taking the name from the eponymous book by K. Steinbuch “Automat und Mensch” that inspired many generative art pioneers from the 60s, the shows also highlighted the wide range of important works by living AI artists like Robbie Barrat, Mario Klingemann, Alex Mordvintsev, Tom White, Helena Sarin, David Young, Kevin Abosch, Sofia Crespo, Memo Akten and Anna Ridler, whose groundbreaking practice has influenced many emerging artists since 2019.

As we journey five years back in time to revisit the show, our aim is to reflect upon the trajectory of AI in art and the evolution of generative art over the past half-decade. We explore the transformative impact of technological advancements, paying homage to pioneering artists who laid the groundwork, while also highlighting new artworks.

The Evolution of AI and Generative Art in a Historical Context.

From the intricate patterns of Manoloide's "Mantel Blue" to the surreal visions of Alex Mordvintsev's "DeepDream" experiments, the generative art scene has been defined by visionary artists expanding the limits of computational creativity for decades. While the fluid, organic imagery marks a shift from geometric abstraction, AI art is a subset of generative art, despite some disagreement that we have heard in recent months. Therefore, knowing the history of evolution is so important.

The commonly told story of AI art history often begins with Harold Cohen's pioneering work and then moves through the development of GANs and DeepDream, but this narrative overlooks several important early chapters. The “Automat und Mensch” exhibition aimed to highlight some parts of generative art history, showcasing the work of mid-20th century artists like Frieder Nake, Vera Molnár, Herbert W. Franke, Georg Nees, Gottfried Jäger, and others, who experimented with algorithmic art long before AI techniques became prominent.

Georg Nees, Support, 1987, Digital print Size: 24,5 x 18 cm

Gottfried Honegger, Ohne Titel, 1975, Mixed technique 50 x 35 cm. Ed Nr. 23/150

Nicolas Schöffer, a pioneering figure, significantly impacted these developments with his works in cybernetic and kinetic art during the 1950s. Drawing inspiration from Norbert Wiener's cybernetic theories of control and feedback, Schöffer conceptualized an artistic process rich with feedback loops, circular causality, and a fundamental emphasis on movement. He created moving, illuminating sculptures and installations that emitted sounds in collaboration with engineers, architects, composers, and dancers. In his “Chronos” series, he designed these sculptures to be characterized by their responsiveness to external stimuli such as light, traffic noise, and ambient sounds, which actively influenced the movement and behavior of the works. Schöffer’s unique approach melded art, technology, and science. His work embodied the foundational principles of generative art by engaging dynamic systems to produce art, and his mechanical systems in artworks forecasted the later use of autonomous systems in art creation.

The 1960s were characterized by a fascination with technology and instant communication, prompting artists to experiment with electronic feedback using new video gear. Pioneers like Steina and Woody Vasulka played with different sounds and visuals. They were joined by others, like Edward Ihnatowicz, Wen Ying-Tsai, Gordon Pask, Robert Breer, and Jean Tinguely, who mixed biology with technology in their art. At the same time, cyborg art became popular, exploring the relationship between humans and machines. Writers like Jonathan Benthall, Gene Youngblood, and William Gibson introduced the term "Cyberpunk”. British artist Roy Ascott and American critic Jack Burnham also developed significant theories on the integration of art and life.

“In conceptual art, the idea is not only starting point and motivation for the material work, it is often considered the work itself. In algorithmic art, thinking the process of generating the image as one instance of an entire class of images becomes the decisive kernel of the creative work.” - Frieder Nake

Frieder Nake, Straight shares series unique, 2018, Fine Art Print inkjet on paper, 32 x 50 cm

Desmond Paul Henry, #829, 1963, Unique work on paper, 20 x 25 cm

With the rapid advancement of computer technology and the influence of Max Bense's information theory artists began leveraging autonomous systems such as computer programs and algorithms for artistic expression. During this period, artists often collaborated with scientists due to the limited availability of computers, which were primarily located in universities, research institutions, or large corporations. Pioneers of this movement, including Frieder Nake, Georg Nees, Vera Molnár, and Manfred Mohr, utilized computational processes to explore new aesthetic territories, each demonstrating the potential for machines to contribute to the creative process. Parallel to the rise of generative art, generative photography emerged, drawing from the experimental photography of the 1920s and concrete photography of the 1950s. This technique involves the systematic creation of visual aesthetics through predefined programs that perform photochemical, photo-optical, or photo-technical operations, merging traditional photographic methods with mathematical algorithms. The first exhibition to showcase these works took place at Kunsthalle Bielefeld in 1968, featuring artists like Hein Gravenhorst and Gottfried Jäger.

While these artists laid the foundation for computer-generated art, Harold Cohen was the first artist to introduce AI into art with AARON, a software considered one of the first AI art systems, which he began developing in the early 1970s. AARON used a series of rules defined by Cohen to autonomously generate images. This allowed the program to independently make decisions about composition. Cohen's software evolved from producing abstract monochrome line drawings, which he initially colored by hand, to creating more complex, colorful, and even representational forms with drawing and painting devices that he engineered.

The development of AI experienced notable fluctuations in progress, leading to periods known as AI winters. The first significant AI winter occurred in the 1970s, prompted by disillusionment due to overhyped expectations and resulting in substantial cuts in funding and critique of the technology. A similar downturn happened again in the late 1980s, marking another AI winter. This second period of stagnation was primarily due to the limitations of the AI technologies of the time and the constraints imposed by the available hardware. Despite these setbacks, interest in AI did not completely vanish. Instead, it veered in new directions as academic researchers and artists found alternative applications and methodologies for the technology.

Nancy Burson, Method and Apparatus For Producing an Image of A Person’s Face at a Different Age, 1978, Fine Art Print (later production) Diptych of 2 stills images, Edition of 5

Nancy Burson, a pioneering artist from the early 1980s, is often overlooked despite her significant contributions to the intersection of art and technology. She is best known for her innovative work in computer morphing technology and is considered the first artist to apply digital technology to the genre of photographic portraiture. Burson’s creations are widely recognizable, even by those unfamiliar with her name. Some of her most notable works include the digitally morphed “Trump/Putin” cover for Time magazine. Burson developed her morphing software in 1981, known as “The Method and Apparatus for Producing an Image of a Person’s Face at a Different Age”, while she was at MIT. This technology was used in her interactive installation, the “Age machine”, which simulates the aging process and offers viewers a glimpse of their future appearance. Through her cutting-edge work, Nancy Burson explores questions about identity and aging, highlighting social, political, and cultural issues, and focusing on societal biases and injustices. Her works will be exhibited at LACMA this year, continuing to underscore her role in shaping how technology is used in artistic practices.

We must also highlight Roman Verostko, another pioneering generative artist from the 1980s. In 1982, he developed "The Hand of Chance", an interactive generative art program that executed his art ideas on a large PC monitor. Later, Verostko's interest shifted toward printed versions of his works. By the late 1980s, he had developed a program that controlled the drawing arm of a pen plotter, enabling it to create intricate and complex drawings that were unprecedented at the time. Using this drawing arm, Verostko was one of the first artists to incorporate brushwork in his computer-generated drawings. He named his software Hodos, which means "path" in Greek, a reference to the methodical way the strokes follow paths determined by the underlying chaotic system. Using this tool, he created several series, such as "Pathway", an exploration of abstract forms plotted by a multi-pen plotter driven by his software. We are excited to feature a few of his early works from the 1980s in this article.

Roman Verostko, Untitled (Code 21) from Pathway Series, 1987, Multi-pen plotter drawing on paper, 22 ½ x 24 inches

Roman Verostko, Christmas from Pathway Series, 1987, Multi-pen plotter drawing on Arches, 22 ½ x 24 ¼ inches

By the 1990s, cybernetics had become firmly entrenched in the industrial landscape of the Western world. Advancements in technology brought about new terminology and interpretations, rendering some fundamental cybernetic concepts outdated. Nonetheless, it would have been beneficial for the “Automat und Mensch” exhibition to showcase artworks and narratives that acknowledge the broader societal and cultural contexts in which AI art has developed. For instance, consider the early pioneer of AI art, Lynn Hershman Leeson, whose interactive installation "Shadow Stalker" (2018–21) employs algorithms, performance, and projections to highlight the biases inherent in private systems like predictive policing, increasingly utilized by law enforcement or “Agent Ruby”, a female chatbot whose mood could be influenced by Web traffic day.

From the conceptual reflections of early AI pioneers to the practical applications of machine learning algorithms, the relationship between AI and art has undergone a remarkable evolution. It started in a lively and experimental environment, where artists and technologists went on a journey to discover the hidden possibilities of computer creativity which led to a mass adaption of open-source AI models, Chats, and generative art by 2024.

“The shift from a mechanical to an information society demands new communication processes, new visual and verbal languages, and new relationships of education, practice, and production.” – Muriel Cooper, Director MIT Press, Founder MIT’s Visual Language Workshop from 1975 (MIT LAB later from 1985).

Casey Reas, Ben Fry, Jared S. Tarbell & Manoloide.

What all the above names have in common?

“I have ideas about how software tools can be improved for myself and communities of other creators. I want to be a part of creating a future that I have experienced only in fits and starts in the recent past and present. I have seen independent creators build local and networked communities to share intellectual resources and tools.” - Casey Reas

The rapid development of computer technology in the late 20th century provided artists with new tools and capabilities to explore complex systems and patterns, creating artworks that reflected intricate interactions between programmed logic and random elements. The introduction of Processing in the early 2000s marked a pivotal moment, revolutionizing the production and proliferation of generative art.

Casey Reas, Process 14 (Software 2), 2012, Unique Software, Mac Mini Computer

Founded by Ben Fry and Casey Reas in the spring of 2001, Processing democratized the creation of generative art, making it accessible to anyone with a computer. In 2012, they, along with Dan Shiffman, established the Processing Foundation. This platform eliminated the need for expensive hardware and extensive programming knowledge, enabling more people to create art through code. Processing is an example of a free, open, and modular software system with a focus on collaboration and community. Processing's influence on an entire generation of artists and programmers is immense, transforming data visualization and generative art. In 2003, Jared S. Tarbell began using Processing to create engaging generative artworks that stood out both conceptually and visually. One of his most iconic works, "Substrate", showcases the brilliance of a simple algorithm: lines grow in a specific direction until they reach the domain's boundary or collide with another line.

When a line stops, it spawns at least one new line perpendicular to it at an arbitrary position. Recreating the city-like structures of "Substrate" is a fascinating exercise. From Tarbell, we can learn three key things: the value of the algorithms he shared, an artistic and exploratory approach to uncovering possibilities in code, and that profound and unexpected results can emerge from following simple rules. We are excited to showcase Substrate Subcenter2024 by Jared S. Tarbell at Kate Vass Galerie.

Jared S Tarbell, Substrate Subcenter AMT, 2024

“A line is a do that goes for a walk” - Autoglyths by John Watkinson & Matt Hall, kleee02 by Johannes Gees & Kelian Maissen.

The introduction of blockchain technology and the founding of Ethereum in 2017 marked another revolutionary shift, impacting not only generative and AI art but also transforming the traditional art market, unleashing the power of community to drive creativity in unprecedented ways.

One of the most iconic projects, “Autoglyphs” by John Watkinson and Matt Hall, debuted at the “Automat und Mensch” show in 2019. As fine art works, “Autoglyphs” are now celebrated as the first on-chain generative art on the Ethereum blockchain. This collection of 512 unique outputs has become a highly coveted set for generative art collectors. Matt and John, enthusiasts of early generative art, have drawn inspiration from the 1960s aesthetic and experimented with the computing and storage challenges faced by pioneers like Michael Noll and Ken Knowlton. Their work reflects a deep respect for the origins of generative art while pushing its boundaries.

John Watkinson and Matt Hall, Autoglyph #77, 2019, 40 x 40 cm, Unique

Ken Knowlton, from the pages of Design Quarterly 66/67, Bell Telephone Labs computer graphics research

Another lesser-known project, “kleee02”, was launched around the same time in Switzerland. It was an unfortunate oversight not to include it in our show. “kleee02”, an art piece by Kelian Maissen and Johannes Gees, had its smart contract verified in April 2019, the same week as “Autoglyphs”. This work offers a contemporary, blockchain-inspired take on conceptual art, inspired by Swiss artist Paul Klee’s famous quote, “A line is a dot that goes for a walk”. The "walk of the dot" is detailed in the “kleee02” smart contract, with each of the 360 non-fungible tokens (NFTs) being unique in shape and color. Uploaded to the Ethereum blockchain on April 10, 2019, “kleee02” emerged as a pioneering project that could have been featured in the "Automat und Mensch" show in May 2019. The project was officially launched on June 3, 2019, with a public laser projection of the first minted NFTs at Johannes’s studio in a park near Zurich, Switzerland.

Since then, the adoption of blockchain, the launch of ArtBlocks in November 2020, and the foundation of so-called “long-form generative” art have transformed the entire landscape of ownership and value. These innovations have enabled the community to better understand and collect generative art as NFTs, fostering a new era of digital creativity for the next five years.

Alex Mordvintsev, Robbie Barrat, Mario Klingemann, and Helena Sarin.

The past five years have witnessed a dramatic leap in AI capabilities, ushering in an era of unprecedented innovation in artistic expression. Deep learning algorithms, Mid Journey, Stable Diffusion, Dall-E, ChatGPT and other open-source models have revolutionized the creative process, enabling artists to transcend traditional boundaries and explore new frontiers of imagination. Nevertheless, we see a set of trends that after the spike of newer tools, the attention of collectors returns to the earlier AI generation, predominantly GANs (generative adversarial networks) artworks, concept based on neural networks that computer scientist Ian Goodfellow introduced in 2014. The greatest attention is also given to contemporary early AI creators such as Mario Klingemann, Robbie Barrat, David Young, Gene Kogan, Memo Akten, Helena Sarin and more, who have been working with AI for decades.

Alexander Mordvintsev, Custard Apple, 2015

Alexander Mordvintsev, Whatever you see there, make more of it!, 2015

One of the earliest and most influential works in this field was created by Alexander Mordvintsev, the inventor of Google DeepDream. Released as open source only in July 2015, DeepDream mesmerized audiences with its psychedelic and surreal imagery. Nearly all contemporary AI artists attribute Mordvintsev's DeepDream as a major source of inspiration for their exploration of machine learning in art. While one of the initial images generated by DeepDream was showcased at the 2019 “Automat und Mensch” exhibition, it was not offered for sale and was displayed as a small physical print.

