Search Results

Cyborgs Genesis is one of the very first series created by Frenetik Void in 2017. The development of this research led the artist to explore the innermost corners of the human psyche. By updating some of the most peculiar visual aspects of traditional Surrealist art, he often uses symbols that represent emotions and psychic mechanisms. This longstanding interest in the labyrinthine human mind finds its peak in “Cyborg Genesis”; composed by three distinct works, it's the embodiment of an identity crisis that refers to the very concepts of "form" and "life", an approach that reminds the one proposed by the Italian dramatist, novelist and poet Luigi Pirandello (1867-1936) at a time when the theories of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were changing the public perception of what defined an individual as such. A person is like a river, they said; you can only see the surface but will never grasp how deep it really is. The unconscious is the true psychical reality and our material existence is a trap locking our one hundred thousand refracted and fragmented alter egos. The masks, the glowing eyes and the dreamy scenes created by Frenetik Void mirror such ambiguous state of things. A dark red cloth covers the only human in Nebulae. The naked female figure stares at us with blazing eyes, one of her hands busy holding up the tent-like cloth while the other hiding from our eyes what looks like a perfect sphere. The viewer feels to be an uninvited guest; we are not supposed to look at the female figure and she won't accept our presence. It's a self-confined scene that doesn't demand to be experienced by the public; the protagonist is happy with what she got, as if nothing could scratch her perfectly balanced situation. If we take a closer look, we see how difficult it is for her to maintain the pose; her body language tells us that what seems a well studied posture is in fact the result of external forces. She doesn't represent a perfect, single identity, but the struggle of pretending that such physical reality can exist in the first place. In the background of Eyes Wide Open, a Roman white sculpture of a man is covered by a translucent rounded mask; in the foreground, a masked human figure looks away, as if she was shy or in a pensive state of mind. Branches of trees frame the scene, lit by spectral stage lights. There's no action in this work; everything stays still and the figures don't communicate with each other as if it was a stripped down Samuel Beckett's play. The identity of the figure in the foreground reminds a tree that falls in a desert, unheard; it exists, but in a nullifying state of things. In Sleep Paralysis, a naked body elegantly lies on the floor, the face covered by a translucent mask. A titanic black hand seems asserting power over it, directing a transparent copy of the body in the air. The hallucinated scene is witnessed by many disembodied heads, floating in the background. This is the last stage for the individual's psyche; after exploring what it means to be someone unique ("Nebulae") and nobody ("Eyes Wide Open"), they finally come to terms with the fragmented nature of themselves. They're not a perfect single self and neither a mysterious nobody, but a kaleidoscopic individual, composed by many conflicting characters. About Frenetik Void As digital technologies change the definition of what it means to be human, the relationship between physical presence, virtual identity and digital corporeality becomes more diffuse. The work of Frenetik Void unfolds in a science-fiction environment, a post-human universe inhabited by mutating beings, hybrids in which limits are vanished. Frenetik Void, Genesis Cyborgs is a series of digital artworks curated by MoCDA, Museum of Contemporary Digital Art.

Maria Cynkier in conversation with Cornelia Sollfrank about her creative practice, generative art, the power of decentralisation and commons, and resisting patriarchal structures in tech. Cornelia Sollfrank. Photo: Oliver Görnandt-Schade, Fotografenwerk Hamburg © 2019. Maria Cynkier: Earlier this year, before the Covid-19 pandemic, we met in your studio in Kunstquartier Bethanien in Berlin to talk about your practice. Since then, working conditions for many artists have dramatically changed. How did the Covid-19 affect your ways of working and what helped you get out of bed in the morning? Cornelia Sollfrank: Luckily, for me, not so much has changed because I had planned not to take on a lot of new stuff for 2020 but instead take time, go to live in the countryside to finalize a few ongoing projects. So, I have finished the book Aesthetics of the Commons, together with my colleagues from the ZHdK research project Creating Commons, I wrote two book chapters for other publications, we conceived and produced a new very comprehensive research application and I also worked on the contributions for the project Guggenheim Florisdorf, a temporary intervention in Vienna. By and large, I spent almost all the time out of town and also did not travel at all. As this was intended anyway, it did not feel as a restriction; what did feel weird though was that, all of a sudden, the whole world seemed to synchronize with my slower pace… And what I really missed was not being able to go to the city and meet friends and hang out… That was the most frustrating. MC: Last time we spoke, we also talked about Cambridge Analytica and using mainstream social media platforms for propaganda purposes. Since then, we witnessed #BlackLivesMatter protests all around the world and most recently, UK’s Channel 4 obtained a data leak from Trump’s 2016 campaign proving that the used algorithm by Cambridge Analytica manipulated data to deter thousands Black Americans from voting. Is there a way of going back to the 90s Internet sense of utopia and acting against fascist uses of technology? CS: I would not call it fascist; this is a typical case of simply commercial use. Corporations who provide that sort of manipulation do it for money and they do it for anyone who can pay… What we can do about that? At the moment, we can only raise consciousness regarding the abuse of technologies but our governments are far from making laws that would forbid the generating and harvesting of personal data. Firstly, governments don’t understand, and when they do, they are afraid of the lobbyists. It is totally unacceptable that the world’s largest corporations do not pay tax, on top of stealing and trading personal data. It certainly is a problem that can only be solved through legal regulation. In the meantime, I am working with my artistic research group #purplenoise to explore these workings in more depth. Studio Practice MC: Do you produce a lot of new work these days? CS: I do. I mainly do performative work. It often has something to do with me, my person, my body. For example, two years ago I made the WikiLeaks performance, À la recherche de l’information perdue, which was a part of the ICA programme, the Post Cyberfeminist International, organised for the 20th anniversary of First Cyberfeminist International. It was a performance lecture and the side product is this print. Photo: Cornelia Sollfrank, 2020. The object shown is Julian Assange’s condom, the one that was leaking a little bit of information… in Sweden, remember? The reason why he had to spend seven years of his life in the Ecuadorian embassy. The original image is from the Swedish police report, which is publicly available. The document included forensic images of the evidence, the condom, which I used in the performance as the visual centrepiece. Leaking information, both digital information and genetic information, was the artistic shortcut that I made to ironically thematise the gender aspect without becoming moralistic.... MC: I just recently saw Lawrence Abu Hamdan’s exhibition, where he also used forensic evidence including recorded speech and testimonies. I find it interesting how a lot of forensic information is now available to the public, even in very important cases. Could you elaborate on this performance and tell me what interested you in this aspect of Julian Assange’s story? CS: First of all, I am not treating this image as any kind of evidence. For me, its quality lies simply in the visual. As an image, it can tell the whole story… see the little cracks where the information is leaking [laughing]. Anyway, the interesting thing about WikiLeaks is that it's such an important political case to which there are so many dimensions – including a gender dimension which is not much talked about. Many politically sensitive people didn't want to criticise Julian Assange’s “private” behaviour because the case is about so much more... It’s a difficult situation because he has done so many groundbreaking things, he made unbelievable achievements and took great risks, so people don’t want to be pedantic and blame him for being sexist... That made me want to make an artistic comment that was not judging: guilty, or not guilty, good guy or bad guy, but was much more complex, speaking about transparency and responsibility but also addresses the complex relationship of gender and technology. In a way, I think my comment is a bit mean and cynical because I made the stupid condom case the centre piece around which all the “big” questions of freedom of information and alleged espionage circle. Whatever the outcome of his case will be, and it literally can be anything, it is a shame that tech culture, and hacker culture in particular, is an extremely sexist environment. MC: You’re famously known as one of the first female artists to address gender inequality in your digital artworks. It is an area that you’ve been preoccupied with since the very early days of your career. For Female Extension (1997), you created and took on identities of 289 international female artists and under their names entered the 1997 Hamburger Kunsthalle Net art competition called Extension. In the end, despite two-thirds of the participants being female, all prizes were awarded to men. Some of your other artworks from the 90s include the net.art generator, your works around female hackers, and you have initiated the Old Boys Network. Photo: Cornelia Sollfrank, “Female Extension”, 1997. Source: Rhizome Net Art Anthology: https://anthology.rhizome.org/female-extension CS: The net.art generator is a work which not only endlessly generates images but also constantly generates new discourses. It has been running now for 22 years and still keeps me busy.... Currently, I am working on an ebook, Fix My Code, together with Winnie Soon who is a creative technologist who does part of her research based on net.art generator. It is a dialogue in which we are addressing technological and techno-political issues, from creative coding to the restrictions Google gives us regarding the use of their search API. In my PhD I worked through the related copyright issues exemplified by the anonymous-warhol_flowers (2004-). It was practice-led research that also included the production of other related artworks such as videos, interviews with lawyers, including I don’t know, an interview with Andy Warhol.For me, the net.art generator is a conceptual tool, not just an image generator. In all my works, the conceptual aspect comes first and then I search for the adequate form or format for the realisation. That is why my works are not necessarily digital even when they address issues of digital culture. Two works from anonymous-warhol_flowers (2004-) series in Cornelia Sollfrank's studio. Photograph by the author. Technofeminism and #purplenoise MC: Since the 1990s when you co-founded the Old Boys Network, you haven’t stopped working in the context of cyberfeminism; more recently you initiated another technofeminist artist group: #purplenoise. CS: #purplenoise is not exactly an artist group; we call it an artistic research group, but then it is not a stable group. It is probably best described as an affective formation operating in different constellations with different approaches in different contexts. At the core of our work are interventions in which we are trying to experimentally connect physical and virtual space. We are staging an event, for example, like a demonstration on the street and experiment with this virtual representation and how this creates a feedback to what is happening in the street. The idea for this way of working comes from a text by Christina Grammtikopoulou, “Virtual Performances of Gender,” which has been included in the technofeminist anthology I published last year with the title Beautiful Warriors. She described this interaction between online and offline engagement and set the impulse for experiments. Our main focus is on social media and how the manipulation of digital content can influence actual political situations and decision-making. In our first intervention we hijacked a real demonstration by creating digital representations that made it look like the whole demo was ours, while in fact it was only three of us operating on the ground. Photo: Christiane Koesler, courtesy #purplenoise, 2018. A more recent piece which was a virtual Mayday demonstration. Under the hashtag #technofeministcare we agitated thousands of people who showed their faces wearing our mask and reciting the #technofeministcare manifesto. Photographs submitted to #purplenoise as a part of #technofeminiscare social media campaign. Source: https://www.instagram.com/purplenoiseup/ MC: Could you tell me a little bit more about the workshops which you organise with #purplenoise? CS: There are two different kinds of workshops, the ones we are doing for ourselves and the ones we are doing for others, on invitation. For example, we did a workshop at transmediale 2019, #iusemyfeelers – How to Grow and Use Your Feelers, or at HMKV in Dortmund, #imakenoise – Playing with störfaktors as part of the exhibition Computer Grrrls. But it is also part of our work to educate ourselves and learn new things together. Recently, we had a big meeting where everyone said what they wanted to learn and what they would be interested in doing. So, we made a map and a plan – which will take us years to work through [laughs|… Something we were very fond of are online manuals on how to be safe online and how to protect yourself from data leaks by using certain software, settings, really all kinds of tricks. MC: In recent years, online surveillance has been a hot topic. One would think there would be a lot of awareness around the issues of security online. CS: I think it is more of an overall issue with the design of technology. It is designed to seduce and to persuade. It is part of the deal, the companies give you something that looks nice and often is fun to use but then you pay the price – which we often do not even know exactly. And honestly, who has the time and the interest in exploring all the tricks needed to protect oneself? Everything works best if you don't use any additional precautions. If you do, technology gets into the way and this is exactly how it's designed. MC: So you think that this is just a feeling of being comfortable? CS: I think so, yes. It's about being comfortable, easy, you know, no obstacle, I just want to click, make things work and not pay anything. The price of this behaviour is quite high but it's also very abstract. I think it's almost impossible to understand what is going on behind the scenes and how dangerous it is. The film, The Great Hack (2019), was quite interesting. I showed it to my students and it was quite nice because they were all so depressed afterwards. I said yes, that’s it! [laughs] You have good reason to be depressed because the situation is fucking depressing. Especially the manipulation of political elections and other democratic decision-making processes is what I find very concerning. This is something that is not talked about so much in mainstream media because it is happening behind closed doors and subject to business secrets. None of the businesses who live from selling personal data and user profiles would lay bare their practices. You know, essentially Facebook, for example, is not a social media platform, but an advertising and propaganda machine. Whoever has the most money can generate the most influence, as simple as that. MC: I think the mainstream media often don’t talk about it because partially they operate on a similar basis and rely on these advertising and propaganda machines. On the other hand, more independent and grassroot initiatives using technofeminist tactics can play a big role in unveiling such controversies. CS: All kinds of art and activism which address these issues are important, and of course, academic research is also needed in these fields... What is interesting are these waves that one can observe over time. Cyberfeminism was big in 1997, 1998, 1999 and then it kind of disappeared after 2001 but a few years ago it came back, as technofeminism. Tactical media in general were a huge thing in the 90s. Now, it seems that everyone is interested in the gender and technology issue again. MC: How has cyberfeminism changed over the years? Are the issues at stake the same? CS: I do not use the term cyberfeminism anymore for contemporary phenomena. My suggestion is to understand it as a historical term that refers to the 1990s and early 2000s. That is why I am using the term technofeminism meanwhile. It indicates a continuity but also a new phase. What is the same is that there still is a gender problem in and with technology. However, it is not the same everywhere in the world because it is dependent on cultural conditions. What has changed is that the initial euphoria is over and our understanding of technology is more comprehensive and, for example, includes material and environmental aspects. In the 90s we were quite naively talking about the immateriality of the digital...and we were so optimistic how digital technology would help to build a more just world. That seems far away today. MC: Was there a sense of utopia about the Internet in the 90s? CS: Of course, it was this dream of a world with flat hierarchies, decentralized and self-organized structures and infrastructures, and undreamt-of new identities. This is all over now. The general mode is more self-defence than making up any utopias. It was a new start in the 90s, there was a lot of positive energy around digital technology and it was so