After DeepDream, many artists began experimenting with incorporating AI technologies, particularly machine learning and neural networks, into their art. One such artist, Robbie Barrat, created works like “Correction after Peter Paul Rubens, Saturn Devouring his Son” (2019), which have gained increased significance from a historical perspective. Robbie Barrat, who was just 19 in 2019, displayed various artworks at “Automat und Mensch”. This piece exemplifies how technology can be harnessed for creative exploration, showcasing the potential of AI in art. Since 2018, Robbie has been collaborating with French painter Ronan Barrot, exploring AI as an artistic tool. "Correction after Peter Paul Rubens, Saturn Devouring his Son" is influenced by Ronan's technique of covering and repainting unsatisfactory parts of his work. Robbie applied this concept to AI by teaching a neural network to repeatedly obscure and reconstruct areas of nude portraits. This process, known as inpainting, aligns the painting with the AI's internal representation, often resulting in a completely transformed image. The term "correction" here reveals the AI's interpretation of the nude body, not an attempt to improve the original works.

Robbie Barrat, Correction of Rubens: Saturn Devouring His Son, 2019

In another notable project, "Neural Network Balenciaga”, Robbie Barrat used fashion images to train his AI model. In a 2019 interview with Jason Bailey, Barrat explained that he combined Pix2Pix technology with DensePose to map the new AI-generated outfits onto models, crediting another established artist, Mario Klingemann, for developing the DensePose + Pix2Pix method.

Mario Klingemann, who won the Lumen Prize in 2018 and had his work auctioned at Sotheby’s in 2019, was one of the known artists featured in the show for his work “Butcher's Son”. Mario continues to produce visually fresh and refined art, experimenting with different technologies, whether using GANs or other tools. His unique artistic style is consistent, recognizable, conceptual, and experimental.

As AI technology becomes more widely accessible, the distinction between exceptional AI artists and those who merely repurpose old work or simplify image creation by pushing the button relies increasingly on vision, fresh ideas, and later innovation. Helena Sarin, for instance, one of the key figures in the AI scene, has maintained her unique style and tools over the last five years, creating art, books and pottery that stand out stylistically among the rest. Her practice underscores the significance of artistry and dedication to the original creativity. Helena Sarin's ethereal compositions, infused with a sense of wonder and mystery, continue to captivate audiences with their poetic resonance. “They don’t do GANs like this anymore” captures the essence of today’s AI art scene.

Mario Klingemann, Deposition #3, 2018

Mario Klingemann, Deposition #1, 2018

Conclusion

While there is a current upswing in interest in AI art, it's difficult to predict whether this trend will continue or if a correction is on the horizon. Nonetheless, digital art undeniably holds a significant and dynamic position in the contemporary art landscape.

Debates about whether AI will dominate the world or if human creativity will diminish in the coming decades are pressing questions of our time. Since the term "artificial intelligence" was coined in the 1950s at the Dartmouth conference, the pursuit of creating artificial general intelligence has been ongoing. Despite this, the concept of "intelligence" remains elusive. Algorithms, while capable of operating independently, do not match the general intelligence of the human mind.

Helena Sarin, They don’t make GANs like that anymore, 2024, NFT and print minted/produced upon request

AI saw significant progress with early systems like ELIZA up until the late 1970s. However, by the early 1980s, interest and funding began to wane, contributing to periods commonly referred to as the AI winters. AI winter reflects a general decline in enthusiasm that paralleled cultural milestones like the release of the original “Blade Runner” in 1982.

Could another AI winter follow the current surge of interest, since we have similar trends in 2020s with multiple wars, economic distress, and world political instability? Initially, technology was intended to support and extend liberal democracy after the Cold War. However, recent developments suggest it might be on the brink of instigating a new era of conflict.

The relationship between human and artificial intelligence might cool for various reasons. If the clash between human and artificial intellect collapses into neglect, another AI winter could ensue. Alternatively, the substantial financial and human investment in AI thus far could lead to a prolonged struggle, potentially triggering a "cold war" with intelligent algorithms too, couldn’t it?

Art, however, has proven to endure and evolve over the past 80 years. We believe that in the next 80 years, some current pioneers will be recognized as cultural icons in the history of generative and AI art. As life progresses, we innovate, trends change, and artists continue to create. Despite these advancements, we have yet to develop “general superintelligence” capable of creating independently from human influence and input. 

---

Le Random has released an exclusive interview with Jason Bailey, Georg Bak, and Kate Vass to highlight the show on its 5th anniversary. Read the full article by clicking the button below.

Op-Ed: We Must Decode the Past to See the Future of Digital Art

Cryptopunk #795, 2018 by Larva Labs, John Watkinson & Matt Hall

In the ever-evolving landscape of the art industry, looking to history can often provide valuable insights into contemporary trends and future trajectories. Much like the familiar headlines of the 1980s, our current era resonates with economic and political instability, technological innovations, and shifting market dynamics. 

While society faces with uncertainties of past decades, the art market undergoes its own metamorphosis, driven by innovation and adaptation. Like the trailblazing figures of the past, young collectors challenge traditional paradigms and spearhead new trends, reshaping the dynamics of art acquisition and appreciation. We shift more towards a digital culture, AI post-reality, and social media’s influence in gathering global investments.

The emergence of NFTs and memecoin culture serves as a testament to this ongoing evolution, representing social changes and the democratization of art. This shift parallels the advent of web3 digital culture and the rise of AI to mass adoption, which have democratized creativity and transformed how we engage with art, collecting, and value in general.

We can gain valuable insights into the societal, cultural, and economic forces that have shaped significant art movements throughout history. From the Middle Ages and the Renaissance to the digital era, the trajectory of art reflects broader societal shifts and showcases the democratization of art.

Duccio di Buoninsegna, Maestà, 1308–1311, Source: wga.hu

Bronzino, Portrait of Cosimo I de' Medici, 1545, Source: museothyssen.org

In ancient times, art was primarily commissioned by rulers and religious institutions for personal enjoyment, ceremonial purposes, or as a symbol of power. During the Middle Ages, the Christian Church emerged as the principal patron, financing artworks that communicated spiritual themes and teachings. The Renaissance introduced a significant shift as wealthy merchants began to compete with the aristocracy in commissioning secular art. Notable patrons like the Medici family directly supported artists, transforming art collection into an emblem of wealth, education, and refined taste.

From the 19th century, the wealth generated by industrialization introduced a new class of art collectors, democratizing access to art by moving beyond the traditional aristocracy. Collectors like Gertrude Stein, Paul Durand-Ruel, and Peggy Guggenheim played pivotal roles in supporting and legitimizing new artists and movements. Their efforts helped broaden the art market and elevate the significance of private collectors in promoting genres. The post-war period further democratized art through the establishment of fairs and biennales, making art more accessible to a wider audience. During this time, Leo Castelli’s innovative gallery model offered financial and creative support to artists, allowing them to pursue their work free from immediate market pressures, thereby contributing to a more inclusive and diverse industry.

Throughout history, the evolution of art has not only mirrored the democratization of our society but also reflected societal changes, with art acting as a barometer for prevailing ideologies and cultural shifts. Art has transitioned from primarily serving religious and royal propaganda to embodying the humanistic and individualistic spirit of the Renaissance and, later, the social dynamics of the Industrial Revolution. Entering the second half of the 20th century, in the 1980s, the art world favored “bold, cheeky, tough” works influenced by societal trends. However, events like the 1987 stock market crash and the AIDS crisis profoundly impacted the art scene. By the late ’90s and 2000s, with increasing global wealth, there was a surge in demand for artworks symbolizing success. 

Interior of Gertrude Stein’s Studio in Paris, Source: tatler.com

Peggy Guggenheim, Source: vogue.com

The rise of NFTs in 2020 was driven by COVID-19, political and economic turbulences, the volatility of stock markets, and a drop in negative oil prices and bitcoin appreciation. These events have culminated in the current landscape of meme coin culture in 2024. However, the recent social reaction to the memes brought a lot of criticism. 

Consider the staggering performance of “street art” from the ’80s compared to ‘classical art’ over the past three decades. Interviews from the 80s reveal that neither auction houses nor prominent collectors showed much interest in collecting or selling this type of ‘contemporary’ art at that time when the ‘street artists’ had just begun. Street art was not taken seriously. It’s remarkable to observe how the industry’s focus shifted towards artists emerging from graffiti and vinyl toys. Leading top sellers like Banksy or Mr. Brainwash. 

As you can see from the past, this transformative era challenges traditional notions of value and investment, potentially leading some to reflect on it from a different perspective, with varying senses of absurdity, including those within the legal system. 

Like street art, memecoins and meme art should not be underestimated. The new generation represents the pivotal moment where digital art and meme cultures are interested in reshaping the financial and art landscape. In the future, meme coins have a great chance to stand as a culturally significant phenomenon, embodying the distinctive fusion of internet culture, financial speculation, and community-driven movements characteristic of the early 21st century. Over time, it will be recognized as a transformative period where humor and social media wielded power to disrupt traditional concepts of value and investment. 

The present state of memecoins mirrors the evolving cultural landscape and underscores the impact of societal shifts, technological progress, and evolving consumer preferences on markets. Eventually, the legal system may adapt to regulate both traditional art markets and NFTs, with meme culture potentially serving as a catalyst for such changes.

Banksy Love is in the Air, Source: sothebys.com

Mr Brainwash, Beautiful Girl, Source: clarendonfineart.com

Nevertheless, as an audience and consumer base, we should take responsibility for our interests and behaviors that drive the demand for such digital assets. This phenomenon underscores the interconnectedness of culture, technology, and economics, highlighting our collective actions and preferences’ significant role in shaping market dynamics over time.

In the current moment, it’s crucial to acknowledge life’s inherent unpredictability and the evolution of taste. Instead of solely critiquing, we should embrace emerging tendencies and take action either to change or play along. The fortunate individuals are not those who merely recognize and foresee potential but those who actively engage and act.

CYBERFEMINISM

VNS Matrix, Cyberfeminist Manifesto for the 21st Century, 1991. Source: vnsmatrix.net

Cyberfeminism emerged in the early 1990s, right after the arrival of the internet. The concept isn’t easy to describe with a single definition. It represents an international group of female thinkers, coders and media artists who are all interested in theorizing, critiquing, exploring and re-making the Internet, cyberspace and new-media technologies, which are free from social constructs.

The approach grew from the roots of third-wave feminism, which itself built on the foundation of earlier feminist movements. These earlier movements focused on issues like fighting for women's suffrage and equal rights. Cyberfeminism takes this fight into the digital age. Before the term, feminist analyses of technology often highlighted its social and cultural construction, noting its categorization as a masculine field. Despite women's significant contributions to technology, such as in computing, their roles were frequently marginalized or overlooked. Cyberfeminism emerged to challenge these narratives, questioning if technology could be a tool to hack patriarchy.

Lynn Hershman Leeson, CyberRoberta, 1996, Source: altmansiegel.com

The inspiration behind the movement is an essay published in 1985 by Donna Haraway, a post-humanist scholar and feminist theorist, “A Cyborg Manifesto”. The work explores the concept of the cyborg—a hybrid of machine and organism—as a figure that transcends traditional boundaries of gender, race, and even the distinction between natural and artificial. Haraway suggests that cyborgs, by existing outside of these dichotomies, can challenge established norms and hierarchies, including gender. The essay envisions a future that offers possibilities for overcoming biological determinism and promoting androgyny as an ideal.

In the 90s the term, cyberfeminism was independently coined in two different places by British cultural theorist Sadie Plant and the Australian artist group VNS Matrix. VNS Matrix, a collective of four women from South Australia, began their work in 1991. Their projects combined art with French feminist theory to address the male-dominated early internet. Inspired by Haraway’s writing, they published their "Cyberfeminist Manifesto for the 21st Century" which was an aggressive statement against traditional norms, displayed as an 18-foot billboard with 3D images and provocative text. They also created "All New Gen", an arcade game that criticized sexism in pornography and video games by depicting a group of 'cybersluts' attacking patriarchal power in a virtual world.

Faith Wilding, Recombinants, 1992-96, Source: faithwilding.refugia.net

Linda Dement, Cyberflesh Girlmonster, 1995, Source: v2.nl

Parallel to VNS Matrix, Sadie Plant from the UK was exploring how technology could influence feminist theory. She first used the term cyberfeminism in 1991 to describe a new approach to feminism that leverages the internet and digital technology. She elaborated on her vision of cyberfeminism as an approach to understanding the internet as a fundamentally feminine space. She argued that both women and the internet are non-linear, self-replicating systems naturally suited to making connections. Her influential book "Zeros and Ones" further explored these ideas and paid homage to historical figures like Ada Lovelace, highlighting the overlooked contributions of women in technology.

Building on the foundations laid by pioneers like VNS Matrix and Sadie Plant, cyberfeminism gained momentum throughout the 1990s. It attracted a diverse group of artists and theorists from around the globe, including regions such as North America, Australia, Germany, and the UK. Australian artist Linda Dement utilized computer games as a medium to construct alternative female identities, challenging conventional perceptions of gender roles. In the United States, Lynn Hershman Leeson was developing her alter ego, Roberta Breitmore, and by using hired actors and fabricated documents, she brought Breitmore's character to life. Another significant figure in the US was Faith Wilding, who initiated her "Recombinants" collage series  which featured amalgamations of machine, plant, human, and animal imagery, exploring the interconnectedness of these various life forms with technology.

Old Boys Network, First Cyberfeminist International, 1998, Source: monoskop.org

Old Boys Network, 100 Anti-Theses of Cyberfeminism, 1997, Source: monoskop.org

One of the most important moments in cyberfeminism’s history came in 1997 with the “First Cyberfeminist International”, organized by the Berlin-based collective Old Boys Network. The collective’s five women, including Susanne Ackers, Julianne Pierce, Valentina Djordjevic, Ellen Nonnenmacher and Cornelia Sollfrank, brought together 38 women from 12 different countries at Documenta X in Kassel, Germany. The gathering was notable not only for its global scale but also for the creation of a provocative anti-manifesto titled "100 Anti-Theses of Cyberfeminism". By the end of the decade, several critical issues within cyberfeminism began to surface. Despite its growing influence, the movement struggled with a lack of a clear definition, presenting various and sometimes conflicting ideas about its core principles and objectives. The early optimism that the internet would serve as a universally liberated space was viewed as overly idealistic. Additionally, there was growing criticism that cyberfeminist writings predominantly catered to an educated, white, upper-middle-class, English-speaking, culturally sophisticated audience, thereby excluding a significant portion of potential global contributors and beneficiaries.

Cornelia Sollfrank, Female Extension, 1997, Source: medienkunstnetz.de

This criticism highlights the perception that cyberfeminism might have lost momentum as a movement or indicated a need for a slightly different approach. In response, the 2000s saw the emergence of Technofeminism, which is often viewed as an extension or evolution of cyberfeminism, but with a broader scope. Technofeminism integrates insights from science and technology studies (STS) and feminist theory to critically examine the gendered aspects of technology, extending beyond the digital or cyber realms. It explores how gender and technology are mutually shaping each other and promotes feminist approaches to technology development, policy, and usage. The aim is to uncover and address gender biases in the design, development, and implementation of technology across various societal aspects. Judy Wajcman, a pivotal figure in this field, provides an analyses in her 2004 book “TechnoFeminism”, discussing how technology and society are interdependent, with examples from the history of feminist movements related to reproductive technologies and automation to illustrate her points.

In the 2010s, building upon Cyberfeminism and Technofeminism, Xenofeminism emerged as a distinctive strand within the feminist critique of technology. Established by the feminist collective Laboria Cuboniks, this movement views technology as a radical force for dismantling prevailing hierarchies and addressing deep-seated inequalities. Their manifesto, “Xenofeminism: A Politics for Alienation”, challenges the notion of nature as fixed and inherently desirable, proposing instead a future where traditional categories of gender are decoupled from societal power structures. This approach, embracing a global perspective and rationalist materialism, advocates using digital and biological technologies to challenge social norms. It is particularly attuned to the needs and perspectives of the queer and transgender communities, pushing beyond traditional cyberfeminist boundaries to include more comprehensive and transformative agendas.

These movements reflect the dynamic and evolving nature of feminist engagement with technology. Each strand contributes uniquely to the broader feminist discourse, advocating for more inclusive and equitable technological futures.

Judy Wajcman, TechnoFeminism, 2004, Source: monoskop.org

Laboria Cuboniks, Xenofeminism: A Politics for Alienation, 2018, Source: laboriacuboniks.net

anonymous_warhol-flowers by Cornelia Sollfrank

The “anonymous_warhol-flowers”, an integral part of the ongoing artistic research project “This Is Not By Me”, was initiated in 2004 by Cornelia Sollfrank. This project represents Sollfrank’s exploration into themes such as digital authorship, originality, copyright, and ownership. By employing the net.art generator with a focus on the iconic Warhol flowers as a case study, she examines these concepts. In this article, we delve into the creation process and background of this work, offering insights into the complexities and legal nuances of artistic expression in the digital age.

anonymous_warhol-flowers@Apr_16_16.06.41_2019, Digital Print on paper, Size: 60 x 60 cm, Unique

Cornelia Sollfrank, based in Berlin, Germany, is an artist, researcher, and author. In the 1990s, she emerged as a pioneer of net art and a key figure in cyberfeminism. Her work explores new models of authorship and the deconstruction of myths surrounding originality. At the core of her work is the net.art generator, a computer program that recombines and collages material from the internet, which has significantly impacted her research into intellectual property.

One of her works that investigates these themes using this program is the “anonymous_warhol-flowers” project. It exists in two different forms: as digital collages stored in an online database, and selected works from this database have been chosen for production as physical prints. The latter are produced using various techniques, including inkjet and laser print on photo paper, as well as on canvas and aluminum, and silkscreen prints on paper. This project has been showcased in many different contexts across Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, UK, Philippines, and Hongkong, including our iconic "Automat und Mensch" exhibition in 2019 in Zürich.

anonymous_warhol_flowers@Apr_22_17.59.13_2019, Digital Print on paper, Size: 60 x 60 cm, Unique

anonymous_warhol-flowers@Apr_16_16.15.00_2019, Digital Print on paper, Size: 60 x 60 cm, Unique

net.art generator

The net.art generator (nag) is a computer program (Perl script) that has been around for more than 25 years, making it a well-known piece of internet art. The first net.art generator, nag_01, was developed in 1997 in collaboration with Ryan Johnston from the Banff Media Center, Canada. Since then, a number of other versions have been created over the years. In 2003, Cornelia Sollfrank developed the concept for nag_05 in close collaboration with programmer Panos Galanis from the Hamburg-based company IAP. This version of the program interacts with the internet to gather image materials and assemble them into new collages. It creates images that reflect both the machine's workings and their origin environment—the Internet.

The creation process begins when a title is entered. The title acts as a search term for Google, initiating a query. The search results then undergo a transformation by the server-side program ImageMagick, culminating in the production of a new collage. It generates unique images every day, presenting how the online source material is changing over time.

Among the projects generated by nag is the anonymous_warhol-flowers, which uses "warhol flowers" as the search term. Each artwork's title embodies its technical origin with three elements: the author's name (displaying as anonymous if no name is entered), the search term used for material selection, and the exact time and date of creation according to the server location, thus providing a unique timestamp and context for each piece.

Andy Warhol's Flower Paintings at Leo Castelli Gallery, 1964. Image: Creative Commons

Flowers by Warhol

The search term "warhol flowers" directly connects to Andy Warhol's series, a portfolio of prints showcased at the artist's highly successful solo exhibition at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York in 1964. This exhibition marked a sell-out success and also represented a significant moment in his career.

The Flowers prints stood out from traditional still life floral paintings. For Warhol's approach to creating flowers, where he focused on a single subject and replicated it across multiple canvases, mirrored the mechanical and commercial reproduction techniques seen in advertising and mass media. Warhol said, “The reason I'm painting this way is that I want to be a machine, and I feel that whatever I do and do machine-like is what I want to do.” This methodology, representing a unique moment in art history where production emulated machine processes with a singular subject, drew Cornelia Sollfrank's attention as it echoed the fundamentals of generative art.

Andy Warhol, Flowers, 1964, Offset lithograph, Image: MOMA

Andy Warhol, Flowers, 1964, Acrylic on Canvas, Image: Peggy Guggenheim Collection

In addition to this, there was another aspect that piqued Sollfrank's interest in utilizing the pop artist’s flowers as motifs. For the Flowers series, Warhol used a photograph of hibiscus flowers taken by Patricia Caulfield, a nature photographer, which appeared in a 1964 issue of Modern Photography. Caulfield later sued Warhol for using her photograph without permission, challenging long-standing definitions of “fine art” that prioritize originality and authorship.  This aspect of utilizing pre-existing images also intrigued Sollfrank, particularly in the context of the digital age. She discovered Warhol's flower motif in 2003, and began to work with it in her own project, further exploring themes of reproduction and originality in art.

Legal aspects

Andy Warhol's approach is significantly relevant for its adoption of pre-produced materials and innovative use of reproduction techniques. By extending Warhol’s work, Sollfrank's flowers project broadens the discussion of issues in digital art related to originality, authorship, copyright, and open-source. It delves, for example, into the question who might be considered the author and owner of an image created by the net.art generator. The potential authors could be the computer program, the programmer, the user operating the program, the original work's author, or the artist conceptualizing the project. Interestingly, current law suggest that the conceptual artist might be the only one definitively excluded as the owner, as elaborated in the work copyright © cornelia sollfrank 2004.

The project also challenges the concept of copyright and authorship, especially when the digital images are treated as independent artworks—printed, exhibited, and sold. To exhibit the work, authorship is typically attributed to the person who made it, in this case, the artist, “Cornelia Sollfrank”. This legal dilemma was highlighted in 2004 when an exhibition in Basel was canceled due to concerns over the printed version of the “anonymous_warhol-flowers” potentially causing legal issues. The artist sought the opinions of four copyright law experts, each offering a different conclusion, thus presenting the large legal grey area in the use of protected images. The lawyers’ discussion of the case has been captured in the video installation “Legal Perspective”.

anonymous-warhol_flowers@Apr_16_16.10.03_2019, Digital Print on paper, Size: 60 x 60 cm, Unique

anonymous-warhol_flowers@Apr_16_16.08.26_2019, Digital Print on paper, Size: 60 x 60 cm, Unique

The flower motif, with its rich history of artistic appropriations, serves as an ideal subject for this investigation, offering a multi-layered perspective on authorship. The selection of this motif not only seeks to extend Warhol's experimentation into the digital age but also to contribute to the ongoing narrative of the motif itself. The act of reworking the flower motif, previously central to one of the early legal battles over artistic copyright infringement, presents a fresh opportunity to challenge and examine the legal frameworks in the context of internet conditions.

OG Flowers

The net.art generator has the capacity to continually connect with new discourses. On May 22, 2010, a significant date in the history of crypto currencies, Sollfrank revisited the project, creating 100 “anonymous_warhol-flowers”, the “OG Flowers” using the net.art generator.

Later, these flowers were minted as NFTs to continue the discourse, offering a fresh perspective on the concepts of authorship and ownership in the digital age. These NFTs introduce a level of uniqueness that was previously unattainable in digital reproductions. Although questions about the authorship of processed images still persist in the gray areas of copyright law, blockchain technology provides a definitive answer to ownership and ensures that each piece is recognized as an original. The net.art generator reaches a new level: that of speculation in a new type of commodity generated by the discourse on NFTs.

---

anonymous-warhol_flowers@Apr_16_16.10.03_2019, Digital Print on paper, Size: 60 x 60 cm, Unique

anonymous_warhol-flowers@Apr_16_16.15.00_2019, Digital Print on paper, Size: 60 x 60 cm, Unique

anonymous_warhol-flowers@Apr_16_16.06.41_2019, Digital Print on paper, Size: 60 x 60 cm, Unique

anonymous_warhol_flowers@Apr_22_17.59.13_2019, Digital Print on paper, Size: 60 x 60 cm, Unique

anonymous-warhol_flowers@Apr_16_16.08.26_2019, Digital Print on paper, Size: 60 x 60 cm, Unique

Beyond Perception: The Art of David Young

David Young, an artist and designer based in New York, explores the interplay between art, and cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing. His work is an exploration of technology and an inquiry into how these tools can reshape our understanding of beauty and offer insights into their workings. In this article, we will focus on his art from 2017 to the present and feature an exclusive interview with David Young himself. He shares the creative process behind his work, as well as discusses his past and his latest series, such as “Hallucinations”, which debuted this January at NOISE Media Art Fair at Kate Vass Galerie’s booth.

Installation of the ‘Hallucinations' series at Kate Vass Galerie’s booth at NOISE Media Art Fair, Istanbul, Jan.2024

David Young's work highlights the complexities and common misconceptions associated with artificial intelligence and machine learning. Recognizing the need for a deeper understanding of AI, he seeks to demystify its potential applications, striving to develop a fresh interpretation of its capabilities and methods. He believes that beauty and aesthetic experiences can bridge the gap to a more open-minded understanding, helping individuals to reevaluate and deepen their insights into AI's learning mechanisms.

At the core of his practice and a central element in his artwork is the theme of perception. By examining the outputs generated by neural networks, he aims to provide insight into the machine’s learning process, how it learns and behaves, which is different from human perception. Through creating art, Young explores AI's unique 'way of seeing' the world, making the technology's complex processes more accessible and understandable. His work with quantum computing has followed a similar path, aiming to uncover new perspectives of the technology.

Young's journey into the intersection of art and tech began after completing his bachelor’s degree in computer science from the University of California and a master’s in visual studies from the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Initially focusing on design, he began to incorporate AI into his practice around 2016.

David Young: “Although I have been working with AI off and on since the 1980s, I seriously turned my attention to it in 2016. At that time advances in AI -- things like IBM's Watson and Google's DeepDream -- were capturing the public's imagination, and there was a general sense that AI was about to be the next big thing. But it was all still rather abstract, nobody really knew what AI might become, other than sense it was going to be disruptive.

I created a course called "Designing AI," at Parsons School of Design in New York, where I brought together non-technical students from a wide range of backgrounds to see if we could develop a more approachable way to talk about AI. I wanted to find a way to allow more diverse voices to think about what this new technology might be used for. The class was focused on bottom-up, or grassroots, change -- because I didn't have faith that tech companies were going to open themselves up, to bring outside voices in. 

 The course inspired a change in me, too. I realized that if I wanted to make my voice heard in what AI could become, it wasn't going to be by working inside a large company. Instead, I adopted a bottom-up philosophy and took the ideas from the class a step further -- instead of finding non-technical languages to make AI more approachable, I embraced the idea of beauty and aesthetic experiences. Something non-verbal that could make AI more approachable.”

FINDING BEAUTY

David Young, (b38,4016,16), 2018 (from Learning Nature series), Print on paper, Ed. 1/1 + 1AP, Dimensions: 30x30 cm

Between 2018 and 2020, he created a series of works where he emphasized beauty and aesthetics over the corporate values of optimization, efficiency, and consumption. In contrast to the vast sea of data, usually necessary for AI, Young contemplated the idea of beginning on a smaller, more personal level, directly engaging with the technology.

D.Y.: “Modern machine learning systems work because they're trained on vast quantities of data. But that size makes the technology unapproachable -- it's a scale that's hard to imagine. I thought that training the machine using small data sets, in my case sometimes just a handful of images, could give some insights into how the technology worked. I wanted to bring things back to a human-scale, so that we might develop intuitions for what was going on inside the code. And, in doing so, take some power back from the big tech companies.”

In his exploration, he produced many collections with a limited number of photos he personally took. These series include "Winter Woods" (2018-2020), depicting snowy woods; "Bovina, NY" (2018-2019), reflecting the tranquility of upstate New York; "Cloud Canyon" (2019), inspired by the hills of Griffith Park, Los Angeles; "Dandelions" (2020), where he captured the delicate beauty and fragility of the flower; and the well-known "Learning Nature", showcasing other type of flowers (exhibited at Kate Vass Galerie's historical show "Automat und Mensch", 2019). The common thread in each series is the utilization of subjects from nature. 

To create the "Learning Nature" series, the artist employs GANs (Generative Adversarial Networks), a type of AI machine learning technology and he trains the model using his own photographs of flowers. By choosing to photograph subjects on his farm in upstate New York, in Bovina, he intentionally selects these themes to differentiate his work from conventional AI applications and to connect with the region's rich artistic heritage.

David Young, (z12,cr,a), 2018 (from Learning Nature series), Print on paper, Ed. 1/1 + 1AP, Dimensions: 30x30 cm

D.Y.: “I chose nature to emphasize the difference from mainstream AI, which prioritized business outcomes, and the optimization of scale, power, and greed.

I also chose nature because of where I live, in rural upstate New York. It's an area with a rich cultural history. Almost two hundred years ago the Hudson River School used painting to express man’s relationship to nature. I wanted to explore what would it mean for an AI, today, to understand and interpret that same nature.”