easy to mobilise people in cyberspace. We were techies, we were cool, everything was possible. This spirit is gone. Cornelia Sollfrank's studio. Photograph by the author. MC: Your ways of working remind me of hacktivism and hacking. How do these strategies relate to your work as an artist? Do you want to hack the art world? CS: This is probably what I wanted twenty years ago. Meanwhile, I am not interested in the art world any more, it is more that there are things I am interested in that I want to pursue and explore… One thing which is core is the concept of knowledge, ways of knowing and knowledge transfer, and learning. Who decides what knowledge is valid, or valuable? What has to become part of a canon? Thinking about these questions comes from the feminist critique of science and technology but also from critical pedagogy. Tech culture is largely structured along meritocratic values; if you work hard, achieve something special, you become somebody who is admired… Part of this ethos is not to share your knowledge but let others work equally hard to find out… Here queer feminist hacking offers new concepts that are really about sharing and caring. It is not about being the best, the first, the one who needs the least sleep or food, but taking a holistic approach in the sense of taking care of oneself and others and working together instead of against each other. These different approaches need their own spaces where they can be cultivated, which happens in queer feminist hack labs for example. And the work often starts with the personal. MC: Unlike the more common understanding of hacking and hacktivism, which is considered to be more of breaking rules, your understanding is more reliant on collaboration, sharing knowledge and learning from each other. CS: That’s right, but I would not call it hacking any longer. The term has been appropriated by business thinking and thus become pretty much meaningless. Let’s simply call it technofeminist practice, a practice that is based on queer and feminist tactics and thus is much more inclusive. It also includes the atmosphere, the understanding of knowledge, learning from embodied experience and a critical attitude towards technology and capitalist exploitation. It is a way to empower many people and not just a few geniuses. Instead of hierarchisation, competition and comparison there is the idea of care and collaboration because we can only achieve something when we work together and join forces. It is important to unlearn old ways of handling technology which are often based on frustration and relearn. Instead of feeling stupid in the face of all the technical skills we do not have, we should understand how much we know already and start from there to learn more. I believe, it is really important to motivate people to start from where they are at a particular time. MC: It does seem like the balance between individualism and collectivity is necessary. CS: The situation we have to master is definitely not something that anyone can do alone. But the problem often is where do we start to unlearn all the crap we have learned in our unhealthy environments? That is something that interests me very much. I also ran workshops on technofeminist educational practices. We experimented with different approaches and continuously develop things further. Also, I would be interested in organizing a conference on technofeminist educational strategies to bring all the different approaches together and create a bigger impact. Commons MC: Could you tell me a bit about your work with commons and the kind of research you're doing in this area? CS: The commons project is a follow-up on my research in copyright. At one point, I thought that I no longer want to ask the question “what can artists take?” Artists always have issues with copyright if they build on something that exists. I’d rather ask the question “What can artists contribute? What can they give?” I want to work against the image of the needy artist who always just wants to take something; you know, we are also very generous people who have a lot to give. And so I started a research project called Giving What You Don't Have. When I started working on that, I didn't work directly with the term ‘commons’. It only appeared after some time when I looked into open culture and free licenses. So I was looking for artists who work with digital networks to keep the culture as open as possible. From this small project Giving What You Don't Have, we have developed a bigger research project, Creating Commons. Together with two colleagues in Switzerland we selected 16 art projects who, in our understanding, are creating commons as an artistic practice. For a recent exhibition here in Berlin, OPEN SCORES: How to program the Commons we asked these artists to create a score related to their practice, and referring to Fluxus scores. If you look at the aesthetics of our exhibition, it even looks a bit like the recreation of a Fluxus Festival... We chose the scores, because all these artists we're working with do not create classic artworks like images or sculptures, but things that are operational on the net. They do projects – rather than objects – that are not made for representation but just perform their task... Nevertheless, we still wanted to put something in the white cube to create other ways of circulating the knowledge that is embedded in these projects. We wanted to disseminate the works and their spirit into the art world. Postcard from 'OPEN SCORES. How to program the Commons', 21 September – 12 October 2019, panke.gallery, Berlin. MC: On the one hand, all the themes which you explore in your practice are different, but on the other, they interweave and are interconnected. Your practice involves a lot of these hacking techniques, but you’re also involved in your community, in the technofeminist movement. I think that’s a very nice fusion of technical knowledge and alternative ways of knowing and a community of people who share this philosophy. CS: Of course, it's all interconnected, but that is not obvious at first sight. Sometimes I do a video installation, then I run a workshop, I organize a demonstration, I publish a book or I curate an exhibition or I hang prints on a museum wall. The art world is too much fixated on deciphering the aesthetic language of an artist to be able to trace conceptual connections between very different forms of expression.… MC: What are your plans and dreams for the future? CS: I wish that I could go on working in this way. It means a lot of freedom. I do not need to make any compromise or fulfil other peoples’ expectations. My path is determined through the problems I encounter and find worth exploring. It is both an intellectual and an aesthetic pleasure that I enjoy every day. Bios Cornelia Sollfrank (PhD) is an artist, researcher and lecturer based in Berlin. She is a pioneer of cyberfeminism and net.art whose practice explores issues relating to network culture, digital media, authorship, intellectual property and gender. She was a co-founder of Old Boys Network and has been involved in the net art scene from the 1990s. Her projects, lectures and artworks have been presented internationally, among others at CAC Shanghai, Studio XX Montréal, Taipei Digital Art Festival, Transmediale, Ars Electronica, The ZKM Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe, Liverpool Biennale, New Museum New York, ICA London. Maria Cynkier is an independent curator and writer working in the fields of art, technology and digital culture. She graduated from MA Curating Contemporary Art at the Royal College of Art. Recently Maria curated Empathy Loading, an online project in collaboration with Furtherfield, User Preferences, an online pavilion for The Wrong Biennale 2019-20 and Critical Matter at Dyson Gallery. Her writing was published by Hyperallergic, Artmag, Furtherfield and The Culture Trip.

Eleonora Brizi in conversation with Ania Catherine and Dejha Ti about their artist journey, approach to art & tech, and recent projects from On View to I'd rather be in a dark silence than a limited edition tech wearable from the artists' Privacy Collection. Dejha Ti & Ania Catherine (Photo credit: Daniela Skeyki) On December 11, 2019, it is a cold morning in Park Slope, Brooklyn, when I have the pleasure of meeting with Ania Catherine & Dejha Ti at the lovely J+B Design, a Japanese showroom and cafe. Eleonora: I am very happy to be here with you today and I wish for this interview to be more of a conversation. You are two fantastic artists with a very special take on digital art. Could we consider your art to be a sort of “social experiment”? I think about the "On View" project: was it unique or have you also worked on similar experiences? Dejha: Thank you, excited to be sitting down with you finally! Yes, much of our work does. The social experiment feeling is probably due to how in our work often the "normal" gets interrupted just slightly–whether it be through performance, spatial design, or voice commands– revealing its absurdity. The other thing is that our work is conceptual but also very multifaceted in its execution requiring thousands of decisions. And while every decision basically has a thesis behind it, our projects have a framework and opportunity for unknowns. This is because the agency of the audience comes into play, and that defines the experience for them, for others and the outcome of the work. So, no matter how intentional and detailed we are... Ania: and we’re very detailed... D: ...we are just as submissive. Certain behaviours and surprises emerge out of this approach. A: Definitely, I mean when creating experiences, it is crucial throughout the process for us to consider the potential reactions of the audience. I don’t mean asking “will people like this?” but more just imagining what people may do in certain situations. We almost have to anticipate and predict their responses—for example how they would feel touching a certain surface, or how to use subtle cues to guide their movement within a space—since you are trying to create a world that people are going to inhabit and feel: it isn’t solely about doing what we want. This is one element that makes a work feel like a "social experiment". Like Dejha said, there are always unknowns. On many occasions people interacted and participated in ways that we could never have predicted. That is where the completion of the work manifests: in the way that the audience moves, what they do, how they feel, and the choices they make, and E: It’s almost like you need the audience. D: Yes, exactly. It's common thread in our practice. Audience-participants are required in order for our work to “work”. For instance, in the experiential nightlife pieces we created for LACMA's VIP Party during Art Basel Hong Kong weren’t obviously interactive or begging for your participation... A: It felt like a party. D: Definitely. And our performances came to life when people encountered them, the environment prompted certain behaviors. The “interactivity” became invisible. Guests couldn’t tell what was them just partying and what was "the art". A: The Touch Me flower wall for example. We did not expect people to wait in line for 30 minutes to stand in front of it and pose with hands in red gloves, but that piece took people by surprise and it was cool to see the guests have so much fun trying to figure out if the arms were prosthetic or real, some even tried to bite the performers' hands! D: That's right, so bizarre. And even though the work was within a party context, our goal wasn’t just to help guests have a good time, there was this undercurrent of socio-political thinking or feeling. The theme was around a central female character, and we made the choice for her to be powerful and stoic, instead of a hot expendable for the guests. A: Especially in this kind of vintage vibe, the women would be expected to be silent, demure, sexy eye candy that all the men consume. We flipped that gaze on its head and the lead character was dominant, she held all the power in the room. She stood in this glowing box above everyone, smoked her cigarette all night looking bored. Occasionally she would leave the box, walk up to someone in the room, stand in front of them and make eye contact for a few seconds, then blow smoke in their face. The piece was called She smells smoke. It was very interesting to see how the crowd responded to her. People seemed to love having smoke blown in their faces, they stood in complete awe of this tall, dominant, confident woman. We were definitely happy with that response. Maybe they will start being in awe of those women in their everyday lives. D: Haha, maybe. Cici (the performer) wore a costume that also reflected this power. In addition to being over 6 feet tall in heels, she wore a dress designed and made by our friend, brilliant artist Amanda Maciel Antunes, and the dress had a particular bird on it that represents the powerful feminine in Chinese culture. Also, the collar on the dress was in a style typically only found on the clothing of emperors; women would never appear with that kind of collar, so there were many subtle design elements of that performance that came together to paint the picture we envisioned. A: That’s a good example of how even if we’re creating something that’s not directly about a certain political subject, that our politics and views are always woven in there. E: During the last of my six years in China, I finally made it to visit Lugu Lake, in the Yunnan province. That is probably the last matriarchal village in the world and you enter through the sign: “Welcome to the women’s kingdom”. It was very difficult to get to visit a real house where these women of Mosuo minority still live. The way it used to work – since now many of them moved to the big cities and the tradition is slowly disappearing – is that all the girls live on the first floors with the most powerful woman of the family: the grandma. When they reach the age of 18, they can have their private rooms upstairs. At night, they go out in the village to dance and when they meet a man they like – or vice versa – they touch their hands under the palms of their hand, as a code for showing availability. If the man returns the gesture, she will go home and wait for him in her room. The guy will come and will have to climb to reach the window. He needs one knife to open it and one hat to be left outside as a symbol that the woman is taken. In the morning, he will have to leave through the courtyard, so that the grandmother will see who that is, but he won’t have any rights on his potential children, who will be raised by the women and the men of the woman’s family. I just wanted to share with you another story of powerful feminine in China. But let’s go back to you: how did this all start? A: I’ve never heard of that, super interesting. Our story… well at the beginning, we first liked each other’s works on Instagram, a very modern to-be-love story. And we thought that we should meet up and start collaborating, maybe creating choreography and combining it with the kind of immersive environments that Dejha was doing. We decided to meet and we did, we were both in LA. That night we had a great discussion, and were planning on how best to collaborate and then she started hitting on me. She offered to cook for me. And this was January 2016. We started dating two weeks later and I moved in after a month. In December of that year we did our first collaboration. E: So first came love! A: Yes, but also I think from the beginning love was rooted in our shared love for art. D: True, the first time we met up in Venice (LA), which was solely to talk about art and see if there was any room for collaboration, it was all about sharing references: “have you seen this film, have you watched this lecture, this person speak....”? A: Literally, we were at the bar and we had napkins full of homework that we gave to each other. Therefore, even from the beginning this romantic connection was very much based in being obsessed with art and knowing that the other would appreciate the books that we have read and the movies that we have watched. It was always love wrapped up in appreciation for her creative ideas and taste. That was at the core at the romantic part. D: The second time that we met up, we had this big sketchpad—which I don't even know why—and in that way everything, since day one, has been creative R&D, challenging each other at the extension of what art and writing we have seen in the world. Not too long after, late 2016 in LA, was our first collaboration called Line Scanner. We rigged a Roadster 20K to a lift about 9 meters in the air and faced it straight down towards the floor. I was in Resolume mapping and triggering animations that I had created on top of Ania who was improvising movement. We were actually shooting some stuff for our friend’s Christmas rave. And when our DP stepped away, Ania and I just kept rolling and improvising (unrelated to Christmas). I later edited this together on a 4hr bus to NYC. So, unlike most of our work, it was completely unplanned and kind of an accidental creation. A: Yes, Line Scanner was very spontaneous and it ended up screening in festivals around the world. Line Scanner (2016 Los Angeles), Dejha Ti and Ania Catherine E: Can I ask you how you monetize your art? D: Good question. It’s tricky, because there still is not a very cut and dry method to “owning” or “buying” an experience, and that has been the primary medium we’ve been working in. A: The structures that exist right now are still sorting out exactly how to deal with the experiential work we are doing. It’s all exciting because we are really dealing with non-traditional and often physical-digital hybrid formats, but as Dejha said, tricky in terms of monetization up to this point. D: For us (so far), monetization has taken the form of one-off commissions from cultural institutions or brands. But in a permanent or long term installation, there could be a scenario involving a percentage of ticket sales. Experiential and immersive artwork tends to be quite expensive and time consuming to produce, so models like that would make the practice more sustainable. A: Aside from that though, we have been working for the last months on creating some limited edition wearables as well as objects created from reclaimed material from our installations. It is really fun to consider creating something that can be owned, something that someone can live with in their home, almost as a creative constraint. D: I agree. It becomes a site specific work, in the sense that we build off the intention of someone having it in a home or on a body. It is a very different and interesting context to create for. Also, we are beyond excited about the first piece from our Privacy Collection debut at Renaissance 2.0.2.0! A: Can’t believe it. It’s such a departure—in terms of medium, not subject—from what we normally make and working with Barbara Sanchez-Kane on this has been a dream. The Privacy Collection is kind of an appendage project to subjects we explored in On View. We’ve gotten to the point that the devices we rely on to connect with each other, are listening and tracking us in an attempt to predict, and ultimately alter our offline behavior. It’s beyond an issue of privacy. It's erosion of free will. It's a psy-op. On View was shortlisted for The Lumen Prize 3D/Interactive (2020) and ADC Award Winner for Experiential Design (Digital Experiences + Responsive Environments) (2020) On View (2019), Ania Catherine and Dejha Ti, Commissioned by the SCAD Museum of Art Privacy Collection, Dejha Ti & Ania Catherine (2020) D: The Privacy Collection is a series of wearable technology that both comments on this reality and does something at the same time. The pieces exist somewhere at the intersection of conceptual art, fashion, and function. We have a full collection in the works now. Ania and I have been fans of Sanchez-Kane for a while and when we approached Barbara about collaborating on this with us, she was very into it. It's really a lovely match. As you know, the first piece debuting in the Rome show is called I’d rather be in a dark silence than. It’s a black trench coat with pockets lined in military-grade signal blocking/isolating fabric. If your device is in the dark pocket, you can’t be tracked, traced, listened to, or notified. It also protects from contactless identity theft. For example, passports, credit cards and most items in our wallets contain RFIDs. Although we don't see the coat as a longterm solution, it serves as a reminder, every time you put it on, of the need to rebuild our digital ecosystems and the ethics within it. I'd rather be in a dark silence than (2020) Ania Catherine and Dejha Ti - Limited Edition of 25 A: An interesting aside: the specific fabric we sourced for the coat is typically used in law enforcement and digital forensics. When purchasing it online we changed the shipping address from U.S. to Mexico, and the manufacturer said it was “out of stock”. We had to have it shipped to us in the U.S. and then ship it to Mexico to get to Barbara. Similar fabrics were “in stock”, but none of the lab tested and military-grade options were available. Definitely peculiar, and by that I mean suspicious. Oh, going back to the devices listening to our conversations, we think it’s going beyond the well known “I talked about going on vacation in Greece and then an advertisement for a hotel in Greece came up in my feed 5 minutes later” stuff, but actually ideas and concepts that us, and several other creatives we know including Barbara (Sanchez-Kane), have had and talked about in detail, and then seen that idea executed by a larger company... D: Yes, it's gone beyond the mood board and “inspo” problem. What was a referential creative economy is now taking the form of creative surveillance. Works-in-progress are embezzled through extractive technologies before the artist has a chance to birth the work. A: That’s a whole other interview but something we’re thinking about and currently researching, related to this project. D: It definitely is. Anyway, we’re thrilled to have the limited edition coats available through MoCDA. E: There are artists who sell certificates of authenticity about experiences. Maybe Blockchain could be a solution. D: Exactly, there are definitely ways emerging but it feels like the last 2 years we’ve been solely focused on producing so we probably haven’t spent as much time as we should have trying to make it sustainable or thinking about the logistics around or strategies for monetization. A: Probably to our detriment, but we’re getting better. D: Haha this is why we’re happy to know brilliant people like you and Serena! A: I second that. What I love about the digital art, art+tech, community generally, is that there really doesn’t feel like a sense of competition. Everyone in this very international ‘scene’ is passionate, searching for answers, creating solutions, sharing ideas, helping each other out, assisting others on their endeavors. Even when we make statements or do talks that challenge norms or ask difficult questions, it is always met with interest and appreciation. I don’t think I’ve ever been in a community that felt that way. It’s really unique and I believe in it for that reason. E: This takes me to another question that I wanted to ask you. I really liked when you were talking about digital art during the panel at CADAF Miami. You mentioned that when you say “digital” everyone is expecting huge immersive videos or similar stuff. When you asked if the audience would expect this, I answered no. I don't necessarily expect an experience—might be because I am in the digital art world—instead I would think more about an actual art piece, like a “Meural” digital canvas with art inside. But your point of view on this is very interesting because with your art, people might sometimes think that there is nothing digital there. And this is the point I would really like to stress in this conversation. D: Yes, that is how we started our conversation at CADAF. The Mark Weiser quote we opened that presentation with, written in 1999, basically says that the multimedia devices of our time still put all their focus on the screen. On the daily, we are interacting most of the time with computers as computers. You know with tedious touchscreens, keyboards, mice, and screens. It seems that people are just as addicted to the screen in “digital” art as they are in their everyday lives. In our work we demonstrate that digital isn't synonymous with immersive projection, digital isn’t synonymous with goggles. Like you said, in our work it can come across that nothing is digital. This approach falls inline with ubiquitous computing (or pervasive computing). Weiser describes it as something like: technology is embedded into the fabric of our world and becomes indistinguishable from everyday life. E: The way you treat digital is very special. This interaction with the audience. It is almost digital art “eliminating” the digital part. D: Well, eliminating or diminishing the obvious appearance of the digital part. We generally prefer that there's no virtual layer between you and the virtual world. When possible the interface is physical or unobtrusive. On View is more digitally advanced than previous works of ours that used immersive projection for example. A: It’s interesting to us because projection mapping is actually a very old medium but it registers immediately as digital because of the expected aesthetics of digital art. D: Right, your naked eye reads it as high tech but it's actually fairly low tech at this point. On View is the opposite, it looks low tech but it’s not. The entire experience is very natural looking, it's made of materials you normally encounter, like paint, dry wall, wood, ramps and so forth. But under the floors and behind the walls there is over 100 meters of fiber optic cable connecting a ubiquitous network of technology. We used TouchDesigner as a main brain to integrate real-time facial recognition, dozens of microprocessors, kinetic winch control, environmental sensors, voice commands, dmx light control and guest profile generation. The exhibition discretely tracks your actions as you move throughout. It recognizes your face, and constructs a data profile around you. The experience resolves in an area called the Golden Gallery which looks like a standard fine art environment containing a bulletproof art case and a security guard who is actually a performer trained to look bored and yawn occasionally. Anyhow, when you stand in front of the art case your image comes up. You are on view...but only to yourself. Your face is the only way to retrieve your image. The moment audience-participants saw their image, they were shocked, perhaps even disturbed. I think it is largely due to the technology being out of sight, so it came to them as a surprise. When this happens in real life it's devastating and a violation of humanity. On View is a closed system, so it’s quite innocuous and just serves as a warning. Screenshot of On View's TouchDesigner Project File, showing the network view of the 'Data Body' / kinetic room (2019) Screenshot of On View's TouchDesigner project file wiring a guest's photo for real-time facial recognition (2019) E: Should we find another word for “digital” art? I had this conversation with a friend who works in a very established gallery and she said: you don't call it “brush art”. A: We never want people to look and be like “oh, digital art”! Similar to what your friend expressed with ‘brush art’, we like to ask, why is it always art and tech? We don’t say art and paint or art and clay, and in our opinion the best examples of art and tech are where you don’t think about the technology, it disappears into the work and you just experience art, the message, the feeling. The fact that it has a digital component is not the defining characteristic, it’s just that, a component, not the point. D: Right. The technology is not the content. A: People get so focused on the technological aspects and forget to think about the piece as a work of art, ask the questions that matter. It is almost like we’re calling each other on the phone and are so excited that the technology is connecting us that we forget to have a conversation. D: Totally, we talk about this a lot, that we have to start expecting more, and holding digital art to standards beyond a fancy tech demo. An important question we always ask ourselves is, will this work still hold up when the technology is no longer novel? In On View we use facial recognition. It sounds impressive I guess, but it’s certainly more interesting in the context of the piece than it is as something that is possible in the world. A: In a couple years (or less), when no one is impressed with facial recognition, On View will still have a message. The concept will stand regardless of the status of the technology. D: Tech doesn’t age well, but concepts do. A: Yes, and that is why we do not rely on tech as a message. D: For me, it can be so poetic when the technology is hidden rather than the subject of the experience. I find the expected aesthetics of digital art very limiting. And by expected aesthetics I mean instantly recognizable as digital. When people think of digital art they typically think of lasers, AR/VR, headsets, projection, 3D animations—they just have that image. We intentionally made On View a pivot from that aesthetic: what do you mean this is digital art? We like that confusion. It also draws attention to the idea that computers are hiding around us all the time. A: Right, people felt the results of the technology, rather than thinking about it. That’s what we aim for. D: Yes, I agree. Visible tech (obvious tech) does not equal high tech. Usually it indicates the contrary. E: It is also a little bit of a problem with the world of art and blockchain, where there are always many conversations about the blockchain, too few about the art. A: The problem is that it is that many people in tech have the budgets to experiment but they don't engage meaningfully with artists, and artists rarely have chances to work with new technology, due to lack of funds, knowledge, tech-savvy collaborators, or engineers/programmers who will spend time on an artwork out of pure interest. This is an element of our collaborative work that is quite rare. Dejha is a conceptual artist but also has studied and worked extensively in human-computer interaction, so she has artistic vision paired with deep technical knowledge. She has taught me a lot and vice versa, we’re at a point where I will give feedback on an interactive system and Dejha will come up with choreography. D: The separatism in art and technology puts us in a position where you have the art world eye-rolling the tech world, accusing it of gimmicky uses of art to demonstrate the technology; and you have the reverse, where the tech world eye-rolls the art world accusing it of gimmicky uses of technology. A: I have seen performances where you’ll hear the audience like: “Wow! They are wearing a sensor and when they go like this it makes a sound! It's synesthesia!” People are impressed with the function, and probably wouldn’t ask what that performance was about because the piece might just rely on what the tech is doing and feeling that it’s cool (which is not enough in my view). Someone in tech might see that and be like: “really?” This is an example of when the art world tries to use technology and it becomes gimmicky. And there are plenty of situations in the reverse where a tech company wants to demo something and they choose an artist or who is maybe a friend of the CEO who makes a piece that’s not interesting, lacking voice and conceptual grounding, and it’s a lame artwork that the art world will see, and use it to justify why digital art isn’t a thing. D: Happens all the time, which is why we need more meaningful collaborations between engineers who invent new technologies and artists who reorient the direction of tech innovation. When we spoke at Tech Open Air in Berlin earlier this year (2019), the crowd was more of a tech audience. A scientist and an engineer came up to us afterwards and they really connected with what we were talking about. They mentioned the exact thing Ania just said: so often you see art using shallow applications of technology and they don't feel represented as engineers and scientists. To hear their point of view really confirms that this is a pain point that needs addressing. “Art and Tech” projects don’t always make a good case for the vast potential of what can be achieved in these collaborations. When I was in university I learned about E.A.T. (experiments in art and technology) and it really imprinted on my worldview and art practice very early on, so I’m thankful to have had this perspective ever since I’ve been working with technology. E.A.T was founded in the 60s by Billy Klüver, Robert Rauschenberg, Fred Waldhauer, and Robert Whitman, and they brought together 30 scientists and engineers from Bell Labs and paired them with 10 NYC artists to create performances. Some of which included Lucinda Childs, John Cage, Deborah Hay... A: Yvonne Rainer who is one of my favorite choreographers ever was involved. D: Yes! And you could see the engineers in suits scratching their heads and the artists working on choreography and such, all solving problems realtime, to make sense of it or more likely not make sense of it! The idea of technology “working” when used in art is relative. Form follows function is a design principle. But within art, function following concept and function challenging concept is a principle I can get behind. In E.A.T., both parties challenged each other and the mindset they paved is still powerful today. Their mission was (paraphrasing here) to create work with technology that was neither the preconception of the artist nor the engineer, but instead creating something from the very beginning together and seeing what came of it. I think it's also important to think about where our technologies come from and why they were created. Engineers are concerned with making things work in accordance with a particular goal relevant to the goals of their industry (finance, surveillance, military). An artist has different goals and therefore different technologies can be developed out of those goals. These new inventions could be helpful and valuable to the world outside of art. A: In that way, it’s not art in the service of tech, or tech in the service of art, but the two put in a blender together which is likely to create something greater than the sum of its parts. D: Also what is important to us is using technology in art only when it makes the work stronger or supports the message. A: Right, just because we have the skill to design complex interactive systems, doesn't mean we should be doing that for every piece. For instance we range from huge teams, highly technical projects to the most minimal you could imagine. For example, for our feature film A page intentionally left blank our entire team has been just me, Dejha and a camera. That’s all we need to tell that story. D: 100%. What do you want to say, and then what is the vehicle most suitable for that message? A: Cool tech can’t make bad art good. E: If we consider that art speaks the language of its time, the language of our time is digital. I always make a distinction between the “voice of art” and the “language of art”. The voice has always been the same but the language changes over time. Considering also that the contemporary audience – the young people – are very, sometimes only, familiar with digital: If you want to speak to them, would marble work? A: I think it would. I don’t believe that any medium is irreversibly time stamped. To me, the medium is not what makes a piece of art ‘contemporary’. A highly technical work could feel classic. On the contrary, make a giant iPhone out of marble and young people would be like “Oh my God, this is amazing!” The subject is digital even though the form is ancient. It would read as current. The point of connection is likely not the material of the canvas, but what is painted on it. I like the idea of ancient ideas in newer mediums, and newer ideas in ancient mediums. D: You’re definitely right that young people have a comfortability with technology that older generations don’t, so digital art probably feels more native to them. It’s easy for them to understand it as a form of expression because that’s a language they express themselves through every day. With that said, I don’t think that this means young people are less likely to feel connected to painting or sculpture... A: I mean maybe, but in addition to what you’re exposed