He was surprised to see how the AI's learning process mirrored human creativity when he used this data to train the model, experimenting through repetition and struggling at some points. However, the system lacks the capacity for the nuanced understanding needed to complete these fine details. What emerged wasn’t accurate but represented a machine's unique interpretation of the natural world.

The creation of art that does not strictly adhere to accuracy has a long history. Artists from the Dutch Masters to the Hudson River School incorporated elements from various scenes or included multiple natural elements to compose their final images. These images depict something that doesn't exist in the real world but capture their interpretation of the subject.

D.Y.: “As I worked I began to see a connection to 17th and 18th Dutch flower paintings. In those works, there were arrangements that could have never existed -- because the flowers shown would never have been in bloom at the same time. The images generated by my AI had a similarity impossibility, of merged and impossible flowers.”

BIASES OF AI

David Young, (b62j,2796), 2019 (from Tabula Rasa series), Print on paper, Ed. 1/1 + 1 AP, Dimensions: 40x40 cm

In 2019, with the "Tabula Rasa" series, Young explored further the learning mechanisms of machine learning systems and their inherent biases. Despite AI has been around since the 1950s, the artist questioned whether we can fully comprehend its behaviour. 

The series, “Tabula Rasa” draws parallels to philosopher John Locke's idea that human knowledge comes through experience. Locke believed that the mind starts as a "tabula rasa" or blank slate, with knowledge and ideas coming from sensation and reflection. Similarly, Young thinks that AI systems begin with no inherent knowledge and learn through data input—their “sensation”—upon which they “reflect”. However, this data often consists of human biases, reflecting the preconceptions, irrationalities, and emotions of its collectors. This presents a question: if the foundational data is biased, can a machine's rationality be anything but an illusion?

To answer this question, he wanted to create works that minimize bias by using solid colors as the initial training material. He began with a single black image, allowing the machine to learn from this "blank" state. As he introduced a second color, the AI began to reveal its “emotions” and show more complex, almost stress-like behaviours, generating images with new textures, organic shapes, and overlapping grids.

D.Y.: “Tabula Rasa" began as a thought experiment, to see if approaching AI from a radically different perspective might give new insights into how it worked. When I started training the machine on two colors, for example, I thought that it would pretty quickly settle and just create images that were one or the other of the two colors. But instead, these strange patterns emerged. You could see the digital in them -- repeating elements, grid-like textures. But there was also something organic -- strange shapes, curves, blobs. And new colors would appear, colors that weren't in the training data. To me, I felt a tension in the machine as if it were struggling to make sense of what it had been shown. Of course this can be explained technically, but that wasn't what I was looking for. I wanted to find emotional, non-technical, ways to think about AI. I know that the AI is just code running on the machine, but there was a sadness to its struggle. It's very strange to attribute an emotion to something mechanical, but that's what art can do.”

The resulting works draw comparisons to abstract expressionism, especially to works created by artists such as Kenneth Noland, Mark Rothko, and Alberto Burri. This similarity was noted by Artnome, who connected the works to Carl Jung's psychology, specifically the idea of a "collective unconscious" filled with shared archetypes and visual symbols – the opposite interpretation of John Locke's concept. Artnome's observation raises the question of whether machine learning models might possess their own form of a collective unconscious, potentially including archetypes and symbols similar to those in the human psyche.

At the bottom: (b62g,5348), (b67m,1397,1), and (b67h2,2599,1) from Tabula Rasa series by David Young, At the top: Paintings by Kenneth Noland, Agnes Martin and Alberto Burri

D.Y.: “I was drawn to Locke's idea of the blank mind, the "tabula rasa," as that seemed most like what was happening as a neural network was trained. But the strange tensions that appeared in the resulting images had an emotional quality that recalled romanticism -- which itself was a reaction to the Industrial Revolution. Might modern AI somehow create work that is in reaction to its underlying technology, its own self?

The question about collective unconscious speaks to whether an AI system can ever achieve consciousness. And if so, what is "mind." If consciousness is emergent, meaning that it is a material trait or function of the brain, then I'd argue there can be no collective unconscious. Just like an AI, the brain starts as a tabula rasa.

 However, if mind is something else, as in the case of mind-body dualism, where the mind exists separate from the body, then collective unconsciousness becomes a possibility. It's a topic that's becoming increasingly important as we talk about AI and AGI. And, interestingly, quantum physics suggests that this dualism might exist. In which case mind might be stranger than we can imagine.

Whatever the case, it's a rich area to explore -- computationally, philosophically, and artistically.”

David Young, A Line is a Pixel Expressing Itself (m b70h,9011,4-20,4,22,11,4,27-c), 2020 (from Manipulations series), Print on paper, Edition of 3, Dimensions: 40x40 cm

DIGITAL THREADS

Young continued his investigations into machine learning in 2020. He began to further process the images generated by AI with his own coding to uncover patterns not immediately visible, aiming to understand their behaviour. His series "Manipulations" (2020) exposes what may be apparent to the learning mechanism but obscured to human observers. He questions what hidden patterns or "irrational logic" might exist within the AI's creations. During this exploration, his artworks began to show textile-like qualities, with strands finely rendered to mimic the look of densely packed fibers or threads. These qualities continued into his later series, such as the "Flag" (2022) series, where he employed the same machine learning techniques and output manipulations to explore themes of democracy, gun violence, and abortion.

Between 2020 and 2022, the artist started to experiment with training the model with actual images of textiles, building upon the textile-like features already evident in his previous series. In the work “Darns” (2020 – 2022), in collaboration with textile artist Susan Yelavich, he investigated the AI's interpretation of Yelavich’s textile works. By selecting and manipulating the learning process, Young examines the machine's partial understanding and highlights the system's imperfect “vision”. Based on these generative images, Yelavich then created physical textile works, stitching the manipulated images to reveal hidden elements and bridge gaps in the model’s learning.

EXPLORING QUANTUM COMPUTER

Young's artistic inquiry extended beyond AI and machine learning to explore the field of quantum computing in 2021, focusing on understanding how this technology works. His interest was piqued by the extraordinary nature of quantum mechanics, which defies the speed of light, potentially presenting a paradigm shift in computational thinking.

He began the project using quantum computers from IBM Quantum to produce outputs that were then processed through his custom code. After multiple iterations of his coding, Young began to find new ways of interpreting the data, aiming to grasp a sense of the underlying quantum phenomena.

David Young, Q 7, 2021 (from Quantum Drawings series), Plotter drawing, Ed. 1/1 + 1 AP, Dimensions: 12x12 inches

D.Y.: “Like AI, quantum computing is an emerging technology that is said to be the next big thing -- the next inevitable technological progression. I started working with it around the time of the NFT boom because all of these things -- AI, NFTs, quantum -- to me, reflected a cultural obsession with the "new," and how these technologies will all eventually become obsolete. In particular, quantum had the potential to almost instantaneously crack the security that is the core of the blockchain and NFTs. So I thought it was an interesting contrast, or tension, between the two.

When I first started working with IBM quantum computers I used code that I found online -- just as I did with AI -- because, again, I wanted to emphasize that technical proficiency should not be a requirement for engaging with new tech. I also did that because quantum is weird. I mean, AI is weird, too. But quantum is a whole other level of weirdness.

And so, once I got some code to run, I took the output data and worked on ways to give it visual form. At first my "Quantum Drawings" were lines, tracing whether the quantum-bit values were correct computations or noise. But as I learned more about quantum -- not just quantum computing, but quantum physics -- I began to see in the data quantum themes such as how, when I examine the value of a quantum bit the universe splits, which is how we have the multiverse. And so the work shifted to a more expressive exploration of what a quantum universe means. It's moved the work from a technological critique to something more philosophical.”

HALLUCINATIONS

At the bottom: ‘People Are Begging to Be Disappointed’ and ‘Mitigating the Risk of Extinction’ from Hallucinations series by David Young. At the top: Paintings by Luigi Russolo and Giacomo Balla

In his latest series from 2023, “Hallucinations” the artist returned to experiment with AI and machine learning, using these technologies to explore the parallels between their promised potential and actual errors, known as "hallucinations". This body of work, which debuted at the Kate Vass Galerie booth at the NOISE Media Art Fair in Istanbul in 2024, reflects on the tech industry's hype and the reality of AI capabilities, drawing titles from quotes by tech leaders such as Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI. 

Similar to his earlier works, he used GANs and trained them with limited training data, prompting the AI to generate less coherent visuals. The artworks feature grids of disconnected pixels manipulated by his custom software, revealing structures and patterns not originally visible.

From an art historical perspective, the lines and dynamism in his work share similarities with Futurism, an early 20th-century movement that celebrated the promises and dynamism of technology. The Futurists emphasized speed, movement, and industrial development, often depicted through bold lines and a sense of motion. However, while Futurism glorified the future and technology, Young's series presents a more critical narrative, questioning the compatibility of AI's actual functionalities with the industry's grand promises.

D.Y.: “There is so much hype around AI right now that we're distracted from the problems of this technology -- its perpetuation of bias and its optimization of existing inequalities. "Hallucinations" is a term -- what I'd call anthropomorphic mysticism -- that distracts us from the fact that the strange outputs from AI systems are nothing more than errors. They reveal the flaws inherent in the technology.

At the same time, the tech industry has outsized beliefs of self-importance, and that AI is going to change the course of humanity. They, too, are hallucinating -- caught up in their own hype. This is why the titles of these works are quotes from tech industry leaders talking about AI.

So my "Hallucination" works are an expression of my frustration with this state of things. I want to highlight that AI isn't perfect, or even, necessarily, inevitable.”

---

The Tech the World Has Always Wanted (b10,8,2-m689), 2023 (From Hallucinations series). Print on paper, Ed. 1/1 + 1 AP, Dimensions: 50x50 cm

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

David Young, Designing AI, 2016: https://medium.com/designing-ai/designing-a-i-4d19bbd0c317 

David Young, Little AI, 2018: https://medium.com/@dkyy/little-ai-298fcba0832d

David Young, Tabula Rasa, 2019: https://medium.com/@dkyy/tabula-rasa-b5f846e60859

Artnome, Tabula Rasa - Rethinking The Intelligence Of Machine Minds, 2019: https://www.artnome.com/news/2019/9/17/tabula-rasa-rethinking-the-intelligence-of-machine-minds 

Lindsay Comstock, Pondering the Liminal Space of AI in Art, 2020: https://davidyoung.art/blog/liminal.html

Lindsay Comstock, Translations with Code and Thread, 2022: https://davidyoung.art/blog/echo-chambers.html

---

Exploring the Nicolas Schöffer Collection

In the heart of Kalocsa, Hungary, stands the Nicolas Schöffer Collection—a testament to Schöffer's pioneering contributions to kinetic and cybernetic art. This past weekend, we were privileged to visit the museum. In this article, we delve into his journey as represented by the museum’s permanent collection and explore how he fused space, light, time and technology.

Nicolas Schöffer collection

The 20th century marked a technical-scientific revolution. This shift transformed the lives of millions and significantly influenced artists who sought innovative ways to respond to our rapidly evolving world. Nicolas Schöffer engaged with cutting-edge scientific advancements, aiming to illustrate the complexities of the modern world in which we now live.

Nicolas Schöffer Collection, Kalocsa, Hungary / Photo: Kate Vass Galerie

Born on September 6, 1912, in the scenic town of Kalocsa, Hungary, Nicolas Schöffer was exposed to diverse influences early on. His violinist mother encouraged his artistic interest, while his lawyer father gave him practical sensibilities. Despite his artistic tendencies, concerns about the sustainability of an art career led Schöffer to study law in Budapest. However, after his law studies, he followed his heart to the Academy of Fine Arts. By 1936, drawn by the attraction of a broader artistic landscape, he relocated to Paris. While his early works leaned towards expressionism and surrealism, the ‘International Exposition of Art and Technology’ in Paris impacted Schöffer, spurring his interest in melding scientific research with art. This experience reshaped his artistic style, pushing him towards the innovative approach that would define his entire career. From 1947, Schöffer's artistry began to flourish. He pioneered cybernetic sculptures, integrating light, movement, sound, and the progression of time. He was not only a painter but also a sculptor, architect, city planner, art theorist, and experimental artist who consistently pondered art's societal influence and its position therein.

After relocating to Paris, Schöffer frequently visited his hometown. As we learned during our visit, he generously donated a collection—consisting of 40 pieces that represent his oeuvre—to Kalocsa in 1979. Recognizing its significance, the town acquired and renovated the artist's family home, located on Kalocsa's main street, and transformed it into a museum. The museum opened its doors as the 'Schöffer Museum' in November 1980. Lajos Dargay, in collaboration with Schöffer's students and colleagues, curated the first permanent exhibit. Later Dargay assumed the role of overseeing the museum for the next three decades. Since 1994, the museum has undergone several expansions. In the 1990s, the artist's widow, Eléonore de Lavandeyra Schöffer, added a library to the institution, and the museum began hosting temporary exhibitions. In the 2010s, the museum underwent another renovation to meet contemporary museum standards and was renamed the ‘Nicolas Schöffer Collection’.

Nicolas Schöffer, Petit sec, 1970s at Nicolas Schöffer Collection / Photo: Kate Vass Galerie

As we wandered through the museum, the ground floor of the museum features a community space, information desk, museum shop, cafe, and areas for temporary exhibitions. On the upper floor, we found the permanent exhibition displays Schöffer's works, which are organized into three main thematic sections: early space-dynamic pieces, his light-dynamic works, and the time-dynamic artworks.

In the 1940s, Schöffer began creating constructivist spatial sculptures and reliefs, exploring the intricate relationship between space and motion. He conceptualized abstract forms in three-dimensional space. Inspired by the theories of constructivism and Mondrian’s Neoplasticism, he formulated his theory of ‘space-dynamism’ in 1948.

While traditional art focuses on the material, color, light, and their combinations, space-dynamism utilizes these elements as tools to emphasize space. For Schöffer, space became the primary subject of his artistic pursuits. He constructed metal base frames and decorated them with rectangular aluminum and steel sheets, capturing what he termed "spaceergy". The airy design of these sculptures features vast empty spaces that the structure collects in a constructive way. A central aim of these works is to transcend their material constraints. Due to their reflective, flat metal surfaces, the artworks seem to occupy more space than their actual size suggests. These metal components also soften the strictly constructed forms. The play of shadows and reflections allow the surrounding environment to integrate with the sculpture. Although most of these pieces remain stationary, their dynamic nature becomes apparent as we could move around them.

On display were many of these pieces such as ‘Space-Dynamic 19’ or ‘Space-Dynamic 24’. With ‘Petit Sec’, the influence of Mondrian’s Neoplasticism is evident in the color palette use, as the metal plates affixed to the black frame are painted in red, blue, white, and yellow.