to, there still is individual taste and what subjects interest you that plays a role in what you like. But absolutely I agree there is more of an openness to digital art in the smartphone generation. D: True and to digress for a moment...I'm less concerned about mediums that connect with young people in terms of art and very concerned about how (the way that) tech is present in our lives...no matter the generation. We are all familiar with how to use technology to a certain extent, but often less familiar with how technology is used on us. Or, sometimes we know and don’t care. And sometimes we care, but still have to participate in society. And sometimes we care but technologies are designed to be addictive (not just useful), and like any addiction, you may continue to use regardless of the consequences. Hopefully this changes soon. Tech literacy is imperative, especially as technology becomes more and more invisible. Offline conversations with your friends aren’t offline if there’s a phone within a 5 meter radius. Without a certain level of knowledge or awareness about the tech we use, we are susceptible to manipulation. Tech literacy isn’t necessarily knowing how to code. Tech literacy isn’t tech savviness, you know, how to use apps and control your “smart” home—it’s about having the knowledge to protect yourself from and taking action against predatory technologies. Going back to dated mediums… A: The body is never dated. D: I couldn't agree more. E: Are “millennials” using their bodies though? They are home and their life is happening on a computer, on the net. A: Probably not enough. Of course some people are very active, others sedentary, and cultural norms play into this too. Overall I do feel like there is going to be some kind of collective physical atrophy, which might even have an impact on how visceral the experience of watching performance is. Or maybe performances will be more powerful, because the situations and actions of the performers might start to feel foreign and odd, or shocking to generations who get together with friends and don't move together, don't go and experience the world physically, but instead sit together on their phones. D: I agree, and the human body is more relevant than ever, but not in the way we had hoped. For certain generations, the selfie—which the human body is the object of—is the primary medium for “seeing” and “understanding” another person even though the reality is much much different. Instagram’s algorithm prioritizes well lit faces on our feeds. It's not just a contemporary language we are all speaking, it's a method to increase our engagement on social platforms. So we find that we are all "real time" but we aren’t present. A: Yes this is fascinating, people tend to be more virtually present than physically present. It’s not hard to imagine being with a bunch of people in the same room, and someone opting to disengage from everyone physically and instead look at a close up photo of someone’s face on a screen. It’s odd, this desire to engage with someone, look at someone, but preferring the mediated experience ‘looking virtually' instead of looking at someone who is next to you. Maybe because you can get as close as you want without revealing your interest? Maybe we should start revealing our interest in person the way we would online. Just walk up and stare closely into someone's eyes... D: It's a good question. The irony is we’re all outside our bodies, looking at the body. The human body has become physically distant, it's become digital content. E: Wow, I have never had a “non-technological” conversation about technology, and yet, it is one of the most technological I have ever had. Thank you Ania and Dejha for this enlightening discussion, through a point of view that is not easy to find in the world of art & tech. The more invisible the more sophisticated. Less is more. Dejha Ti & Ania Catherine (Photo credit: Daniela Skeyki) Dejha Ti and Ania Catherine, "the two critical contemporary voices on digital art’s international stages” (Clot Magazine) and "LGBT power couple" (Flaunt), are an LA-based experiential artist duo whose practice merges environments, performance, and technology. Rooted in the understanding that immersion is not only a physical state, but also an emotional and psychological one, their approach employs nuance within scale, focused on producing a feeling instead of a spectacle. Both conceptual artists, their expertise collide—Ti's extensive background in immersive art and human-computer interaction, and Catherine a recognized choreographer, performance artist and gender scholar. Their seminal work, On View, commissioned by the SCAD Museum of Art, won the 2020 ADC Awards for Experiential Design and is shortlisted for the 2020 Lumen Prize for Art and Technology. They've been commissioned by A/D/O, Trauma Bar und Kino, Adidas, Art Basel Hong Kong, Amon Tobin, Sofitel, and invited to speak internationally at Christie’s Art+Tech Mixed Reality Summit, MUTEK, Future of Experiential Technology, CADAF, and Tech Open Air. Shop Limited Edition I'd rather be in a dark silence than, Privacy Collection (2020)

Daniel Ambrosi in conversation with Serena Tabacchi Foreword: When I met Daniel Ambrosi I had the impression that there was much more to experience about his work than I could grasp at the time. We first met in Miami back in December 2019 during the installation of CADAF, The Contemporary and Digital Art Fair. Daniel’s work struck me because of its vivid colours and immersiveness. If one can be captured by the brightness of the giant backlit scene that Daniel depicts so meticulously, the eye is inevitably attracted by the infinite and psychedelic elements within it. You can spend hours staring at Daniel’s work and still feel you are just beginning to enter one of Daniel’s dimensions. There is a sense of dislocation and transformation; departing from a known world to embrace a new dreamlike reality. The real and unreal transcend to a blurry territory that the human mind is fascinated by and yet so unfamiliar with. In this interview we attempt to describe the creative journey of artist Daniel Ambrosi. The technology here is seen as a tool to explore the realms of artificial intelligence and consciousness, at times a companion for the creator and a silent witness to the art revolution of this century. Serena Tabacchi Interview: Serena Maybe you can start by telling me about your upbringing and what impact that had on how your interest in art emerged and evolved over the years? Daniel I grew up in a suburb of New York City to first generation Italian-American parents who were born and raised in The Bronx. I had a lot of exposure to art and culture in Manhattan during my youth, courtesy of family expeditions and school field trips, and took full advantage of the great museums there. Both of my parents were artists in their own right: my mother used to amaze me with her drawing skills when I was a small child and my father was a very talented singer who found some success in regional clubs. But the visual arts were most compelling to me. I was particularly fascinated by the ability of artists and illustrators to capture the essence of their subjects with uncanny accuracy and emotion regardless of the level of detail they pursued. I made many copies of Mad Magazine caricatures as a boy and, as a teenager, my bedroom walls were covered with posters of surrealistic paintings by artists such as Salvador Dali, René Magritte, the album cover artist, Roger Dean, and the lesser known pop surrealist, John Pitre. I demonstrated a fair bit of talent in drawing and an aptitude for math and physics during my school years. This ultimately led me to the field of architecture which, through a serendipitous turn of events, enabled me to participate in pioneering work in 3D graphics during my college years at Cornell University. At the same time, I became an avid hiker, skier, and traveler; all activities I continue to this day driven by my love of special places and astonishing vistas. As a “show-and-tell” guy, my desire to share with others the experiences that I was having in these special places is what instigated my art career. My challenges attempting to do that with traditional photography drove me to apply my facility with design, technology, and computer graphics in a quest to find better ways to accomplish that goal. How do people generally respond to your work? Both within the digital art world and those distanced from it? I’m always amazed at the crossover appeal of my work, especially when people experience my giant backlit pieces in the real world. From security guards to CEOs, small children to senior citizens, it’s so gratifying to see people moved so deeply–even to tears at times–by my creations. Within the digital art world, the easy accessibility of my work is, I sense, sometimes perceived as less edgy or contemporary. Admittedly, there is a bit of a “retro” quality to my scenes as they are so deeply rooted in the 400-year tradition of landscape painting in the Western world, although I contend I’m extending that tradition in ways that are both unique and relevant to this time. There have also been a few instances of digital art cognoscenti categorizing my human-AI hybrid artworks as “style transfer” which I consider both dismissive and technically inaccurate. Such assessments discount the unique computational photography techniques I’ve devised to capture scenes of extraordinary detail, vibrancy, and immersiveness. They also discount the deep art history I’ve studied/applied from past master landscape painters. With respect to the interpretations made by my customized “DeepDream” artificial intelligence software: this is not mere style transfer but sophisticated contextual transmogrifications conducted with nuance and subtlety at a scale never seen before. To these critics I would say, take a closer look. In your work you interrogate the perception of reality. What is your emotional connection to the multiple layers in your work? Which layer is most real to you? I’m an equal opportunity psychonaut! Fundamentally, I believe it’s consciousness all the way down and quite possibly all that exists are conscious agents and their interactions, with everything else simply being icons in our user interface (props to Dr. Donald D. Hoffman, UC Irvine, leading proponent of the theory of “Conscious Realism”). In my view, we should always be questioning what we see. Seeing is a subjective act that takes place in the visual cortex, not an objective recording of photons on our retinas. But even that is likely an oversimplification; we don’t have a clue as to what’s really going on. And, in anticipation of your next question, yes, I experimented with psychedelics in my past. Those profound experiences had a major impact on me in many ways, not least of which include the way I see the world, and in fact how I think about the nature of seeing itself. You recently created a series of cubic virtual sculptures, each including five artworks. The cubes have an industrial look and are pulled with metallic cords which communicate a sense of tension between the serenity of the art and the framing structure. How did you come up with this design and what is the relationship between the five works in each cube? I understand why you’ve asked that question and it reveals an interesting aspect of art appreciation. It’s natural to wonder what an artist has in mind when observing this kind of dissonance and visual tension. Sometimes, however, the answer may be less mysterious and more mundane than you expected, and I hope my answer doesn’t disappoint you. The truth is that I learned early during this project that my Dreamscapes are rich enough to find/extract multiple compelling details from a single scene. When I was accepted as an artist on SuperRare, as a digital-native art platform I thought hard about ways to showcase my art that took advantage of the variety of file types SuperRare supports, now including interactive 3D objects. Years ago, I created my award-winning “Architectonic Photo Cube,” a novel way of displaying photos printed on glass that I dreamed up in the summer of 2011. I thought this might be a great way to showcase my Dreamscape Details and, in the process, express my former life as an architect and 3D graphics researcher. So, I repurposed this design to showcase multiple art pieces in a single art object, one which I hope someday will be experienced at super scale (e.g., 8 feet per side) in a virtual reality gallery setting. What do you think your work can teach people about how to live in an increasingly technology-driven world, where the role of machines and computers within our societies becomes more and more ambiguous? Artists have always used the tools of the day and, in many cases, pushed technology further by virtue of their own inventions and ambitions. When I reflect on my Dreamscapes project, I realize that by teaming up with an AI, it has taken me beyond my initial ambitions and unlocked a superpower for me in the sense that I could never execute these images on my own. But it has required giving up a degree of control in that I can’t really tell it exactly what to do and, in fact, I honestly don’t even fully understand how or why it’s doing what it’s doing. If you think about the future of your own work or even daily life, I think you will conclude that you are going to be confronted with a similar bargain. But to me this is a fairly optimistic story because there is no sense in which the computer is trying to replace my job. After all, it has no innate desire to create art, nor any ability to discern which of the parameter settings are most aesthetically pleasing to humans; it’s just a tool, albeit an incredibly powerful tool that is somewhat beyond our comprehension. Ultimately, I still make the decisions as to how to steer it and what to keep or discard. I imagine the future of art, science, and technology will be increasingly like this: where we use AIs to process more data, see more complicated patterns, and otherwise extend our natural capabilities, but working towards goals that we set and direct. It doesn’t have to be a zero sum game. Artificial intelligence can enhance our abilities, our productivity, even our creativity. How do you think the art world will respond to digital art in future? How will it be contextualised historically? What’s the difference between operating within the digital art world compared to the physical one? I sincerely believe displaying/consuming digital art in its native digital form is the wave of the future and it’s actually quite liberating. Digital picture frames like the Meural Canvas are just the start; several other vendors are getting in the mix with super hi-resolution framed devices designed specifically to display art in either landscape or portrait orientation (the frames rotate). This yields many advantages: you can program the art to change on a desired basis and the art can be dynamic (e.g., animated loops, music videos, interactive 3D art objects). Before long, serious art collectors will cover entire walls with plug-and-play microLED panels that will immerse themselves and their dinner guests in dynamic art experiences. Framed prints will be so 20th century. I’m also convinced that exhibiting and selling art in blockchain-based social VR settings will soon become prevalent. Game-changing VR technology like the Oculus Quest, which enables untethered low-latency presence in highly detailed virtual worlds, will only get better and many of the obstacles to adoption will fade away. There will always be great museums and physical galleries to visit and enjoy. But even these traditional venues will begin to stage immersive digitally-projected art experiences like those seen at popular immersive-only venues such as Artechouse and Atelier des Lumières. Which artists (of any creative domain) inspire you and why? Oh boy, there are so many, and if I could I would have a massive collection. Obviously, I’m deeply inspired by the great landscape painters: from the groundbreaking Claude Lorrain in the 1600’s, to the Dutch and Flemish masters, the European Romanticists, the incredibly skilled painters of the Hudson River School, the great Impressionists, the Cubists, all the way to David Hockney and the amazing “A Bigger Picture” exhibition he debuted in 2012 at the Royal Academy of Arts in London. For the sake of brevity, I’ll highlight one somewhat unsung hero of mine, Maxfield Parrish, who gave up one of the most successful careers ever as America’s most famous illustrator to dedicate himself to landscape painting in the 1930’s. Parrish was a true role model for me; he tinkered with both old and new approaches to his medium and brought a level of vibrancy, detail, and luminosity to his paintings that I absolutely love and which hadn’t really been seen before. Before we finish, how would you describe your work in one sentence? My work combines computational photography and artificial intelligence in a never-ending quest to create depictions of the world that better convey the feeling of a place and the way we really experience it: not just visually, but also viscerally and cognitively. article published in collaboration with SuperRare on September 6, 2020 This interview was conducted by curator Serena Tabacchi