In the mid-1950s, Schöffer began a new phase of his artistic journey, experimenting with shadows and light. This exploration led to the creation of his ‘light-dynamic’ objects. By 1957, he began crafting kinetic sculptures decorated with polished plates. These plates, reflecting light, produced a captivating and ever-changing dance of illumination. Schöffer utilized various techniques, such as placing colored papers between the sculpture and its light source, swapping lenses, and altering the direction of the light.

Nicolas Schöffer, Petit lux, 1960s at Nicolas Schöffer Collection / Photo: Kate Vass Galerie

He named these creations the ‘LUX-series’, drawing its name from the unit of luminous emittance ‘lux’. Several pieces from the LUX-series are displayed in the exhibition. While he maintained the structural form of his earlier space-dynamic pieces — crafting horizontal and vertical square profiles — he transitioned from rectangular plates to larger, rounded shapes or gridded metal sheets. He incorporated materials known for their reflective, mirroring, and light-filtering abilities. When illuminated from diverse angles, the different aluminum surfaces project light in all directions, crafting intricate shadow plays. The resulting shadows cast onto the surrounding walls become an essential aspect of the artwork itself.

Schöffer's next endeavor was to unite the effects of light with the relationship between space and time within the same artwork. This led him to explore time, resulting in the development of the ‘time-dynamic’ group of works. It was during this period that Schöffer discovered Norbert Wiener's work on cybernetic principles, which influenced his artistic direction. In 1948 Norbert Wiener published his book ‘Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine’ which revolutionized our understanding of systems, control, and communication across animals, machines, and organizations. Nicolas Schöffer's ‘Chronos-series’ became living embodiments of Wiener's concept. 

As we observed the Chronos-series pieces, we were captivated by how they were cybernetically controlled, driven by electric motors, making even their foundational structures rotate. The small reflective elements affixed to the metal frame operated according to individual motion programs. Their hidden cameras and microphones capture the colors, light, and sound of their surroundings, allowing the sculpture to adjust its movements, light, and sound effects accordingly. These works respond to their external environment. Their behavior mirrors that of living beings, even though they are guided by mathematics rather than biological life.

Not far from the collection, at the city's bus station, stands 'CHRONOS 8' – Hungary's only public cybernetic artwork. This impressive 27-meter-high tower, erected in 1982, operates on a cybernetic program. Hidden microphones relay the traffic noise to an electronic system, which then governs the motors adjusting the movable metal mirrors. As traffic intensifies, these mirrors pulsate in sync with their rhythm. The tower's activities align with the city's pulse: it rests when the city sleeps, awakens as the city stirs, and vibrates in harmony with urban life. Beyond this particular piece, other variations of Chronos-towers have graced cities such as Washington, Montevideo, San Francisco, Bonn, Munich, Paris, Pont-d'Ain, and Lyon. On the comprehensive map, we could locate all the locations of these works.  

Nicolas Schöffer, Chronos 6 (1960s), Chronos 1 (1960s) and Chronos 5 (1960s) at Nicolas Schöffer Collection / Photo: Kate Vass Galerie

Apart from these three main phases in Schöffer's career, the exhibition also showcases other captivating works, highlighting the complexity and diversity of his art.

One of the highlights for us was the piece titled ‘Prism’. Standing in front of its three large mirrors, we found ourselves lost in a labyrinth of reflections. A projected light interacts with a moving sculpture by Schöffer situated behind the work, casting reflections onto the prism. When leaning into the prism, the design immerses viewers in a realm where movement, rhythm, and dual projections combine for a captivating visual experience.

In 'Microtime', Schöffer delved into the neural process of vision, specifically the roughly 30-millisecond gap between light hitting the retina and the brain forming the image. These artworks, open on one side, feature illuminated moving, reflective components positioned against a curved mirrored background. The interplay of light, generated by the motion, speeds up to a point where it looks like a seamless curtain of light at the limit of human perception. Then it drastically slows down, fragmenting into distinct points of light. 

'Varetra' is another significant piece on exhibit. It's a black box with an adjustable backlight. Schöffer added colorful plates into a slot and invited visitors to do the same. We followed his footsteps, inserting colorful plates into a designated slot, managing to create our very own kinetic artwork. Schöffer also donated similar creations to local kindergartens to foster creativity in the younger generation.

Tragically, Schöffer suffered a severe stroke that paralyzed his right hand, halting his capability to create large-scale artworks. Despite this setback, his passion for art never waned, and he continued to explore new forms of expression. He began creating graphics using his left hand. Utalizing the silk screen-printing technique, he produced the so-called ‘Varigraphs’, representing one of the final dimensions of the ‘space - light - time dynamic’. The shapes they form adhere to the golden ratio's harmonious rules. The color selection is precise: pure colors, specifically red, blue, black, and white, and their respective shades.

At the end of the exhibition, we had the opportunity to watch a short film featuring the artist as he delves into his masterpieces, inspirations, and contributions. The film's soundtrack was composed by Nicolas Schöffer himself. Seeing the artist himself elucidate his masterpieces and inspirations felt like the perfect conclusion to our journey through Schöffer's world.

Nicolas Schöffer, Varetra at Nicolas Schöffer Collection / Video: Kate Vass Galerie

Nicolas Schöffer, Microtemps, 1967 at Nicolas Schöffer Collection / Video: Kate Vass Galerie

Nicolas Schöffer, Prism, 1965 at Nicolas Schöffer Collection / Video: Kate Vass Galerie

---

Kate Vass on Rethinking Art Collecting - Interview with Kate Vass by thefunnyguys

Kate Vass, founder of Kate Vass Galerie in Zürich, visits with thefunnyguys in an effort to uncover her motivations and vision for this space.

Read the full interview on Le Random

---

Manolo Gamboa Naon, Inside, 2019. Courtesy of the artist and owned by Le Random

thefunnyguys: How did you become interested in the intersection of art andtechnology?

Kate Vass: I have always found the relationship between art and tech interesting. Technology has expanded the boundaries of what is possible in art for centuries. Advancements in digital tools and software have enabled artists to create complex and intricate works that would have been impossible to produce with traditional techniques. In 2017, I established Kate Vass Galerie in Zurich, focusing on presenting a generative art program. The following year, the gallery intensified its emphasis on emerging new media.

thefunnyguys: What mission did you have in mind when starting your gallery in 2017?

Kate Vass: It began with an impromptu decision. I’d initially intended to collaborate with a partner whose expertise lay in photography. Our divergent outlooks prevented that from happening, forcing me to choose to move ahead independently.

In due course, I fortuitously stumbled upon a rather unconventional location in Zurich, which resonated with my vision for a gallery that eschews the traditional "white cube" aesthetic. So I made the spontaneous decision to take on the risk and open a gallery independently with the mission to disrupt the conventional way of showcasing art and to place the artist on top.

Before opening the gallery, I had collected art for many years. I got to know the system from the inside-out and I was not happy with how galleries treated artists and collectors. The unfair valuation of work along with lack of transparency in the market, led to many questions.

Talking to many artists, I learned that many were underpaid. By opening Kate Vass Galerie, I wanted to prove that galleries could treat artists fairly with transparency.

thefunnyguys: Why does art and, more specifically, generative art matter? Why dedicate your life to these subjects?

Kate Vass: Contemporary art serves as a conduit through which the multifaceted complexities of our present-day existence, encompassing our social dynamics and economic tribulations, are captured and expressed. As such, it functions as a mirror to gaze into or even a crystal ball that occasionally affords us glimpses into our collective future. Generative art is not a recent phenomenon; in fact, it has a rich history spanning over seven decades.

With advancements in technology and innovation, however, generative art’s accessibility, visibility and affordability have experienced an upswing. This has been aided by the ubiquitous integration of technology in our daily lives.

Against this backdrop, what other artistic tools exist to portray the realities of our time? The answer lies in art made by or with the help of computers and artificial intelligence, as we live in a digital environment and our communication has mostly become digital as well, after the pandemic specifically.

‘Alternatives ‘- solo show by Espen Kluge (Kate Vass Galerie, Zurich, in 2019)

thefunnyguys: Who was the first artist you started working with and how did this happen?

Kate Vass: Based on my collecting experience and photography expertise, the first few shows mainly were focused on photographers from the 60's who had never exhibited in Switzerland.

thefunnyguys: What are you looking for in an artist? How do you decide you want to work with them?

Kate Vass: I read and study books and new things daily. The best knowledge comes from history and books. Only if you know what has been created before can you evaluate what you are looking at. That is also how you determine whether a work is worthy or is just a copy-paste of someone else.

I am always interested in new approaches, concepts and art forms. Those things are rarer nowadays, as the internet can kill any creativity. I always advise artists not to look around too much, as it’s known to erase original ideas by simply being influenced by things you look at or see elsewhere. To answer your question, in any artist I want to see a fresh concept or at least an innovative approach, reflecting on social problems or new technology.

thefunnyguys: When you started your gallery, NFTs had not yet significantly impacted the art world. Did their introduction change the gallerist’s role?

Kate Vass: I don't like to be proud, but Kate Vass Galerie was the first one in the world to introduce and educate NFTs in the physical space. We were the pioneers in displaying an NFT in its physical form in October 2019, during the solo show 'Alternatives' by Espen Kluge. Since 2018 hosted multiple educational sessions around the topic. I also recall arguing in 2017 that in digital contemporary photography, the digital file is the core component to collect. I tried to convince both artists and collectors to sell digital files when it comes to Contemporary Photography instead of prints but it was rather difficult back then.

After 2017, with the introduction of blockchains enabling provable digital scarcity, my belief about collecting digital works of natively digital art only strengthened.

No one needed another traditional photography art gallery and I personally lost any interest to carry on collecting what was shown around. I was fully captivated by science and innovation. Therefore, when the opportunity came, I took a chance on showing something very different, as I wanted to prove to collectors and artists that blockchains would revolutionize the way we think about and collect art.

In 2018, I was approached by a local curator to host another photography show. I said, “No one needs another photography show. If you can help deliver a curated program around blockchain art, I would gladly collaborate with you.” Later that year, in November 2018, I hosted the first blockchain exhibition: Perfect &Priceless, featuring protagonists of this movement. Nicolas Maigret & Maria Roszkowska (Disnovation), John Watkinson (Cryptopunks), Grayson Earle, Rob Myers, Kevin Abosch & Ai Weiwei, Terra 0, Cullen Miller & Gabriel, Dunne César Escudero Andaluz & Martin Nadal, Ed Fornieles, Harm van den Dorpel, Distributed Gallery and Sarah Friend.

 I believe that this show played an important role in educating collectors about new ways of collecting digital art.

I constantly reflected on my preferences and experiences as a collector. I discovered I was bored with art fairs and the repetitive shows around me. I wanted to see and exhibit something fresh, cutting-edge, and revolutionary.

I think the gallery has since hosted some iconic exhibitions, bringing worldwide exposure to generative artists of the past and present.

Rhea Myers artworks at Perfect & Priceless (Kate Vass Galerie, Zurich in 2018)

thefunnyguys: Recently, you released a new venture, called K011. What motivated you to take this step?

Kate Vass: As a gallerist working with tech-savvy artists and collectors, you must adapt the same philosophy and ensure that your service brings additional value to both. I was always looking for 'outside of the box' solutions that can enable collectors and artists to experience cutting-edge fine art in web3.

K011 serves as a specialized art and tech studio, unifying curated art and the power of web3. 0–represented by our name, where ‘K’ stands for ‘Kuration’ (German) and ‘011’ symbolizes the binary code for ‘.3’. We spotlight a dynamic mixture of emerging and established artists, exploring the fascinating fusion of art and tech.

Our mission centers around developing unique technologies that become an integral part of the artistic process, allowing creatives to fully immerse themselves in digital art's innovative potential.

K011 offers various minting techniques to suit the requirements of each artist, whether it’s the sophistication of long-form generative art, contemporary performance art like PAL, or pioneering innovations like ‘0KAI’ that enable AI artists to bring their model specifications to life across entire collections.

thefunnyguys: You have an impressive roster of historically significant generative artists such as Vera Molnár, Charles Csuri and Herbert W. Franke. Why is it important to represent this group of artists in particular?

Kate Vass: History is crucial to understanding the present. Without the background story, it's hard to imagine how digital art is a logical continuation of twentieth-century art movements. It's worth knowing the years new movements formed as well as the political situation or technological inventions of the time. These elements have historically driven artists to create with new tools. Kate Vass Galerie shows predecessors of generative art to supply that context, as well as offers to add value to every modern art collection with pioneers of this movement.

thefunnyguys: In 2019, your gallery was the home of Automat und Mensch, co-curated by Georg Bak and Jason Bailey. What are your reflections on this exhibition four years later?

Kate Vass: Automat und Mensch was a show that covered seventy years of history. It was a first of its kind. The purpose was to show the forerunners and contemporary artists in the same room.

We had Herbert W. Franke, who was still alive at the age of 92, and Robbie Barrat, who was 19. Four years since I still have not seen any shows of its caliber in other galleries. Probably at this point, it’s no longer necessary. The success of art exhibitions is due to the right timing. Timing is the most crucial in any sector.

Iskra Velitchkova and Marcelo Soria-Rodriguez, PAL #5 (still), 2023. Courtesy of the Artist and K011. Owned by Le Random

thefunnyguys: If you could choose one generative artist to work with who is not alive today, who would it be? Why?

Kate Vass: I admire the majority of the pioneers of generative art for their courage, unique perspectives, and passion for how they created art. One of the artists I feel close to is Georg Nees. Nees studied mathematics and physics and is considered a father of generative computer graphics. He was interested in the relationship between disorder and order in picture composition, along with a few other practitioners working then, but Nees is particularly special to me.

His practice was highly influenced by one of the German philosophers and writers of that time-Max Bense whose theories inspired Nees. In one of his works, Schotter (1968-1970) in the collection of V&A Museum, Nees introduced random variables into the computer program, causing the orderly squares to descend into chaos.

It was fascinating, considering the early stage of the computer as a device and the program as a tool to create art. I am happy I have some works by Nees in my collection.

thefunnyguys: Where do you see generative art going in the next few years?

Kate Vass: Many programmers and developers have joined the art market in the last few years to utilize their skills to create and sell their art. With the further development of AI, more tools continue to be introduced to the public.

In 2023 with ChatGPT, it's relatively easy to copy-paste and create sophisticated works if you know how to code. At the same time, the current bear market left no choice but for many to leave the space and go back to their standard routine.