Interview by Georg Bak I decided that the internet could make me into anything and I decided that I would be an artist. Gretchen Andrew makes vision boards about the life, career, and political future she wants and then programs her desires into being by hacking Google and the associated power structures of big tech, the art world, and most recently the 2020 American presidential election. Georg Bak spoke with Gretchen about her last few months. Georg Bak You were working in technology in Silicon Valley before you began learning how to paint and becoming an apprentice of Billy Childish. Your artworks can be classified as figurative paintings or assemblages. Can you tell us how your background as a former Google employee has influenced your conceptual approach in painting and your strategy on how to enter the art market? Gretchen Andrew Net art, performance art, painting, drawing, assemblage, conceptual art. These are not mutually exclusive categories. My art practice is all of these things, but the physical outputs are the canvas works I refer to as vision boards. My vision boards hold the visual and collectable identity of my practice and connect my practice to the other plastic traditions. I am always a little hesitant to talk about my 18 months at Google because I worry it gives a misleading impression of me as a Silicon Valley insider. While it was no doubt an accomplishment to land a job at Google in 2010, I worked in a much-despised corner of Google that developed products and processes around employee data, most notoriously performance reviews. After the banking crash of 2008, Wall Street fled to the tech industry and Madison Avenue was hot on its heels. I was there when Google had the outward persona of a cool place but internally felt more and more like any other big company, and it was a big company that made its money almost entirely from advertising. More than anything, my time at Google set the basis for my attitude towards technology and Silicon Valley culture which, at its worst, can be sexist and self-congratulatory. All this clashed with my techno-utopianism. I decided that the internet could make me into anything and I decided that I would be an artist. So I quit my job with enough money to live illegally in my art studio and eat meals out of a rice cooker. I started watching YouTube videos on how to stretch a canvas, how to draw hands, how to paint clouds. I took an online class at Stanford in Practice Based Research. I took showers at a 24-hour gym. I made a lot of really bad art. Yet, people supported me. My friends fed me from big tech’s free lunch buffets and let me drink at their almost daily happy hours. They bought some of my really bad art and I got to keep on going. This tension will never leave my work. That is, my proximity to the power that it critiques. Regarding my conceptual approach to entering the art market, I look at the art market and the art world the same way I do the internet; as a system with rules that can be navigated in new ways. The artworld is a very exclusive circle and it is very difficult to break in as a young emerging artist. Nevertheless, you managed to hack Frieze Los Angeles in 2019 and some other prestigious art events and create some virtual presence. How did you proceed and what was your strategy? Honestly, I knew that what I was doing with search results was brilliant but you’re right, at first I couldn’t break in. Even as I got my work in front of powerful art world people, I was mostly sidelined. I had this imposter syndrome thing where I was sure that the traction I got was just because people liked that I was pretty and polite. It wasn’t that long ago but I look at my figurative oil painting and am like damn, I did know what I was doing, but it never felt that way. I was working with and surrounded by people who I let make me feel a certain way about my competence. So I had a lot to do internally before I could be ready for the insane amount of traction I am getting now. But then also I needed what in tech they call “the killer app.” Once I turned my process on the art world, hacked and critiqued art world institutions and not just tech power, all the lights went on. I started to call my work Vision Boards and lean into every cliché I felt had limited the perceptions of what I was capable of. I also realised that I needed to build my own team and not rely on a gallery or dealer to take care of my story and my market. I guess I used to work in an HR organisation, but I’ve thought a lot about the job description of everyone involved in my work; gallerists, curators, and even collectors. I tell everyone I work with or am considering working with that my career is a table, a rustic dining table that hosts 3-hour dinners with lots of wine. If you’re not going to thrive in that environment, you’re probably not the right person for me and my work. Having the confidence to say “no” is imperative. In my practice, I accrue and use power in a nontraditional way, and in my career I do the same thing. The vision I am working towards on my canvases is as firm as the one I am making for my market and community. I’m so pleased that right now my table includes Annka Kultys and Gazelli Art House. How does the audience typically react to your online performances? Are there fruitful interactions? Lately, I’ve been meeting a lot of people through press and Instagram. For example, you and I met because you posted my Monopol article on LinkedIn and my friend Nimrod from Arebyte saw it and sent me a screenshot. I then found you on Instagram and thanked you for sharing my work. My hope is that once we can all meet up at art fairs and exhibitions again the art world is going to feel like a small and friendly place. If you, reader, see me out and about, do say hello. Your artistic approach is particularly interesting in the realm of fake news and the upcoming US elections. In your exhibition at the Monterey Museum of Art, you are presenting a show titled Future News. In your vision boards, you are painting possible future covers of the art forum magazine. Can you lead us through your whole process and how you allow the fake to become true? There is a great deal of space between our hopes, our aspirations, our desires, and what can be reported in the New York Times. The same goes for our fears. Linguistically, when humans talk about our desires we understand there to be separation between what we want and what we have but technology only understands relevance. By making a net art vision board where I write about my desire to be on the cover of Artforum someday, Google learns only that Gretchen Andrew is relevant to the cover of Artforum. Google’s inability to parse desire makes my vision boards come up as top search results for the query “Cover of Artforum.” These vision boards are not at all confusing to people. They are clearly not real covers of Artforum. They aren’t even fake covers of Artforum. They are aspirational covers of Artforum. Another series is called The Next American President. This implies a cyber-feminist Cambridge Analytica method combined with a guerilla marketing strategy for your own degree of brand awareness as an artist. How has this artwork been received so far and which kind of analytics do you use to leverage your performance? Take the most famous pop culture spies, James Bond, Jason Bourne, and Jack Ryan. They aren’t women with a glue gun and a refurbished laptop. The narrative of power around Cambridge Analytica and Russian cyber tolls was being told as if it came from one of these action movies, as if what they achieved was technically impressive when, really, these methods are within reach of, well, me. It’s something that happens often in tech; things are made to seem more complicated than they really are which discourages women and outsiders from putting up with the cultural hurdles to being accepted within the industry. Analytically, with these vision boards at the top of the search results internationally, and when you do a reverse image search, Google identifies these as “The Next American President.” What this also means is that Google’s artificial intelligence is learning that the next American president could be something very different than either current candidate. Visually, they exist both as vision boards with gems and ribbons and as serious art objects with a charcoal drawing on canvas which is similar to how they operate online. They are punking the system and we all get to have a good laugh, but they are also changing the way Google thinks. You wrote a book on Search Engine Art with the Victoria & Albert Museum’s Digital Futures platform in 2018. Is it important to preserve the algorithms as part of the artwork and how do artists approach this problem? Search Engine Art was a look at other artists who use the search engine as a medium in an effort to find and collect peers and practices. Personally, I use Rhizome’s web recorder, now called Conifer, to show a change in search results over time. Due to the COVID-19 situation, your art exhibition at the Monterey Museum couldn’t be opened offline. You also sent out a magazine-like studio visit via post. How do you reach and interact with your audience amidst social distancing and restricted public events? I break my responsibilities as an artist into three categories: making the work, making the work financially and culturally valuable, and building the community. I try to bring as much creativity to each responsibility as the others. That’s where my studio-visit-via-post idea came from. Then in Monterey, between Zoom, Instagram Live, and YouTube, we’ve welcomed more than 3,500 people into the closed exhibition, enabling the Monterey Museum of Art to achieve record “attendance” during closure. Guests spanned from local, long-time supporters of the museum to those in London, Cape Town, Los Angeles, Paris, New York, and Hong Kong. Gretchen Andrew (born in Los Angeles, 1988) is a search engine and internet imperialist artist. Her Vision Boards appeared on the cover of some of the most iconic art and fashion magazines. Gretchen’s art is daring, thought-provoking and experimental. She defined her own style, establishing her presence on the internet and in the art scene with determination. Gretchen’s work is inspiring a new generation of new media artists looking at social media with a sense of power and playfulness. Her practice is described by critic Jonathan Griffin in LALA Magazine as alluding to “the Wild West possibilities of the Internet and to the scale of her artistic ambition.” She trained in London with the artist Billy Childish from 2012-2017. In 2018 the V&A Museum released her book Search Engine Art. Starting in 2019 she became known for her vision boards and associated performative internet manipulations of art world institutions of Frieze Los Angeles, The Whitney Biennial, The Turner Prize, and The Cover of Artforum. Gretchen’s work has recently been featured in The Washington Post, Fortune Magazine, Monopol, Wirtschaftswoche, The Los Angeles Times, and The Financial Times. Her exhibition Future News is on display at The Monterey Museum of Art through Jan 3, 2021. You can find her work with Gazelli Art House and Annka Kultys Gallery, who will be hosting her next exhibition in February 2021. Follow Gretchen Andrew’s recent work: The Next American President, The Next American President Cover of Artforum The Washington Post Fortune Magazine The Los Angeles Times LA Magazine: This Artist Is Tricking the Internet into Making Her Dreams Come True artworks and pictures are a courtesy of Gretchen Andrew This interview was conducted by curator Georg Bak

Originally published on erlang-solutions.com Introduction Here Dominic Perini and Michael Jaiyeola continue on their path exploring the latest in blockchain development. Following the excitement that has surrounded the innovation progressively introduced into the blockchain and distributed ledger technology (DLT) space, we wanted to provide an overview of the automation known as smart contracts. While there are various aspects of smart contracts which are of great potential benefit, with the technology still being relatively young, there are certain challenges of which to be aware. There remains some mysticism surrounding blockchain smart contracts and we, therefore believe, that it is worthwhile for us to take a moment to review the essence of contracts in society before expanding our analysis into some of the technicalities and frameworks of smart contract automation. The Origin Of Contracts The Romans were probably the first to come up with a written form of what was back then referred to as ‘contractus’, a word etymologically derived from a combination of ‘con-’ (together) and ’-trahere’ (draw, derive). This initial formalisation of a contract included obligations to fulfil a set of discrete transactions to enforce a promise or fall back on categories of cancellations so as to withdraw. Yet the need to formally or informally agree on expected social norms dates back much further to ancient civilisation and beyond. Since humans began to first associate they have formed a number of implicit expectations on one another’s behaviour. We could mention among these the spread of shared social ethics, which led to the development of a range of reasonable expectations of behaviour such as not killing or stealing from others. From a general perspective, any form of expected behaviour by an individual or group is either implicitly or explicitly bound to a contract. The judicial system and its enforcement which is triggered in the event of disputes form the basis under which society is regulated. This combines a number of incentives and deterrents which encourage individuals to comply with a commonly shared code of conduct. Explicitly formalised contracts expand on these acceptable social norms to deliver a resolution of known deviations from the expected course of action, some of which may or may not trigger legal penalties as a disincentive or compensation for damages. Smart Contracts and the Decentralisation of Authority History teaches us that rule enforcement has had the tendency to migrate from a peripheral form of control to a more centralised one. As an example, a number of local rules are applied within smaller groups (e.g. family, friends, coworkers, village inhabitants etc.), but in order to resolve disputes society has evolved into broader organisations that exercise a more authoritative form of power (e.g. legal systems, states, superstates, etc.). Recently, however, it appears that there is the desire to break free from what are increasingly perceived as slow, inadequate and occasionally corrupt central authorities. If we ask ourselves what triggers this reverse force, we might find an explanation in examining a number of examples of how interactions that involve a central governing body are perceived negatively from the parties involved: Example 1: A homeowner seeking a court ruling over a housing service supplier in breach of contractual terms might be frustrated about the costs and length of the process required to reach a resolution. This is because the process is often driven by human effort at various degrees of responsibility and in compliance with strict regulations. It is of no surprise that organisations providing these types of services can experience congestion, especially if they need to operate under constrained costs. Example 2: Cross border financial payments and balance settlements can be slowed down by a range of verifications that banks are required to undertake in order to comply with a regulatory framework. Erlang Solutions’ involvement in the FinTech space while working on the development of Vocalink/Mastercard payment switches taught us how a centrally governed financial system is bound to comply with strict regulations and standards. These constraints make it challenging to deliver highly customised interoperability that scales. Example 3: The European Court of Justice (ECJ) acting as a super-national governing body has been rejected by UK Brexiteers. Political and ideological motivations are behind this desire to break free from the central authority which some of the British electorate perceives as acting to the disadvantage of the nation. Example 4: In the aftermath of the 2008 subprime crisis, the transparency and trust towards centrally driven financial institutions have deteriorated significantly. Since then individuals developed an interest in decentralised forms of control over their assets such as that offered by blockchain technology. It is sensible to conclude that the need for performance, interoperability, low costs and decentralisation, as illustrated above, are motivating the eagerness of individuals to migrate towards automated, independent and inexpensive services to resolve localised interactions. These are all aspects that empower them to rapidly predict and determine the evolution of their lives in society. What Is A Smart Contract? A smart contract is an addressable blockchain entity that contains a set of storable data representing a logical state and a set of automated instructions used to alter that state. The instructions allow it also to interact transactionally with other addressable entities and emit events that distributed applications can subscribe to in order to trigger appropriate behaviours. The state, instructions and transactions are all maintained and secured by the underlying immutable blockchain technology. While originally conceived in the context of the theory behind Szabo’s Bit Gold digital currency and digital contracts, it is within the Blockchain / Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) space that smart contracts have started to get real market traction. They respond to the requirement to automate interactions among peer to peer (P2P) actors that rely on the consensual order of events defined in the blockchain immutable data structure. Effectively they are algorithmic in nature and are following a structure common to a wide variety of computer programs (for instance Javascript, Java, Erlang etc.) and they typically require a Virtual Machine interpreter to drive their execution. Smart Contract Use Cases What is fascinating about automated algorithms is that their execution within a given context can be predicted. This would effectively accomplish part of the expectations that are intrinsic to legally-binding contracts. If we were able to execute and enforce automated contracts in a reliable and safe context and if their effect could be extended beyond the confined environment of the computational world, they could overlap in functionality with legally binding contracts and therefore represent a good candidate to replace them in the long term. This would be an attractive alternative to the traditional legal enforcement as it involves lower costs and can be operated on top of a decentralised and trustless blockchain network governed by a series of automated incentives. Until now the fulfilment of contractual terms has predominantly relied on a trusted third party. For example, we observe how a centralised judicial system exercises its authority in determining how events evolve and to resolve disputes when agreed obligations are not fulfilled. An interesting case is that of the stocks and shares investment market, which has worked with the support of the stock exchange, as a centralised trusted party. Escrows are also of interest since they can be interpreted as a way to resolve disputes independently away from a central governing body in a similar way to how an automated smart contract would. While these scenarios are representative of how binding agreements are handled nowadays, there is growing speculation that, through smart contracts, a range of contractual terms can be enforced automatically without relying on a trusted third party. With DLT two new elements are introduced:* immutability and *consensus by distribution. They are both valuable instruments that come in handy in the chase for contractual automation and enforcement. Smart contracts rely on these features to support the fulfilment of a set of discrete transactions, with the capacity to automatically resolve a category of cancellations or malicious interactions. Nevertheless, as also happens with ordinary legal contracts, some edge cases are not covered due to the complexity it would require to define them and their associated implementation costs. As a consequence, alongside some expected and well defined cancellation clauses there are a number of “catch-all” state rollbacks, or, in the event that this is not possible, other exit clauses that enforce a penalty to work as a deterrent for participants, so that the so-called “happy-path” is generally preferred and disputes and cancellations are avoided. Also a number of strategies can be introduced to improve security and safety. Edge cases can be tested via generated and simulated conditions, while their execution can be constrained within dedicated safe environments, such as Virtual Machines that enable only a subset of features compared to environments that support fully featured general purpose languages. This has resulted in the creation of a wide spectrum of Domain Specific Languages (DSLs), which, by definition, are designed to support requirements that satisfy domain specific use cases. How Smart Contracts Operate A blockchain smart contract is initially defined as a script such as the one reported in the following example: contract SimpleStorage { uint storedData; function set(uint x) public { storedData = x; } function get() public view returns (uint) { return storedData; } } The SimpleStorage contract comes as the first simple example of the Solidity language. It involves the state data that is represented by an integer that gets stored on chain and two functions, one for setting and another one for getting the stored integer. The steps required to use it are: first to compile it into a bytecode intermediate representation and then to deploy it on chain, an operation that involves a minimal charge. If it gets successfully deployed, a blockchain address is returned to the deployer. Subsequent interactions will use this address in order to access the set and get public functions. As we observe smart contracts interactions are typically triggered by an explicit invocation, as opposed to being awakened once the right conditions that allow the transition to a new state arise. The first example of how the notion of blockchain’s transactional automation started taking place can be seen on the Bitcoin network. The ancestors of what are now called smart contracts, were scripts developed on top of stack-based languages such as FORTH-like scripting in Bitcoin. This is a design that excludes some execution patterns (e.g. circular executions or loops) upfront. This is a non-Turing complete model which is difficult to understand and use. That said, there were distributed applications built on top of Bitcoin that were using this type of scripting such as the online game Spells of Genesis. The Ethereum project introduced a significant enhancement on this scripting language, and managed to obtain popularity by introducing a number of friendlier Turing complete languages such as Solidity whose syntax resembles that of Javascript. The Turing Complete Languages capabilities, instead of excluding loops by design, deter their excessive use by applying minor fees against each execution step. This means that a script inherently exits a loop once the funds allocated for that execution burn out. When it comes to the automation of contractual obligations outside the scope of a single blockchain network, there is also another critical issue to resolve – how to provide reliable support for oracles?. An oracle, as per the definition provided by BlockchainHub, is an agent that finds and verifies real-world/external occurrences and submits this information to a blockchain to be used by smart contracts. Further explanations on how an oracle operates can be found in the blog post Blockchain 2018 – Myth vs. Reality under section 7. As mentioned in this previous post, if a contract needs to access external information or needs to trigger activators in an external environment (frequently this means the real world, or in some cases another digital / virtual environment with which it operates), it must do so while ensuring that the health of the respective environment is preserved. To be more specific, oracles need to be trusted, which in some circumstances requires that a high level of trust gets extended to the external systems. This is essential if we aim to deliver comprehensive solutions that can encourage an increasingly large number of people and organisations to adopt this level of automation and interoperability on top of a blockchain DLT. The alternative, as happens predominantly these days, is to limit the level of automation to the boundaries of the digital world or, in a worst case scenario, a single blockchain. DSLs And GPLs For Smart Contracts Although Solidity and the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) standard is, at the time of writing, the most popular smart contract platform on the market, other solutions are challenging its leadership. This is driven by attempts to deliver better performance, safety and security, while simultaneously extending the set of instructions, and enabling applicability in an increasingly wide range of use cases. Innovation in this area of expertise is proceeding with a tension between two predominant approaches. On one hand there is a trend that aims to introduce general purpose languages (GPLs) on blockchain to enable fully featured interpreters where keeping a high level of safety and security is very demanding. Then there is an approach which aims to simplify and restrict the set of instructions and the complexity of virtual machines in order to guarantee a safer and more secure execution limited to a domain specific use case. Which is where Domain Specific Languages (DSLs) come in. Here is a resource where you can find a comprehensive list of popular smart contract programming languages used at present in the marke – thanks to Sergei Tikhomirov for producing it. When one comes across this constellation of languages it is legitimate to think: ‘well this is definitely a sign of interest and activity’, however, it is also clear that this market hasn’t yet consolidated in its response to user needs (whether these are end-users or enterprises developing distributed applications). Although most of us are in favour of variety, we also understand how developers can get confused about this vast heterogeneity and it is sensible to expect that this translates into an obstacle that prevents the mass adoption of smart contracts. Smart Contract Templates Apart from the choice of language, there is often a significant effort spent on understanding just how to implement what it is needed in a smart contract and to ensure that its implementation complies with security and safety standards. Therefore, distributed application designers and developers typically rely on existing market tested templates. This is a process similar to the adoption of standard contracts in the legal world (e.g. employment contracts normally follow a standard contract in structure). Ethereum, for example, introduced a number of popular templates: ERC20 is designed for minting and allocating fungible tokens such as cryptocurrencies, ERC721 and ERC1155 aim at supporting the production and management of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT), etc. More templates can be found on the Ethereum Improvement Proposal page some of which have reached the final phase, while others are still considered drafts. Some templates involve the definition of cross-chain Conditional Atomic Swaps, while others implement Ballots to deliver a voting mechanism, or lottery where random raffles take place or when a probability for a random event is simulated (e.g. the online game Dice2). Now, while it is true that the use of templates encourages initial adoption, one could argue that in the long term more creative and customised smart contracts will be needed in order to expand the market’s reach and drive proper decentralised interoperability. In fact, if we have to rely on an elite, as the only entity capable of delivering these solutions, we haven’t really resolved much in terms of operating independently and expressing a broader and richer variety of bespoke solutions. Conclusion Just as with Machine Learning, IoT and AI, autonomy and its inherent benefits provide the major value opportunity of blockchain smart contracts. The potential to conduct high-value transactions without the need for a third-party intermediary, such as requiring an estate agent for a property transaction, has revolutionising appeal with substantial benefits to individuals and companies alike. Of course, there will be some groups within society to whom this is a threat in the short to medium term, such as less skilled legal professionals and ‘middle-men’ facilitator type organisations, but this is for governments and other centralised institutions of authority to mitigate against. This case is not unique to smart contracts, it is present with the growth of all the emerging technologies we have just mentioned. On a practical level it must be remembered that, because smart contracts are pure computer program code, the logic imputed into the code is of vital importance. Where smart contract logic is derived from human logic and the legal system legislation commonly used in business, a smart contract can be expected to execute exactly as it has been set up to with all of the benefits and potential threats that this binary type of automation entails. What is most exciting to those currently outside of the blockchain ecosystem is the combination of computer science principles and traditional legal contract thinking necessary to create blockchain smart contracts. It is this fusion which is providing the platform on which to build a competent successor to traditional legal agreements. This post and that previous which examined digital asset ownership have covered two major emerging innovations that blockchain technology has influenced dramatically over recent times. What we believe we are seeing is the coming together of powerful psychological and technological trends which are heralding a new era in both the digital and physical world. Harnessing such powerful potential must be a priority for those actively involved in all parts of the blockchain ecosystem – compromising on safety and security is not an option for mass adoption to be a success. While a lot remains to be explored, we are moving along the way on an expansive journey destined to reshape the global digital and physical markets. At Erlang Solutions we continue to collaborate closely with our partners in researching and delivering innovative solutions to support blockchain projects. This ranges from core blockchain technologies to more specific distributed applications supported by automated smart contracts. Interesting forums to watch to learn more about smart contracts are the NFT London MeetUp and the Museum of Contemporary Digital Art where our architect and co-author Dominic Perini will be launching a series of online workshops aimed at bringing attendees up to speed with best practices, tools and libraries.

Imperfections Made Perfect In The Studio with artist Travis LeRoy Southworth by Fanny Lakoubay Travis LeRoy Southworth in his Manhattan Studio, NYC. Photo credit: Anna Bauer MY STORY WITH SOUTHWORTH Travis and I met at a blockchain conference, Ethereal Summit 2018, where he was exhibiting one of his prints on silk at the art+blockchain exhibition held by Codex Protocol. The ethereal name of the conference was perfect for Travis’s style. He sold his work Please cheat the color at the art auction that closed the conference, the exact same auction where a CryptoKitty was sold for $140,000 famously covered by the NYTimes. Travis’s work was sold in the “silent” part of the auction, which means that there was no public live bidding in the room on his lot, but people could bid on the work online, via LiveAuctioneer, where the lot is still listed. Travis LeRoy Southworth “Please cheat the color” (2016), 40 x 30 inches, pigmented print on silk. See lot on Liveauctioneer A little bit later, in the summer of 2018, I went to the Greenpoint open art studios where SuperRare, a blockchain-based art marketplace, exhibited his digital works on their platform along with one of his beautiful prints on silk, floating in the draft of a typical Brooklyn warehouse converted into small coworking spaces. At CADAF digital art fair first edition in New York in May 2019, Travis surprised me with his submission of a very different video art piece, “Absent Minded Monotonous Splendor”, 2010, which is very minimalist, almost disturbing even, as it shows a white screen slowly taking over his own face to only feature skin imperfections, a much less ethereal, more down to earth and critical piece. See Travis’s submission to cadaf art fair This is when I realized I had no idea about his work process or the story behind his work, just knew he was a photo retoucher and a dad in real life. If you click on any of the above links, you’ll quickly realize that the websites don’t spend much time or effort to understand the works and even less to tell a story around him or his work. Newsflash: this is how Christie’s is so successful: storytelling. So let me tell you Travis’s work story that I learnt recently at his midtown Manhattan studio / showroom one busy evening after fighting my way through commuters hurrying back home out of Manhattan. WHERE DOES SOUTHWORTH’S INSPIRATION COME FROM? As mentioned, Travis is a photo-retoucher by trade in the fashion industry. (Go to LinkedIn for the details). As such, he edits thousands of fashion shots, portraits of models every month, mostly editing out the model’s imperfections, such as cellulose on a leg, pimples on the chin, wrinkles on the forehead. You get it… But what if we could keep ONLY the human imperfections and edit the rest out. Travis explores these acts of removal via a very different series “Detouched” which predates the current work but is all linked together. “By collecting the erased bits of photographic portraits, Southworth, like Whiteread, forces us to look at that which we do not want to see. Like Rauschenberg, he forces us to question what it means to erase.” Lorrie Fredette & Beth Giacummo, Exhibition “The act of erasure” WHAT TOOLS AND MEDIA DOES HE WORK WITH? Travis reworks and modifies digital photographs in Photoshop, moving bits of skin, removing the backgrounds, and altering colors to produce a final digital file that is closer to a painting than the original photograph. He was sharing with me that his process often involves working on a large number of artwork files at the same time, reworking them, letting them aside, and going back to them after a while. Travis then translates his finished work onto different media, such as a digital file uploaded onto blockchain-based marketplaces like SuperRare, to make them scarce editions or “rare art”. He also prints them on various types of fabric (from satin to a more traditional surface like canvas) to exhibit at galleries or art fairs. The medium that he is currently exploring is to print on silk and hang it on a twisted steel wire that shapes the silk into a ghostly form, changing with the wind or the inspiration of the artist. This 3D aspect + the wire hanging gives another dimension to the printed work that comes to life. “I am interested in sculpture as I start from a real person that is translated into a photograph. I modify and distort this image digitally to be printed on a two-dimensional fabric, that is shaped, folded and brought back to a physical space.” Travis LeRoy Southworth I Am A Portrait- solo show at Undercurrent, Brooklyn, NY WHAT ARE SOME SERIES WORTH MENTIONING? COLOR, BALANCE What it is: “Color, Balance” is Southworth’s series of colorful paintings that he began in 2016. His starting point is a fashion photo shoot that he used or edited in his daytime job working for the advertising industry. With Photoshop, he modifies forms, accentuates colors, erases the model who posed for the work to only retain imperfect elements of the person and abstract forms. Each piece is a unique work and he uses a variety of supports, such as canvas, paper, or silk. Where do the artwork titles come from: While editing the photographs at his job, Travis interacts with many stakeholders from the fashion industry, such as the model, art director, agency and client; who all have comments on the images and what needs to be reworked, retouched, or taken out. It is in these comments that Travis finds inspiration for the titles in this series: “Dirty Neck”, “They all can't be winners”, “Try not to make it look like a coke party” What it looks like: I Am A Portrait- solo show at Undercurrent, Brooklyn, NY I Am A Portrait- solo show at Undercurrent, Brooklyn, NY Hot and Dirty #1, Blurry Mistake #2, Tastee Nails Travis LeRoy Southworth DETOUCHED What it is: An earlier body of work from 2007-15 that inspired the later “Color, Balance” series. Here Southworth only kept the imperfections of the portrait photography he edited, moved things around and erased everything else. Keeping as art what everybody edits out in the advertising industry. Southworth’s “Detouched” portraits look like outer space landscapes shaped from fragments of human flesh. It’s almost as if he was mixing cosmology and cosmetology. Similar video piece: His video piece, Absent-Minded-Monotonous-Splendor plays on the same idea of a face being erased and for its imperfections to be the only thing left. Travis LeRoy Southworth (b. 1979) “Absent Minded Monotonous Splendor” (2010) Digital video, 3 minutes 30 seconds A video project that animates the erasure and ultimate explosion of a portrait. Over the course of the animation, a face dissolves and is swallowed by the white of the screen leaving only blemishes, wrinkles and stray hairs. These "imperfections" become animated and simulate a possible big bang. The video highlights the more tedious and absurd aspects of digital manipulation while relating to the birth of the universe. What it looks like: Detouched - detail from exhibition Compendium at The Islip Art Museum Travis LeRoy Southworth THE CONTINUOUS WORK DRAWINGS (DOUBLE DIP) What it is: A series of 1500 digital drawings exploring the relationship of time spent at work and time spent making art. What if Travis could do both at the same time and double dip in a way? Each drawing is created via a computer program that tracked his stylus on the tablet while retouching e-commerce photos at work and recorded as simple continuous single pixel lines. We currently talk a lot about impressive works like “machine learning”, GAN, AI, but all it takes for a great artwork is an idea that makes the viewer think. This work is exactly that: it uses simple technology to create something conceptual that exists on its own as art, with no purpose. Where do the titles come from: Each drawing is titled with the drawing number, date created, how long it took to finish, and the time of day. How is it done: Via a computer program that creates a digital file that is then printed on paper in black and white What is looks like: The Continuous Work Drawings (Double Dip) Front and back of the drawing NEW BEGINNINGS, OLD ENDINGS, SECRETS SECRETING What it is: This is a new fun series on the hype around the use GAN and machine learning in art creations. Where Southworth uses a neural network to do the work for him. He feeds the machine portraits of famous people, clowns, historic paintings and tells the machine to create portraits in the same style as some of his previous works. From here Travis further manipulates the image in Photoshop. It’s almost as if the machine is dreaming with the artist’s own hopes and fears. What it looks like: Installation view of New Beginnings, Old Endings, Secrets Secreting Travis LeRoy Southworth Fat Finger, Liquify Monster Travis LeRoy Southworth This interview was conducted by curator Fanny Lakoubay