The true artists who were creating art using technology as a tool for decades, however, have been empowered with even more tools. I see plenty of opportunities for them to create great art. We will see the strongest and the most advanced artists stay in this space and they will continue to fascinate us with their new projects.

Georg Nees, Schotter, 1968-1970 (made). Courtesy of the artist. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

thefunnyguys: Do you see any parallels between the invention of photography and the emergence of AI art?

Kate Vass: Several parallels exist between photography and AI art. Photography disrupted traditional artistic practices by capturing and reproducing images with unprecedented accuracy, while AI art challenges the definition of art and its creators, enabling unique creations.

Both technologies have opened up new possibilities for artists, allowing them to create in previously impossible ways and introducing new modes of representation.

Renowned artists like Picasso, Richter, Hockney, and Degas have demonstrated how photography can be a valuable tool and a wellspring of inspiration for traditional art. Just as photography democratized creativity by allowing anyone to capture the world around them, AI art empowers individuals to create art, pushing it into the mainstream despite initial skepticism and criticism.

Photography and AI art are recognized as legitimate art forms, exhibited in galleries and museums worldwide. The convergence of human creativity and technological innovations continues to fuel artistic expression and shape the future of art. My recent series of articles about the ‘History of AI’ includes a dedicated chapter on the history of photography, highlighting its significant impact on the artistic landscape.

thefunnyguys: Art as a mirror of society, how does the current socio-political situation influence art?

Kate Vass: There has been a rise in politically charged art to inspire change and challenge the status quo. Many artists are using their work to comment on social and political issues like racism, police brutality, climate change and immigration.

The ongoing push for diversity and representation is also reflected in art. More underrepresented artists are getting recognition and opportunities to showcase their work with a growing interest in art representing diverse perspectives and experiences.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the shift towards digital art and online exhibitions with social media platforms becoming crucial for artists to showcase their work and engage wider audiences. Governments and art institutions have responded to the pandemic's impact on the art industry by providing increased funding and support for artists, including grants, exhibitions and other opportunities.

Finally, the pandemic's significant impact on mental health and well-being is reflected in the art world. Many artists use their work to express their struggles and create a space for others to share their experiences and find solace.

---

About the Author

thefunnyguys: is the co-founder and CEO of Le Random where he is in charge of the overall vision and spearheads its acquisitions.

Nicolas Schöffer and the Birth of Cybernetic Art

Nicolas Schöffer was a pioneering figure in cybernetic and kinetic art during the 1950s. Drawing inspiration from Norbert Wiener's cybernetic theories of control and feedback, Schöffer viewed art as more than mere static forms. To him, it was a dynamic, ever-evolving force. He conceptualized an artistic process rich with feedback loops, circular causality, and a fundamental emphasis on movement. In our article, we explore his masterpieces, inspirations, and major contributions.

© schoffergyujtemeny.hu

Nicolas Schöffer, born on September 6, 1912, in the picturesque town of Kalocsa, Hungary, was exposed to diverse influences from a young age. His mother, a violinist, encouraged his artistic interests, while his lawyer father gave him practical values. Despite his growing artistic tendencies, his father's doubts about the sustainability of an art career prompted Schöffer to pursue law in Budapest. He believed that his legal studies sharpened his complex and constructive thinking, qualities he considered essential for the intricate artistry he would later undertake.

After completing his law studies, Schöffer's passion led him to the Academy of Fine Arts in Budapest. By 1936, drawn by the allure of a broader artistic landscape, he relocated to Paris. Looking at his mature works, it's surprising to note his initial attempts at expressionist and surrealist paintings. In Paris, the International Exposition of Art and Technology had a profound influence on him, igniting a passion for intertwining scientific research with art. This experience reshaped his artistic style, setting him on a path of innovation that would define his entire career.

‘CYSP1’ with a ballet dancer © cyberneticzoo.com

Around 1947, Schöffer's artistry began to flourish. He started producing constructivist spatial sculptures and reliefs, grappling with the intricate relationship between space and motion. He conceptualized abstract forms in three-dimensional space, and these ideas influenced his creations on two-dimensional canvases. For Schöffer, the canvas evolved not just as a backdrop, but as a spatial dimension. His progression led him to create relief images, subtle extensions from their foundational surface. The influence of Mondrian's Neoplasticism began to permeate his works, characterized by stark contrasts and a limited yet impactful color palette.

It was during this period when Schöffer encountered Norbert Wiener's work on cybernetic principles, which shifted his artistic concept. Cybernetics was introduced by Norbert Wiener in 1948 through his book, ‘Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine.’ This work revolutionized the understanding of systems, control, and communication in animals, machines, and organizations. Nicolas Schöffer's sculptures became living embodiments of Wiener's concepts. Thanks to advancements in science and technology, Schöffer could realize all of his artistic visions.

He created moving, illuminating sculptures and installations that emitted sounds in collaboration with engineers, architects, composers, and dancers. For Schöffer, the viewer's experience was at the heart of his artworks. His unique approach seamlessly melded art, technology, and science, often demanding collaborative efforts. He championed interactive art, allowing viewers to alter and thus co-create the artwork.

Schöffer's artistic career can be divided into three major periods: Spatiodynamism, Luminodynamism and Chronodynamism

Spatiodynamism (1950-1957)

After initially focusing on sculptures designed to be viewed from a primary angle, Schöffer began creating works where every perspective held value. These sculptures had asymmetrical steel frames with colored plates and discs, later substituted with aluminum and steel sheets. These reflective materials enhanced the dynamic quality of the sculptures by mirroring their surroundings, giving them a pronounced presence. While most of these sculptures remained stationary, their dynamic nature became evident as viewers moved around them. However, one particular work would break this stationary mold.

‘LUX 1’, 1959 © Adagp, Paris

In 1956, he introduced ‘CYSP1’, hailed as the first cybernetic sculpture in art history. Unlike his previous stationary pieces, this work was in constant motion. The sculpture's name originates from its cybernetic and spatiodynamic attributes. It showcased impressive mobility, moving freely in all directions and displaying axial and eccentric rotations that animated its 16 shifting, colorful plates. Developed in collaboration with the Philips Company, it was mounted on rollers, with each plate powered by individual motors. Built-in phototubes and a microphone detected changes in color, light, and sound, prompting the sculpture to react. CYSP1 made its debut at Paris's Sarah Bernhardt Theater during a poetry night in 1956. Later that year, at the Avant-garde Art Festival, Maurice Béjart's ballet dancers interacted with CYSP1 at Le Corbusier's Cité Radieuse in Marseille. The sculpture responded to their movements, establishing a unique partnership between humans and machines.

Luminodynamism (1957-1959)

After positioning his sculptures in space, Schöffer became fascinated with the interplay of light upon them. The kinetic sculptures after 1957 showcased polished plates that reflected light, creating a dynamic dance of illumination. This play of light and reflections not only deconstructed the artwork visually but also merged it with its surroundings. The distinction between the piece, its environment, and the observer began to blur. On April 14, 1956, Schöffer introduced this groundbreaking concept to the patent office, and by August 25, 1958, it was officially patented. From this idea, Schöffer developed the theory of Luminodynamism.

An important series during this time was the ‘LUX’ series. While its foundational idea drew parallels with Moholy-Nagy's light-space-modulator, the actual design of Schöffer's sculptures was distinct. These pieces, framed by horizontal and vertical square profiles, also featured attached discs and plates. Hidden motors caused the sculpture and the metal plates to rotate rapidly. Illuminated from various angles, the aluminum reflects light in all directions, creating shadow plays. These were amplified by perforated plates filtering the light while transparent screens captured luminous images within the sculpture itself, making it akin to a shadow theater. The resulting shadows on adjacent walls became an integral component of the artwork itself.

‘Tour Cybernétique’ in Liège, Belgium, 1961 © elephant.art

Chronodynamism (1959-)

Chronodynamism evolved from the earlier concept of Luminodynamism but added the dimension of time. It not only dealt with how light played on objects but also with the dynamic, changing nature of the interaction over time, often using cybernetics and automation. It's a more holistic approach, factoring in the temporal evolution of a work's relationship with its environment.

During this period, Schöffer created cybernetic light towers, the ‘Chronos’ series, which stand as a testament to cybernetics theory. The most accomplished and tallest cybernetic light tower was the "Tour Lumière Cybernetique" a proposal for a 324-meter interactive building in Paris. The design included movable metal plates controlled by a computer, allowing the structure to dynamically respond to light. This grand vision attracted collaboration from ten major French corporations, who developed detailed plans under Schöffer's guidance. The tower’s design is intended to incorporate a complex arrangement of mirrors, rotatable axes powered by electric motors, electronic flashes, headlights, and weather instruments. A spectacular addition of 15 large lights at its top was meant to give the tower an optical height of an astounding two kilometers. It was envisioned as a functional building with amenities like restaurants, TV stations, concert halls, post offices, and shops, serving diverse purposes—from an art space to a weather tower.

The tower project received support from prominent figures such as Charles de Gaulle, Georges Pompidou, André Malraux, and leaders from the Philips company. However, fate intervened; the death of the supporter Pompidou and financial disruptions caused by two oil crises meant the tower remained unrealized. Though the original tower was never built, a smaller version called the ‘Tour Cybernétique’ stands in Liège, Belgium. Subsequent versions appeared in cities including Washington, Montevideo, San Francisco, Bonn, Munich, Paris, Pont-d'Ain, and Lyon. Chronos 8 resides in Schöffer’s hometown in Kalocsa, near the house where he was born. His house now hosts a museum that showcases his artistic practice and primary artworks.

Cybernetic city (1965-)

One of Nicolas Schöffer's most ambitious endeavors was his vision for the ‘Cybernetic City’. In 1965, he was among the founders of the International Group for Prospective Architecture. Their manifesto highlighted the inadequacy of traditional housing and urban structures in addressing modern needs, underlining the importance of forward-thinking urban designs. This mindset propelled Schöffer to create a futuristic city. The ‘Cybernetic City’ stands as a testament to functional design, composed of three interconnected sections overseen by a cybernetic control center. It features designated zones for work and contemplation, while other areas are earmarked for residence and leisure. To him, the city was an extension of sculpture. He envisioned a vertical workspace populated with skyscrapers housing a cybernetic hub, administrative units, universities, and offices. Conversely, living spaces sprawled horizontally. He believed advancements in automation and cybernetics would grant people more leisure time, and hence, catering to recreational needs was important in his city design.

While Schöffer's grand vision was not fully realized, its essence persists, shaping modern perspectives on urban design and art. Tragically, Schöffer's creative journey was cut short by a severe stroke that paralyzed the right side of his body, confining him to a wheelchair. This condition prevented the birth of new large-scale artistic endeavors.

Schöffer's works are showcased in prestigious institutions such as the Centre Pompidou, The Museum of Modern Art, and the Stedelijk Museum. His contributions to cybernetics continue to reflect a harmonious interplay between human creativity and machine intelligence, inspiring new generations of artists.

10 Moments from Generative Art Timeline Chapter 2: The Modern Era 1850-1949 by le random.

The Modern Era! On July 20 at 5 p.m. UTC, Le Random has invited Kate Vass to share insights into 10 Moments from Generative Art Timeline Chapter 2: The Modern Era 1850-1949.

This fantastic panel, moderated by the Le Random team @thefunnyguysNFT, features Peter Bauman @MonkAntonytez, and @DlSPUTED. 🎤

Can't make it to the live event? Don't worry! The space was recorded, and you can catch the full discussion here: ➡️ https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1OyJAVVzbAzxb?s=20

Don't miss this chance to dive into the world of generative art and explore its fascinating history. We decided to feature all the 10 points and add additional ones that we did not have a chance to mention during the live talk.

1.      The Great Exhibition of London Lights Early Spark of the Arts & Crafts Movement (1851)

A watercolour depicting the royal party on the dais under the baldacchino, at the crossing of the Crystal Palace, with Prince Albert standing at the head of the Commissioners, reading their report to the Queen. Source: https://www.rct.uk

-       About the event:

o   The Great Exhibition of London, also known as The Crystal Palace Exhibition, took place in 1851. This was the first in a series of World's Fair exhibitions of culture and industry that became popular in the 19th century. It was an early spark of the Arts & Crafts Movement, an international trend in the decorative and fine arts that began in Britain and flourished in Europe and North America.

o   The Great Exhibition was organized by Prince Albert and Sir Henry Cole to showcase British industrial technology and culture, but it also ended up featuring works from around the world. It attracted over six million visitors and displayed thousands of objects from various contributors, including manufacturers, companies and individuals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Exhibition

o   Exhibition's impact resonated into the art world, foreshadowing the emergence of the Arts & Crafts movement later in the century. This movement was a response to the Industrial Revolution's mechanization and mass production, advocating for a return to handcrafted goods, which they believed held more character and quality. The movement sought to promote craftsmanship, traditional techniques, and the integration of art into everyday life. Led by influential figures such as William Morris, John Ruskin, and Charles Rennie Mackintosh  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arts_and_Crafts_movement

§  Connection with Art Nouveau (late 19th – early 20th century – France / other variations: Secession – Austria / Jugendstil – Germany / Modernisme – Spain)

·      This movement took some ideas from the Arts & Crafts movement (like the value of good design and craftsmanship), but combined these with more organic forms, often inspired by nature. Unlike Arts & Crafts, Art Nouveau embraced some aspects of industrialization and was more open to using new materials and techniques.

·      Political situation in France (during the style Art Nouveau):

o   Art Nouveau, or 'new art' in French, emerged during a period of significant political stability known as the Belle Époque or 'beautiful era' in France. This period, from the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871 to the start of World War I in 1914, was characterized by optimism, regional peace, economic prosperity, and technological, scientific, and cultural innovations.

o   Third Republic: France was governed by the Third French Republic during the Art Nouveau period.

o   Colonial Expansion: France was engaged in an era of colonial expansion during this period, particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia.

o   Paris as a Cultural Hub: Paris was at the center of the Art Nouveau movement and a vibrant cultural hub during this time.

§  Connection with Bauhaus (1919-1933)

·      The Bauhaus was a school of design in Germany that combined crafts and fine arts. It was founded by architect Walter Gropius who believed in creating a total work of art in which all arts. While the Bauhaus rejected the ornamental aspects of both the Arts & Crafts movement and Art Nouveau, it carried their ideals forward in the idea that design and architecture could and should be used to improve society.

·      Political situation in Germany (also see point 6.):

o   Weimar Republic (1919-1933): The Bauhaus was established just after the end of World War I, during the period of the Weimar Republic. This era was marked by political unrest, economic volatility (including hyperinflation in the early 1920s), and the cultural flowering known as the Weimar Renaissance.

o   The Great Depression (1929): The global economic downturn greatly affected Germany, leading to high unemployment rates and severe economic hardship. These conditions contributed to public disaffection with the Weimar government and the rise of the Nazi party.

o   Rise of the Nazi Party (1933): The Bauhaus was viewed with suspicion by the Nazi regime due to its modernist styles and its international (and thus 'un-German') influences. Increasing pressure from the Nazi regime led to the closure of the Bauhaus school in 1933.

-       Political situation worldwide:

o   1851 was a time of relative peace but increasing global connectivity.

§  British Empire was nearing its height

§  United States was gearing towards a civil war

§  Europe was dealing with the aftermath of the 1848 Revolutions which saw numerous political and social changes.

-       Important innovations:

o   Vibrant era due to the ongoing Industrial Revolution

o   Steam Power and Railways: Steam power had been rapidly developing throughout the first half of the 19th century. By the 1850s, steam-powered railways had started to crisscross countries.

o   Telegraph system: It was also improving and expanding, enabling faster communication across long distances. Samuel Morse developed the telegraph in the 1830s-1840s – Morse system

o   Sewing Machine: It was invented by Elias Howe and improved upon by Isaac Singer, revolutionized the textile industry and home sewing in the 1850s.

o   Iron and Steel Construction: The Industrial Revolution introduced new materials and techniques that greatly influenced architecture. The development of affordable and robust cast iron and steel catalyzed significant advances in construction. (One of the most famous examples is the Crystal Palace itself.)

o   invention of photography took place in the early 19th century in 1827, and by 1851, it was already well-established

-       Other scientific events:

o   1851 saw the publication of Herman Melville's "Moby-Dick"

o   The first issue of the New York Times

-       Iconic artworks:

o   J. M. W. Turner - Rain, Steam, and Speed – The Great Western Railway (1844)

o   Gustave Courbet The Stone Breakers (1849-50)

o   Arts and Craft:

§  William Morris - Wallpaper Designs (1862–1910)

§  William Morris - Red House, 1860

2.      Modern art Begins: Manet’s Work Rejected by Paris Salon (1863) + Cézanne’s Mont Sainte-Victoire Series (1870-1906)

Paul Cézanne, Mont Sainte-Victoire and the Viaduct of the Arc River Valley, 1882-1885 Source: https://drawpaintacademy.com

-        About the event:

-       Manet’s work was rejected:

-       Manet’s innovative approach of painting modern life and his radical style (looser, more gestural style + his focus on modern, urban subject matter) challenged the conventions of academic painting and were deemed too provocative by traditional standards. His famous painting “Le déjeuner sur l'herbe” (The Luncheon on the Grass) was notably rejected by the Salon. The public rejection led to the Salon des Refusés, an exhibition of works rejected by the Salon, where Manet's work was displayed. (Édouard Manet was not strictly an Impressionist painter!)

-       - Cezanne, Mont Sainte Victoire Series:

-       Paul Cézanne’s “Mont Sainte-Victoire” series, painted between 1870 and 1906, were critical in transitioning from 19th-century conception to a new and radically different world of art in the 20th century. His work is often described as bridging Impressionism and the development of Cubism.

-        Political situation worldwide:

-       American Civil War (1861-1865): This was one of the most transformative and deadly wars in U.S. history, leading to the abolition of slavery and significant changes in American society and the economy.

-       Unification of Germany (1871): Under the leadership of Otto von Bismarck, the German states were unified into a single nation, changing the balance of power in Europe.

-       In France – see above (Art Nouveau)

-        Important innovations:

-       Telephone (1876): Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, drastically changing the way people communicate.

-       Phonograph (1877): Thomas Edison invented the phonograph

-       Electric Light Bulb (1879): Another invention of Thomas Edison. It had a huge effect on society, extending the potential for productivity into the darker hours.

-       Automobiles (1885-6): German inventors Karl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler independently developed what are considered the first practical automobiles.

-       Radio (1895): Guglielmo Marconi, an Italian inventor, demonstrated the practical use of radio waves for communication.

-       X-Rays (1895): Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, a German physicist, discovered X-rays, opening up a new era in medical diagnostics.

-       Airplane (1903): The Wright Brothers made the first successful controlled flight.

-        Other scientific events:

-       Theory of Special Relativity (1905): Albert Einstein published the theory of special relativity.

-       The Eiffel Tower, completed in 1889

-        Iconic artworks:

-       Édouard Manet - Olympia (1863)

-       Vincent van Gogh - The Starry Night (1889)

-       Auguste Rodin - The Thinker (1904)

3.      Les Demoiselles d’Avignon by Picasso kicks off Cubism (1907)

Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, 1907 by Pablo Picasso Source: https://www.pablopicasso.org/avignon.jsp

-        About the event:

-       The painting "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" by Pablo Picasso is widely acknowledged as a landmark in the evolution of modern art. Created in 1907, this work displays a radical departure from traditional painting norms, incorporating multiple perspectives within a single image and introducing elements of African tribal masks, two key characteristics that would later be associated with Cubism.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Demoiselles_d%27Avignon

-       Cubism was a revolutionary new approach to representing reality invented in around 1907–08 by artists Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque. Influenced by the works of Paul Cézanne, who himself had attempted to break down objects into their geometric constituents. Together, they developed a revolutionary style where objects were analyzed, broken up and reassembled in an abstracted form. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/c/cubism

-        Political situation worldwide:

-       Triple Entente Formed: One of the most pivotal political events of 1907 was the formation of the Triple Entente. This was a diplomatic and military alliance between the United Kingdom, France, and Russia

-       Immigration Act of 1907 in the United States: In the United States, the Immigration Act of 1907 was passed. This act represented a growing movement within the United States to place restrictions on immigration, specifically targeting Asians.

-        Important innovations:

-       Color Photography (1907) - The Autochrome Lumière process: the first practical color photography process, was patented in 1903 by the Lumière brothers in France and marketed in 1907.

-       Bakelite (1907): Leo Hendrik Baekeland invented Bakelite, the first synthetic plastic, made from phenol and formaldehyde.

-       Plastic: Belgian-born American Leo Hendrik Baekeland invented Bakelite in 1907, the first synthetic plastic

-        Other iconic artworks:

-       Gustav Klimt - The Kiss (1907-1908)

-       Henri Matisse – The Blue Nude (Souvenir de Biskra) (1907)

Group IV, The Ten Largest, No. 7, Adulthood (1907) by Hilma af KlintSource: https://www.guggenheim.org

4.      The Ten Biggest, No 7 by Hilma af Klint (1907)

-        About the event:

-       It is a part of a series of paintings by the Swedish artist Hilma af Klint. Created in 1907, this artwork is one of ten large, abstract paintings that trace the different stages of life, from childhood to old age. Klint’s works were colorful, bold, and rich in symbolism, often drawing on spiritual and philosophical concepts. In fact, she was creating abstract paintings several years before Kandinsky, Mondrian, and Malevich, who are traditionally considered the pioneers of European abstract art.

-       Her art was first shown to the public in the 1980s, and it was not until the 21st century that she began to be recognized.

Hilma af Klint led a life devoted to transcendental spiritualism, a religious movement that thrived in literary and artistic circles in Europe and America during the early 20th century. This movement was centered on the belief that communication with spirits was possible, and séances were commonly held to receive messages from the deceased or other spiritual entities. Af Klint's involvement in séances began in her teenage years in 1879.

In 1906, during one such séance when she was 43 years old, the artist claimed to have received a divine commission. She believed that a higher being had tasked her with creating paintings on a transcendental plane, destined to be displayed in a circular temple designed specifically to house them. Over the following nine years, af Klint completed what she called her "great commission," comprising a massive series of 193 works known as The Paintings for the Temple. This collection includes her earliest abstract pieces, as well as the paintings currently showcased in this gallery.

Af Klint intended The Ten Largest, a group of paintings from 1907, to be displayed together, creating what she described as a "beautiful wall covering," just as they are presented here.

5.      Tatlin and Rodchenko Found Constructivism (1915) and Malevich Stages the 0.10 Exhibition with Black Square. (1915)

Aleksandr Rodchenko Composition, 1919. Source: https://www.moma.org

-        About the event:

-       Constructivism:

-       Constructivism was founded in Russia around 1915 by Vladimir Tatlin and Alexander Rodchenko. They sought to create art that was practical, functional, and accessible to the masses. It also celebrated the advancements of industrialization and embraced modern materials and techniques. Constructivism emphasized the social and political aspects of art. Artists believed that art should serve a greater purpose and contribute to the construction of a new society. It aimed to integrate art into everyday life. They believed that art should be present in all aspects of society, from architecture and design to advertising and propaganda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(art)

-       Suprematism:

-       In 1915, Kazimir Malevich, a Russian avant-garde artist, organized the 0.10 Exhibition in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg). Malevich and his fellow artists rejected representational art and sought to explore new forms of expression that went beyond depicting the physical world. They aimed to capture the essence of pure artistic creation and transcend the limitations of conventional art forms. At the center of the exhibition stood Malevich's "Black Square," a simple black square painted on a white canvas. This seemingly minimalistic artwork was a revolutionary statement, representing a departure from the objective world and embracing abstraction. Malevich described the "Black Square" as the "zero of form" and saw it as a symbol of the new spiritual and metaphysical possibilities of art.

-       Main differences between the two movements:

-       Constructivism aimed to integrate art with technology and industry, emphasizing practicality, functionality, and social engagement. It was closely associated with the social and political ideals of the Russian Revolution. It aimed to contribute to the construction of a new society

-       Suprematism, on the other hand, focused on the spiritual and metaphysical aspects of art, seeking to transcend the physical world and explore pure forms and colors. It was more focused on the individual artist's exploration of metaphysical and spiritual dimensions

-        Political situation worldwide:

-       Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (1914)

-       World War I (1914-1918): The outbreak of World War I in 1914

-       World War I and the Russian Front: In 1914, Russia entered World War I as part of the Allied Powers.

-       Mexican Revolution (1910-1920): The Mexican Revolution was a major armed conflict that took place in Mexico, starting in 1910.

-       Chinese Revolution of 1911: The Chinese Revolution of 1911, also known as the Xinhai Revolution, marked the end of the Qing Dynasty and the establishment of the Republic of China.

-       Balkan Wars (1912-1913): The Balkan Wars were a series of conflicts that took place in the Balkan region of southeastern Europe

-        Important innovations:

-       The Assembly Line (1913): Henry Ford installed the first moving assembly line for the mass production of an entire automobile in Highland Park, Michigan

-       Neon Lighting (1910): Georges Claude, a French engineer, and inventor, developed the neon discharge tube for use in lighting.

-       Stainless Steel (1913): English metallurgist Harry Brearley discovered stainless steel while experimenting with different types of steel for gun barrels.

-        Other scientific events:

-       Theory of General Relativity (1915): Albert Einstein presented his theory of general relativity in 1915, revolutionizing our understanding of gravity and spacetime.

-       Sink of Titanic (1912)

-        Other iconic artworks:

-       Wassily Kandinsky - Composition VII (1913)

-       Marcel Duchamp - Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 (1912)

-       Kazimir Malevich - Black Square (1915)

-       Giacomo Balla - Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash (1912)

-       Franz Marc – Blue Horse I (1911)

6.      Walter Gropius Founds Bauhaus (1919)

Gropius drafted the Bauhaus manifesto in 1919. Photo is by Louis Held, taken in 1919. Source: https://www.dezeen.com

-        About the event:

-       In 1919, German architect Walter Gropius founded the Bauhaus, a groundbreaking art school in Weimar, Germany. The Bauhaus aimed to bridge the gap between art, craft, and industry, promoting a holistic approach to design and incorporating elements of fine arts, architecture, crafts, and technology. Gropius envisioned the Bauhaus as a place where artists and craftsmen could work together, breaking away from traditional academic hierarchies. The school's philosophy aimed to bring about social and cultural change through design. Artists: Wassily Kandinsky, Paul Klee, László Moholy-Nagy, and Josef Albers. It offered a curriculum that combined theoretical studies, workshops, and practical training, with an emphasis on experimentation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauhaus

-        Political situation worldwide:

-       World War I (1914-1918): World War I continued to be a major political event during this period.

-       Russian Revolution (1917)

-       Treaty of Versailles (1919): The Treaty of Versailles was a peace treaty signed on June 28, 1919, in France, marking the official end of World War I.

-        Important innovations:

-       Invention of the Tank (1915): During World War I, the British army introduced the first armored fighting vehicle known as the tank.

-       Technicolor for Film (1916): Technicolor was an important innovation in the film industry that allowed movies to be made in color, rather than just black and white.

-        Other scientific events:

-       Spanish Flu Pandemic (1918-1919): The Spanish Flu pandemic, one of the deadliest pandemics in history, occurred between 1918 and 1919

-        Other iconic artworks:

-       Fountain - Marcel Duchamp (1917)

-       The City - Fernand Léger (1919)

-       Amedeo Modigliani - Women with Red Hair (1917)

7.      Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray Create Rotary Glass Plates (1920) 

-        About the event:

-       Rotary Glass Plates" (also known as "Rotoreliefs") was a collaborative project between Marcel Duchamp and American artist Man Ray. It consisted of a series of small glass discs with abstract designs painted on them. When spun on a phonograph turntable or a device called a "stroboscope," the rotating discs created optical illusions of movement and produced a dynamic visual experience. The collaboration between Duchamp and Man Ray on "Rotary Glass Plates" explored the intersection of art, motion, and technology. Man Ray set up equipment to photograph the initial experiment, but when they turned the machine for the second time, a drive belt broke and caught a piece of the glass, which after glancing off Man Ray's head, shattered into bits.

-        Political situation worldwide:

-       Formation of the League of Nations (1920): The League of Nations was founded in 1920 as an intergovernmental organization aimed at promoting international cooperation and preventing future conflicts.

-       Irish War of Independence (1919-1921): The Irish War of Independence was a guerrilla war fought between Irish republican forces and British forces in Ireland

-       Women's suffrage: In 1920, the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, granting women the right to vote.

-       Prohibition in the United States (1920-1933): The 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1919 and enacted in 1920, banned the production, sale, and distribution of alcoholic beverages in the country.

-        Important innovations:

-       Commercial Radio Broadcasting: In 1920, the first commercial radio station, KDKA, began broadcasting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

-       Sound-on-Film Technology (1919-20): Lee De Forest's Phonofilm system, Lee De Forest, inventor of the audion tube, filed his first patents on a sound-on-film process, DeForest Phonofilm, which recorded sound directly onto film as parallel lines.

-       The Band-Aid: Earle Dickson, an employee of Johnson & Johnson, invented the band-aid for his wife who often cut herself while cooking.

-       The Hair Dryer: In the early 1920s, the first hand-held hair dryers were introduced to the market.

-        Other iconic artworks:

-       Max Ernst - Murdering Airplane (1920)

-       Piet Mondrian - Lozenge, 1921

8. Gunta Stölzl Named Director of Bauhaus Weaving Workshop (1927)

-        About the event:

-       Gunta Stölzl's appointment as the director of the weaving workshop at the Bauhaus in 1926. Under Stölzl's guidance, the weaving workshop at the Bauhaus underwent significant transformation. She emphasized the importance of experimentation, craftsmanship, and the integration of art and technology. She encouraged her students to experiment with color, texture, and materials, expanding the possibilities of weaving beyond its traditional confines. Stölzl and her team developed new weaving techniques and materials, incorporating synthetic fibers, metallic threads, and experimental textures. She recognized the potential of textiles in architectural and interior design, collaborating with architects to create integrated textile works for functional spaces. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunta_St%C3%B6lzl)

-        Political situation worldwide:

-       Irish Free State Established (1922): Following the Irish War of Independence, the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed in 1921, leading to the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922

-       Beer Hall Putsch (1923): The Beer Hall Putsch was an attempted coup in Germany led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in November 1923

-       Dawes Plan (1924): The Dawes Plan was an economic agreement reached in 1924 to address Germany's reparation payments following World War I. The plan aimed to restructure Germany's debt and provide financial assistance, helping stabilize the German economy and facilitating international economic cooperation.

-       General Strike in Britain (1926): In May 1926, a general strike erupted in Britain, involving millions of workers from various industries.

-        Important innovations:

-       Television Broadcasting (1927): In 1927, Philo Farnsworth successfully demonstrated the first fully electronic television system.

-       Antibiotics - Penicillin (1928)

-       Television (1925-27)

-        Other important events:

-       The Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression (1929)

-       The Rise of Fascism: During this period, fascism gained traction in several countries

-        Other iconic artworks:

-       René Magritte, The treachery of Images, 1929

-       Giorgio de Chirico, The Two Masks, 1926

-       Piet Mondrian, Composition with Red Yellow and Blue, 1927

9. Birth of digital computing: Konrad Zuse Completes the Z3 (1941) + ENIAC (1945)

-        About the event:

-       Z3:

-       In 1941, Konrad Zuse, a German engineer, completed the construction of the Z3, which is widely considered to be the world's first fully functional, programmable, automatic digital computer. The Z3 was an electromechanical computer that used telephone relays to perform calculations. It featured a binary floating-point arithmetic system, which allowed for highly precise computations. The Z3 was completed in Berlin in 1941. It was not considered vital, so it was never put into everyday operation. The original Z3 was destroyed on 21 December 1943 during an Allied bombardment of Berlin. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z3_(computer))

-       ENIAC

-       ENIAC was the first programmable, electronic, general-purpose digital computer, completed in 1945. There were other computers that had combinations of these features, but the ENIAC had all of them in one computer. It was Turing-complete and able to solve "a large class of numerical problems" through reprogramming. Although ENIAC was designed and primarily used to calculate artillery firing tables for the United States Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory (which later became a part of the Army Research Laboratory, its first program was a study of the feasibility of the thermonuclear weapon. ENIAC was a colossal machine, occupying a large room and weighing about 30 tons. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC )

-        Political situation worldwide:

-       World War II (1939-1945)

-       Attack on Pearl Harbor (1941)

-       Formation of the United Nations (1945)

-       Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945)

-        Important innovations:

-       Nuclear / Atomic Bomb (1945)

-       Microwave technology (1945)

-       The Jeep (1941)

-        Other iconic artworks:

-       Pablo Picasso, The Charnel House (1944-45)

-       Edward Hopper, Nighthawks (1942)

-       Jackson Pollock, Mural (1943)

10. Cybernetics Is Born: Norbert Wiener's Cybernetics + Claude Shannon’s "A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” (1948)

-        About the event:

-       Cybernetics:

-       "Cybernetics" is a term coined by mathematician Norbert Wiener in his book "Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine" (1948). It introduced a new framework for thinking about how systems of all kinds (biological, mechanical, social, etc.) operate and interact. This was a groundbreaking work that influenced a wide range of disciplines, from computer science to biology, engineering, philosophy, and more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics

-       Theory of Communication:

-       Claude Shannon's landmark paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" was published, which established the foundations of information theory. This paper fundamentally changed our understanding of communication processes and served as the foundation for the digital age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_theory

-        Political situation worldwide:

-       Creation of the State of Israel (1948): The Jewish State of Israel was officially declared on May 14, 1948, by David Ben-Gurion

-       Berlin Blockade and Airlift (1948-1949): The Soviet Union blocked railway, road, and water access to West Berlin, prompting the United States, United Kingdom, and other Western Allies to establish the Berlin Airlift to carry supplies to the people in West Berlin.

-       Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): The United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948

-       Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi (1948): The leader of the Indian Nationalist movement, Mahatma Gandhi, was assassinated on January 30, 1948

-       Election of President Truman (1948): Despite predictions of his defeat, U.S. President Harry S. Truman won re-election

-        Important innovations:

-       The Invention of the Transistor (1947): At Bell Labs, John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley invented the transistor, which revolutionized the electronics industry and paved the way for the development of almost all modern electronic devices.

-       The Foundation of Information Theory (1948): Claude Shannon's landmark paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" was published. This paper established the foundations of information theory

-       The Holography Concept (1947): Hungarian-British physicist Dennis Gabor developed the theory of holography while working to improve the resolution of an electron microscope.

-        Other iconic artworks:

-       Jackson Pollock, No. 5, (1948)

-       Willem de Kooning, Woman I (1950-1952)

Check out Le Random Timeline for more historical milestones: https://timeline.lerandom.art/#/chapter-2

‘Lope’ by Jenni Pasanen

Introducing Jenni Pasanen, a rising digital artist who is gaining recognition for her innovative fusion of AI with her imagination, crafting dreamy artworks. She has recently unveiled her first long-form AI collection, ‘Lope’ on Kate Vass Galerie’s digital extension, K011.

Jenni Pasanen, a Finnish artist with a background in graphic design, spent 13 years honing her skills in branding and marketing as a designer and animator. Concurrently, Pasanen cultivated her passion for art, holding on to her aspiration to become a full-time artist. This dream started to become a reality in 2020 when she began to explore the realm of cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

Around this time, Pasanen discovered Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and AI art. Intrigued by the limitless creative possibilities offered by these technologies, she began combining AI with digital painting. To Pasanen, art is a deeply personal form of self-expression. Her philosophy embraces the use of AI as a tool as well as a source of inspiration, a muse. She believes that AI allows her to delve into the depths of her imagination and serves as an extension of her creativity.

Throughout her artistic journey, Pasanen has experimented with a myriad of mediums, from acrylic painting and clay sculpting to sewing and animation, and has even dabbled in coding and 3D. Nevertheless, it is to digital painting that she consistently gravitates. Her artistic process is best described as constructing a layered cake. She adds one element atop another, creating a zigzag pattern of creativity. Pasanen primarily uses Photoshop and AI software, such as Artbreeder and Stable Diffusion in her creative process. She takes delight in the element of surprise that emerges from utilizing tools beyond her complete control. The excitement of this unpredictability is intensified as she blends it with her other techniques, which range from 3D to photography.

Pasanen's art is profoundly inspired by the world around her, from minute natural elements like twigs and ants to casual conversations. Her portfolio often showcases fantastical hybrid creatures composed of flower petals, feathers, or smoke, infusing her work with a sense of whimsy and fantasy. 

Lope

'Lope' is Jenni Pasanen's first long-form generative AI collection, an exploration of humans as emotional animals. 'Lope' invites us to consider the interplay between the rational and the emotional, the scripted and the spontaneous. This collection symbolizes the smooth, effortless stride of an animal in the physical world, reflecting the seamless and graceful dance between AI and human imagination. As AI lacks the inherent emotional depth, being bound by programming and data inputs, and human creativity is often confined by personal experiences and cognitive capabilities, 'Lope' invites audiences to free exploration and creative expression, merging human & machine skills.

In this context, 'lope' is a powerful symbol of transcending existing boundaries and embracing curiosity, unlocking new possibilities for the artist herself. Departing from her customary practice of creating digital drawings using Artbreeder, AI, and Photoshop, Jenni embarks on a new chapter characterized by the pursuit of more surprise through an AI system beyond her ordinary control.

The process of creating 'Lope' differs from Pasanen's typical method: usually, she creates AI shapes that she combines with digital painting. However, in this project, she began with digital work, which was then taught to the AI to create a model that produces the final result.

With 'Lope' she feeds these painted canvases into a machine that takes apart every pixel and creates something new from the pieces. Do these works offer a glimpse of past memories appearing through the canvas? Do they represent something new evolving from the old or are they an echo reflecting the artist's identity? Pasanen enjoys challenging common viewpoints with thought-provoking questions.

By adopting the idea of 'Lope' we are inspired to break away from limitations, develop open-mindedness, and engage with the rhythmic flow of creative thinking. This approach paves the way for AI and human imagination to come together.

‘Lope’ is presented as 101 live-generated pieces on https://0kai.k011.com from the 18th of July!

‘Speciesism’ by Obvious Group

We're thrilled to present the latest project from Obvious, the French trio of artists and researchers who made history with the major auction sale of the first work of art using artificial intelligence by Christie's in 2018. These artists have marked a significant turning point in the art market and were named among Forbes' "30 Under 30" list in 2020. On July 18th, they launched their newest project, ‘Speciesism’ on Kate Vass Galerie’s digital extension, K011, as part of our ongoing show ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’. Let's now delve into the trio’s journey and explore this series with more depth.

Obvious, a pioneering art collective, was established in 2017 by a group of longtime friends and researchers who shared an interest in the creative possibilities of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Their ambition was to create art that was accessible and understandable to everyone, even to those unfamiliar with technology or not experts in the art field. In essence, they sought to create 'obvious' art, thereby establishing the origin of the collective's name.

Their exploration into the intersection of AI and art was catalyzed by a team member who is an AI researcher. They immediately perceived algorithms as a powerful tool to delve into, giving birth to new, unique, and innovative works. Their belief is that algorithms help us understand human nature and push us to surpass our current levels of creativity. They envision a new level of collaboration between the artist and the tool, a partnership where the human hand and the machine work in harmony to craft new aesthetics.

Obvious began their creative endeavor with the creation of a series of classical portraits using Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). The result was a collection of eleven artworks known as the ‘Belamy Family’ series. These AI-created portraits, reminiscent of traditional European art, represent aristocrats from various historical periods. Using a dataset of 15,000 human-painted portraits, Obvious brought the fictitious Belamy family to life. This collection was well-received in the art community, and its auction by Christie's brought significant exposure.

This remarkable success enabled Obvious to participate in major exhibitions, including one at the prestigious Hermitage Museum. Each year, the collective releases a new series; after the Belamys, they introduced the ‘Electric Dreams of Ukiyo’ series, followed by a series of African masks in 2020. In 2022, they held their first solo show, '7.1', a series that paid tribute to the seven wonders of the ancient world, inspired by antique texts.

In July 2023, Obvious unveiled its latest work, ‘Speciesism’ on KVG's digital exhibition, K011. This thought-provoking collaboration continues to question the intimate relationship between humans and machines, blurring the lines between traditional art and AI-enabled creativity.

Speciesism

'Speciesism', the latest collection from Obvious, breaks the traditional norms to offer a modern interpretation of our interactions with different intelligent entities, including the rapidly evolving field of machine learning and artificial intelligence. This series invites viewers to question the categorization of intelligent life into distinct classifications, challenging our understanding of other beings, from the exploitation of animals to ensure our food chain, to the ongoing discourse around new forms of intelligence in the machine learning field.

Infused with influences from the aesthetics of Renaissance art while incorporating contemporary concerns, the series provides a powerful commentary on society's classification of intelligence and our intricate relationships with various life forms. One of the most compelling influences comes from the cinematic adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s novel ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’—the film 'Blade Runner'. In particular, the scene where protagonist Deckard notices android Rachel's emotions serves as a crucial inspiration. This scene marks a pivotal point in Deckard's character development as he begins to empathize with androids—a form of life he has been hunting up until this point.

Mirroring the approach taken in Obvious's earlier 'Belamy Family' series, 'Speciesism' also employs a deep learning process, drawing upon a wide array of historical art references as inputs for the AI system. For Speciesism, the group chose Renaissance frescoes to feed into the machine. The Renaissance period, celebrated for its focus on human emotion, individualism, and exploration of the natural world, provides a parallel to this scene from the film. Just as Renaissance artists were acclaimed for their detailed and humanistic portrayal of subjects, the movie scene represents a broadening of empathy and understanding that we are capable of extending towards those perceived as 'different'. The presence of nude figures in the artwork underscores both vulnerability and sexuality. The raw, authentic exploration of these themes invites us to consider the depths of our acceptance of AI - recognizing it as a form of life that might also possess vulnerabilities and sensuality.

The 'Speciesism' series urges us to confront our fears and excitement regarding AI technologies. While the emergence of a new form of consciousness may seem far off, the series inspires viewers to ponder whether this is an aspiration we hold and how we might interact with this potential new 'entity'.

‘Speciesism’ is presented with 69 live-generated pieces on https://0kai.k011.com from the 18th of July!

Q&A

We would like to feature some Q&A in Obvious most recent interview by K011 Team.

K011: How you first got into making art?

Obvious: Back in 2017, we stumbled upon a research paper on GANs.

We were astonished by their potential to question the limitations of art, and decided to ask this question ourselves by creating a series of classical portraits using these tools.

K011: When did you become aware of Artificial Intelligence as a medium for art?

O: We weren’t aware of AI as a medium of art, until we used it ourselves to such ends.

K011: What would be the main thing which sets you apart from other AI artists?

O: Our approach is conceptual, rather than purely visual. In addition to being a tool for exploring new aesthetics, we see AI as a fascinating society concern.

K011: How would you describe this new collection?

O: Inspired by Blade Runner's scene where Deckard notices Rachel's emotions, the collection reinterprets species interactions through a contemporary take on Renaissance frescoes.

K011: How do rarity traits work?

O: Selecting indoor and outdoor scenes typical in Renaissance frescoes, we added a twist with the CMYK color model for unique tints. Each color and setup blend introduces a different rarity.

---