In The Studio with Hackatao A journey into the lifestyle, interests and creative inspiration of one of the most iconic crypto artist duo on the blockchain. Eleonora: IT’S AN EARLY SUNDAY AFTERNOON, IN FRIULI (ITALY), WHEN I BEGIN MY ADVENTURE THROUGH THE TWISTS AND TURNS OF THE HACKATAO STORY. HERE IN NEW YORK, IT IS SLIGHTLY EARLIER. THE VIDEO CALL WITH NADIA AND SERGIO BEGINS: HELLO HACKATAO .. WAIT, WHY HACKATAO? S: “Hack”, for our pleasure of going under the skin - as a serial killer – to discover what’s hidden inside and to show it to everyone through our art: the pure hacker spirit. N: “Tao”, because we are Yin and Yang and we exist in a creative dynamic balance. NAMES. Nadia Squarci, Sergio Scalet. S: I was born and raised in Trentino, on the Dolomiti mountains, but first, I come from the primordial soup that used to boil in volcanic puddles millions of years ago and that – replicating and mutating – brought me here. Where am I going? Where I feel good. It is my life rule: to do what I like and what feels nice, without effort. Doing things that I am very passionate about is very natural for me, even though sometimes they can be much more complicated: my first passion is my car, after coffee. But if I have to move a pen from here to there and I don’t want to, then it becomes an effort. I am going where I feel good and it is the same path that led me here. N: When we decided to move from Milan to Oltris, this little lost village, everything fit together like pieces of a puzzle: it was a flow. Although it was like moving – we bought a house and renovated it – everything went so smoothly, without any complications. I am the opposite of Sergio, we are truly two opposite and yet complementary souls. I am from Friuli and my parents are from Carnia. I wasn’t comfortable in Udine and I moved to Milan to cultivate my passion for graphic design and advertising. I don’t know where we want to go but I know that we want to do it together. We create our own world and we keep going. Eleonora: Speaking of this, I would like to tell you a story. One day, when I was living in China, I was having lunch with my artist friends, Song Dong and his wife Yin Xiuzhen, in their studio in Beijing. Everyone who knows me would tell you that it’s typical for me to drop a chopstick during almost every meal: and, obviously, it happened that day as well. I apologised and asked for a new pair, but Song Dong said that there was nothing to be sorry about. He pulled out a new pair of beautiful chopsticks and he gave them to me, as a gift, and asked me to open it. It was a creation of him and his wife, they were different colors and engraved. These two artists as well, besides being a couple in life, are also connected by their work and many of their art projects are made by them together. Song Dong explained that the chopsticks were very much like himself and Yin Xiuzhen, like two people in a couple: they are necessary to each other for eating, although they are two completely different entities. He said that this need of being separated from the other – that can manifest sometimes – is just normal and it is as a sign of independence. HOW ABOUT YOUR CHOPSTICKS? ARE THEY TWO DIFFERENT COLORS? HOW DO YOU OPERATE? N: I like this image of the chopsticks, I love Chinese food and I will use this metaphor in the future… We do. Since it is just the way we work. In the first phase, we decide the theme and the idea of the artwork together. It is the most intense moment as well, sometimes we fight, and usually I win. When we later translate our idea onto canvas, our roles get divided. Sergio takes care of the drawings, like a tattoo on canvas. I define the borders, I “contain” him giving him some limits inside a shape. S: And these are fundamental limits for me. If there’s too much white, too much to get filled-in, I would get lost. N: We tried, for fun, to exchange our roles. It doesn’t work. Looking at our art pieces – and we are often told so – many people might think that his part takes longer, with all those miniature drawings. In reality, it takes me double the time because I’m a perfectionist. PROFESSION? Artists. WHO IS “THE ARTIST”? S: For me, to be an artist means to have a certain kind of mind structured for creation. For Nadia as well. During those rare times that we go on a vacation, maybe the first day we are able to stay calm, the second one we are already sketching, gathering ideas; if we don’t have our tools, we pour out using something else. There is this pressing energy that cannot be stopped. N: We were on holiday once, visiting Sergio’s family in Trentino. We didn’t carry anything just to try to avoid it. But the following day we started to build a Podmork with our nephews made with wood we found in the forest. We continued for a week, every single day, and in the end the children gave up while me and Sergio carried on until it was finished. S: It’s like an addiction, if somebody or something were to block us we would probably get crazy. We are constantly bombarded by stimulus and we re-elaborate them through the artistic process in order to understand them, but also to free ourselves from their chaos. Therefore, the task for artists is to feed themselves within society and in the flow of the world, the becoming of the world’s stream – followed by the process of hacking reality – and to see some nuances that other people are most likely unable to catch. The same ones that are then given back to the world through the art piece. BUT ABOVE ALL, WHAT IS ART? IS IT DEFINABLE? S: I think art is an unnecessary element that becomes necessary when all the primary needs are satisfied. From here comes the first of the secondary needs: to create, for some, and to enjoy the beauty of creation for others. THAT WAS EXACTLY MY NEXT QUESTION: DO WE NEED ART? S: Obviously, for those like us who live off art, it is something very essential but, for the ecosystem of humanity, it is extremely unnecessary, and this is just indispensable to human beings themselves. Since the dawn of history – to which the first artistic expressions date, like Paleolithic Venuses or the hands on the vaults in the caverns, once man has satisfied everything else, there is a pressing energy that wants to come out, in abundance, yet unnecessary. From there comes the need to transform it into something beautiful and meaningful. N: Art makes us human. S: It’s true, although many humans are still prisoners of our primary needs: some because of evident reasons; some others, instead, follow the same scheme, but they are wealthy and this leads to the destruction of the planet. Art drags you out of the tribe, like a shaman or a child playing with stones by the river. To create figures, to trace lines on the sand: these are all unnecessary moments of deep and profound contemplation. NADIA AND SERGIO: WHO ARE YOU? YOU ALREADY KNOW? AND WHO WILL YOU BECOME? (IN YOUR NEXT LIFE?) S: Our dear friend described me as a labyrinthic garden that you can only visit at night with a lantern. You will slowly discover who I really am; and if you just stop at the threshold, you will never be able to catch either the wonders or the monsters inside me. I don’t know who I will become, but I like to think of myself as a configuration of particles - therefore of energy – that manifested in a specific moment. The same ones that composed me and that will preserve the memory of what I used to be. Dissolving, I will enter in the melting pot of Universal memory … Okay I’ll stop, getting too mystical here. N: I am Jack Torrence from The Shining and you can find me in Sergio’s labyrinth. Kidding. NADIA AND SERGIO AS HUMAN BEINGS AND NADIA AND SERGIO AS ARTISTS: WHERE IS THE BORDER? DOES IT EXIST? N: There is no difference between the two definitions, we are as one: in the end, it is the spirit at the core. It is that natural need for creating and that different gaze transferred into what we create. Therefore, no border exists and even more so because we both live this. It is our world. Our room is here, in the ground floor, with the studio. S: I think it is more about the separation between the artist and the artwork. Going back to the concept of “unnecessary”, it is something that we expelled, transmitted, and that is therefore unnecessary for ourselves. The artwork is a “leftover” of the artist, but it benefits from its own life and can assume different meanings from the original one. WHO, OR WHAT, INSPIRES YOU IN YOUR ART AND IN YOUR LIFE? N: Everything really, we are omnivores. Inspiration can be found in the news, in a TV series… In a walk in the woods. S: And it can also be found in things that are very far from us. For instance, the Primenuum is a mathematical object that was born thanks to our friendship with Massimo Franceschet – pseudonym: HEX0x6C – and our daughter Shadi’s passion for mathematics. They allowed me to understand how creative this science is and I found myself spending two weeks buried in prime numbers. This culminated with my creation of Primenuum, that Massimo later re-elaborated on as an algorithm. Later, I read that many of the great mathematicians either became crazy or died at a very young age… So I distanced myself. For now. Otherwise, I don’t have a specific landmark, maybe Andy Warhol. We were both born on August 6, we both lost our father during adolescence, we both used to work in advertising, we are both Pop Art. As he used to, I also owned a Commodore Amiga and in the same years we were both experimenting with digital art… Parallels, common points, that make me feel that he is close to me. IF I SAY MILAN… S: Milan is certainly a fundamental transition, after all, it is also the place where we met. I moved there from Trentino, when I was around 18 or 19. It is the city where I studied and where I found stimulus and incentives. That place gave me a lot, up until a certain point anyway. Later, I understood those paradoxes, especially from the point of view of the environment, such as waste of resources and time. The superficial relationships… N: I love Milan, aesthetically even: it is beautiful, elegant and refined. It is very lively, even in colors and images. However, I love extremes: being here in the middle of nowhere as well as living in a big city. I like both situations for different reasons. Milan has been important to us, but when we had our first daughter, I understood that it is not a city for children and families. So we left, even though it is and will always be in my heart. Our project was born in 2007 and, if we haven’t met in this city, it probably would have never started. I, like Sergio, have also lived there for about 20 years and it was useful to understand how the art world works; the art fairs, the art shows, everything. S: We currently live in Oltris, a hamlet of Ampezzo, in Carnia, Friuli Venezia Giulia. Carnia is a mountain region in the north-east of Italy, on the border with Slovenia and Austria. It is not very well-known and it stays out of the tourist paths. N: We like it here because everything is stronger and more real. S: It has very wild nature. We have a bear hanging out around here… Eleonora: Picasso taught us how, before creating anything new, we should be able to copy the big masters, and only later, though, to unlearn. “It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child”. YOUR ART HAS A UNIQUE STYLE, RECOGNISABLE. WHAT IS THE PROCESS THAT LEADS TO THIS FINAL RESULT, FOR BOTH CONTENT AND ARTISTIC TECHNIQUES? HAVE YOU EVER MET OBSTACLES OR LIMITS TO YOUR CREATIVITY, FOR WHICH IT WAS NECESSARY TO UNLEARN SOME RULES? N: I studied at the Institute of Art, but to graphic design, therefore I didn’t have to set myself free from pre-settings. I’ve always learned through testing myself. Our path was born for fun and we found ourselves together just because we like to experiment as well as to realise ideas, at the same time. S: When I was a kid, I used to draw a lot. It made me feel peaceful. Also, because my childhood was marked by grief in my family, drawing was a big help for me in this sense. During my adolescence, I stopped. The computer distracted me from my manual design, I moved to digital and to writing, so I started to work in Milan as a copywriter. At the age of 25, something strange happened. At that time I had surgery, with general anesthesia; and it was like someone pressed the “reset” button. After convalescence, I started to draw again, this time guided by the necessity of doing it. After a few weeks, I defined my style. Initially, I was mixing drawings on paper to digital photography. When I met Nadia, it was the birth of Podmork sculptures. S: First, she fell in love with these creatures, then she gave them a guise, she re-painted them and everything started. Although, since these sculptures were very small (just 4cm), we started to feel the need to create something else. Anyway, it was thanks to them that we were led into the art world. One day, we decided to take them to an art gallery, a design shop and a cartoon shop. The signal arrived: 15 minutes after we left, the gallery called us asking for more, the Podmorks were sold out. But, as I was saying, we wanted to go beyond: we moved to canvas. We made some experiments, very intriguing, again through the digital re-elaboration of the photos of the Podmorks. At the time, Nadia also worked on interesting art pieces, starting from photography yet without printing: she would paint the digital file on canvas herself, following her typical flat style. At that point, though, I was missing. We tried then to combine both the styles in three art pieces, Podmork skulls, that we consider to be the “block 0”. We keep those three for us. That is exactly how Hackatao’ style was born: the union of my twisted narrative drawn in part with her flat style. It is beautiful because artists need their own cage, inside of which they find the right space to create. If we had the infinite, we would get lost, killed by an overdose of stimulus and experimentation. N: For creatives, to experiment is a wonderful path, as well as very dispersive. If we continued to experiment endlessly, without finding limits to play within, we would live in a highly anxious state as it could really be anything. S: It reminds me a bit of the movie The Legend of 1900. The main character never leaves the ship, thinking of how much he is already able to compose just using 88 keys and that he would probably become crazy if he goes out. Going back to education, I sometimes feel like the behavior of schools towards artists is what also happens in experiments with artificial intelligence. The art school teaches certain styles and, once students graduate, they act like AI to which – for instance – 30,000 art pieces from the Renaissance were shown. What I think both AI and art schools miss is the variety, the capability of, yes, providing the whole Renaissance art pieces information, but at the same time suggesting you to go pooping in an outhouse of a slum in some cities in Africa. Creativity needs to stretch amongst elements that are very different from each other, it needs the combination of antipodes. Still Picasso: “To copy others is necessary, but to copy oneself is pathetic”. HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO MAINTAIN A STYLE TO BE UNIQUE, WITHOUT WALKING INTO THE TRAP OF STAGNATION AND REPETITION? HOW DID HACKATO’S ART EVOLVE AND HOW IT HAS BEEN EVOLVING? S: Having a container that limits the field of action is a creative necessity. Although, this cage can be moved. It is like a distorted lens through which we can focus everything without ever getting bored. N: Also, because all of the artworks are different from each other, they have their own spirit, strength, and their own world. They tell their own story. S: Moreover, when it comes to our pieces, it is not about sometimes doing a smudge of color on the right side and sometimes doing it on the left one. It is always a style space that gives us a huge amount of freedom. N: We like the idea that there is a uniform visual whole. If you can recognise our art for specific colors, it is nothing but a strength. I don’t see any repetition in there; in fact, there have been evolutions between the first creations and the recent ones. S: Yes, an evolutionary transition happened when we moved here to Oltris. Living closely with nature influenced some changes in colors, making them much more cheerful, more lively and stronger. Same thing for the introduction of black inks. Earlier, the borders where more mono-level and pale, while now they are more defined. This variation in style required months of research and experimentation, in order to find the right chemical that would avoid conflicts between the different materials and would guarantee duration in time. N: Another interesting moment dates back to last year: our first artwork with three-dimensional profundity and the respective introduction of perspective. The transit from physical to digital also deserves attention: we started to animate our pieces for our own fun. The first animated GIF was I’ve got the power. Later, blockchain and cryptoart arrived and led us to our first experiment. BLOCKCHAIN, THIS MONSTER. HACKATAO, A FEW YEARS AGO YOU BECOME VERY “RARE”. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? IN FACT, “WHAT” HAPPENED?! S: Winters in Carnia are long and cold, but it is also the time in which the mountaineers have finished their outdoor activities, as nature is resting, and use this time to enrich themselves, study and create. It was a quiet moment – we didn’t have any art shows scheduled or anything - when I stumbled upon an article in “the sciences”, one of my favorite magazines, extensively talking about the blockchain and its practical potential. I thought this would be just perfect for art! So I googled “blockchain and art” and I arrived at Artnome, Jason Bailey’s blog. I read his articles about crypto art and I just felt electrified. Later, I reached out to him, in a very pure way, thanking him for opening these doors to a new world for me. He instantly answered, caught up with what we are doing and put me in contact with SuperRare, at the time still not operative. SuperRare folks liked our art and animations, so after a few days they launched the platform we tokenised our art for the first time: Girl next Door. There were other artists that we really liked, such as XCOPY and DrBeef (Robbie Barrat). Cryptoart instilled energy and satisfaction in us. The creation of our art pieces is slow, the artistic process long, and it takes time to see the artwork finished. The level of depth and amount of research during this process are undoubtable, but we were missing that creative satisfaction of thinking about something and seeing it realised immediately after. Moreover, we had the chance of getting to know artists from all over the world and the debate with them is important, it brings new stimulus and new means through which to express and examine our art in depth. ZEITGEIST ART. Art always speaks the language of the time, when it doesn’t it is because we are blind. IS THE LANGUAGE OF OUR TIME DIGITAL? ARE YOU TAKING PART IN A CONTEMPORARY, PIONEER OR FUTURE PHENOMENA? S: Cryptoart is able to gather the expressive manner of our time, adding something more to it. It speaks the contemporary language, also allowing us - the artists - to create in digital attributing value. Coming from the world of advertising and communication, the use of programs like Adobe is our “bread and butter” and it is the natural way used by our generation to express themselves. It is not only digital, it is “also” digital. I don’t think we are living in a moment of transition from physical to digital. They are overlapping instead, and they are complementary. Blockchain arrives at the right moment, since it gives the digital artwork value and it makes it “rare”, unique: exactly what we were missing. This is a time where it is, I don’t want to say necessary, but at least important to analyse what is happening with Cryptoart and to make it meaningful, telling people about it. It is difficult though, because we start from blockchain and its imperative “decentralise”, or rather, not to have mediators. And speaking of which, I believe that all the actors should gather together and discuss what's next, in order to avoid replicating the schemes of the traditional art world system. Instead, to find a different way, less rigid, a new ecosystem. MoCDA manifests in the right moment, since we are still in the experimentation period. The museum part is useful to put things in order, to value the artworks and the artists, as well as to historicise this period, to legitimise it. WHICH ARE THE DIFFICULTIES OF OPERATING IN THE DIGITAL ART WORLD, AS OPPOSED TO THE PHYSICAL ART ONE? WHAT ARE THE COMFORTS? TANGIBLY, TECHNICALLY, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE ART MARKET… S: I could start with an endless list of obstacles we meet in the physical art world. First of all, indeed, the physical nature. Time and cost for the realisation of an art piece, its transportation, its exhibition in a gallery (if you have a gallery). The same piece that, when bought, will reach the wall of a collector where, maybe, will stay for 4 or 30 years, before going back on the market through an auction… Blockchain simply reduces timing and cost to few instants. Although speed is one of its most interesting features, it is also one of its most dangerous one. In fact, this causes an overproduction that can result in an inflation of the artwork and their consequently decrease of value. A cryptoartist should aim for a balance in this process: if, as an artist, I produce an artwork a day I may act as a depreciating factor on my own art, on the crypto art market and on the collectors’ collection. In this case, an artwork will lose its meaning and become spam art with a decreased value. The goal is to find the right balance on this frequency. N: I personally like to know the whole journey of the artwork. We had several exhibitions where all the works in the catalogue were sold. I have no idea where they live now. Every now and then I get a picture or a post on social media through which I find out where the art is now located. Blockchain traces all the history, it’s all clear and accessible. S: Something that really struck me about blockchain art is the distinction between the old and the new generation of collectors. Once surpassed a certain age, it is extremely challenging to make collectors understand how to own and enjoy a digital artwork through a screen, a PC or a smartphone. Younger generations are digitally native and appreciate its impalpability. N: Moreover, we have created an animated GIF inspired by Ken Shiro, a Japanese comic myth from the childhood of the collector who commissioned this work. As often happens, we started from a drawing on paper which we then digitised, animated and eventually tokenised. After the collector acquired the digital artwork we wanted to gift him with the original drawing although he was happy enough with the digital artwork. WHAT ARE THE GREATEST POTENTIALS VS. THE LACKS OF THE DIGITAL ART WORLD? S: The digital art world is lacking an adequate curation and appropriate exhibition format, in order to give the right meaning and value to the work of art. I see this as a challenge for the digital art curators who will need to find a new format to avoid falling into the traditional and well-established art world system. About the potentials, some are known, others are still unknown to us and yet to be understood entirely. AT THIS POINT, AS A CURATOR, I SHOULD ASK YOU HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE CURATED? S: By taking on a journey together. As a collaboration, to let the cryptoart movement emerge to the audience as a change of paradigm. If the artists are the killers, the curators are the detectives: you must expose us and take us to court, at the history of art trial. N: I rather curators who have the ability and the willingness to see beyond and to capture all the artists that explore and push the boundaries. Curators who have a keen eye for details. Curators who have a point of view with no prejudice. Those who can observe with curiosity and foresee the potential of an artist. S: As mentioned before, there’s work to be done on the way digital art is exhibited. For our retrospective Fight Fear, at Tolomezzo, Italy in 2018, we created a dedicated area for the crypto art - one of the first ever exhibition of its kind - comprehensive of influential artists operating in this art movement. The exhibited artworks were crossed with a black X on the wall, to indicate the art was not the original creation. Instead, to access the real artwork, visitors had to browse it through an augmented reality app or a QR code, which redirect the user to the SuperRare and KnownOrigin platforms. Hosting exhibitions is definitely a way to educate the audience about blockchain technology although it would be good to extend the reach to people who are unfamiliar with cryptoart. WHICH ONE IS YOUR FAVOURITE ARTWORK OR THE WORK THAT REPRESENTS YOU THE MOST? S: FLOOD, the girl with green hair immersed in water and surrounded by icebergs. It’s our first prospective artwork. Moreover, it’s a work that sadly anticipated the hot topic of climate change which is very close to our hearts. When living in a big city, you can lose contact with nature and its course which makes it difficult to understand what really happens 365 days in a yearly cycle. Here, instead, we can really feel the impact of man on nature and its consequences. We live surrounded by nature and when a storm takes down trees and parts of the wood you can relate to the magnitude of the human impact on nature. It’s a topic that has been forgotten in times of economic crisis. We don’t speak of ecology anymore - but with Greta - climate change it’s back on the agenda. Not sure whether there are other meanings to this movement (Extinction Rebellion), don’t really mind - what matters is that the focus is back on our future and the future of the planet. N: Ghost in the face b, the boy who takes a selfie with Death. And Death has the “F” of Facebook. I particularly like this work because it’s very relevant and also because it has an augmented reality that activates when you point at it with your camera, with music and animation. A curious fact about this work is that it has been acquired by a collector who has a company that works for Facebook. Apparently the work lives now in his office, to remind himself who he works for. WHAT DOES HACKATAO HAVE THAT OTHERS DON’T? S: We are Hackatao and others are not. N: We’re a couple. Two different but complementary elements that create together, this bivalence - male and female - it’s our strength which gives us energy. We don’t get tired of creating art. WHAT WOULD HACKATAO BE IF IT WAS A MOVIE, AN ARTWORK OR A PHILOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT? N: The Grand Budapest Hotel by Wes Anderson, from an aesthetic and visionary point of view. It’s extremely linear, precise and clear. I am a fan of this movie but I also find similarities in the way it was directed: in that defined and clean geometry of the shapes, in that perfect balance, carefully thought in every detail and in the choice of the colour palette. S: Spider by Cronenberg. The protagonist fills a room with strings, all connected from one end to the other. It’s a dark character who suffered trauma at a young age who is in search of a resolution. I see myself in this character and I think this is also how others see me, lost in my spiderweb. I also like Kubrick’s films, and I’d like to dare a parallelism with A Clockwork Orange. If we substitute violence with a creative force, you will watch a different version of the same movie, in which society wants to harness an artist but with no success. In the end, there’s violence in the movie, a creative input in our case. It’s an extreme comparison, but it represents that need to express that violent creativity that cannot be contained. Mulholland Drive, is like when I draw, it merges together different layers of reality, leaving room for multiple interpretations which is what happens in our art. A child can see the playful and colourful side of the work. An experienced and older viewer will capture much more. It happened with the ambassador Vattani, curator of the Farnesina permanent collection and passionate about art, who invited us to exhibit in Rome last year. He saw our works for about half an hour before going on to talk about it for over an hour, touching on aspects we carefully encrypted in our art, or at least, I thought we hid them well… N: Through his knowledge, culture and feelings he was able to interpret the hidden side of our art. He hacked us! S: In Lynch’s film you can feel a similar dreamlike language. Moving on to philosophy: Taoism and relativism. Reality can change depending on who’s witnessing it, how and when. Art: ours. IN THE STUDIO: WHAT’S YOUR TYPICAL DAY IN THE STUDIO? N: I’m the first to get up. I take a stroll in the woods with Kaliban, our dog. Sergio starts drawing very early in the morning. We wake up around 6/6.30am but our breakfasts are very long. Sergio draws until 10am roughly then he goes to teach our daughters, and that’s when I get in the studio. I stay there until I can hear them asking for food. We have lunch together and then we go back to our studio; this time we work together until we take our girls to their sport classes, swimming or gymnastics. Since we both have our areas of the artwork to contribute to, we are quite independent in the way we run our days. If the sun is out we take a stroll to the river, we follow the flux. There are moments when it’s impossible to concentrate and a change of scenario makes you feel much better. S: Our approach to art is totally different. Nadia works on the artwork tirelessly, like a Stakhanovite. N: I’m there in my own little world, with no distraction. I do my things and I feel good about it… S: I do a hundred things at the same time: reading, writing, watching a documentary, going to the orchard, going back to the studio to draw for half an hour, then I’m going out again to the kitchen garden, feeding the geese, I’m going back inside to my PC desk, researching the latest news in the crypto world… and so on. My attention span is quite short, although with time, it became my virtue, a creative spiral. That’s my creative mood, with a satisfying final result. A SCULPTURE AND A DIGITAL ARTWORK: HOW DO YOU START? S: The Podmork sculpture was originally created by hand modelling a Super Sculpey dough, something like clay. When the mould is made, the sculpture gets reconstructed in 3D and the model gets sent to a studio in Milan where they obtain a prototype from a block, from which the final model gets created. The next step is the casting of the ceramic from which we attain a biscuit (or bisque), which is the first firing of the ceramic. It's as if this was a personalised canvas. It has the shape of the sculpture but it’s plain white. Through the drawings and paintings we give it a soul, we bring it to life. Depending on the theme or the inspiration for the sculpture, we then create a mock up for the final design of the Podmork. Nadia draws the containment lines then I make a start and we finally fix the graphite. Nadia will then continue adding all layers of colours. We then photograph it and archive it. The same process happens with the canvases. For a while now we have been framing our own works, because we are very meticulous and we want the mounting to be done properly. N: We make our own supports. These are 5/6cm deep, to give them enough thickness. S: After this stage, the digital artwork is born. We photograph it and elaborate it digitally. N: The latest animations we have been working on were quite simple make. By studying the result we’d like to achieve before we start making the canvas, the digital animation is somehow already in our heads. Hackatao show me the artwork they have in their studio - there are canvases from which they've created digital art S: We conceptually love the idea of creating a digital “doppelganger” from our physical artworks. Each work has its own life, its very own path. Nevertheless, our digital art is inseparable to its augmented reality. As if these were connected by an umbilical cord. N: They’re two, like us. S: We don’t start by creating at our PC. This is the peculiarity of our digital journey. We’re a wormhole between the two worlds. DIGITAL OR PHYSICAL ART? (ARE WE REALLY STILL TALKING ABOUT ART IN SILOS?) S: When I made my first digital art attempts, in the early 2000, I was solely drawing digitally. I then used to print my digital drawings and take them to galleries. I remember I used to describe my technique, although the art itself was frequently snubbed because it was computer made and for this reason not of particular value or interest. I do believe crypto art has turned things around. It acknowledges this ultra-contemporary language of art. N: It’s a whole, a set. I can’t see one without the other. Not a different way for it to be. S: I believe digital art will be more valuable than physical art in the future. We’re not that far… Since new generations will determine the value of what we are creating now. We should be farsighted. If we plant a seed today, this will grow: the first harvest will be scarce, the first years would probably be disappointing, but we’ll most certainly see a good crop soon enough. HOW DO YOU ENVISION THE FUTURE OF HACKATAO AND THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY? S: Difficult to say. We’re on our path and we believe where it's taking us. So we carry on with all our efforts and energies. It’s easy to stay on, if we were going to chance path things will be far more complicated. Some say it's bad luck to predict the future… Better not! Personally, even though I feel dark inside, I keep positive about things, I consider myself an optimist. The problem with being an optimist is that you could become in denial of the surrounding reality because you tend to be so close to your own vision. The good thing about being a pessimist is that you could capture things that get missed by the optimists. Finding a balance between these two visions would be preferable. In general, though, I think we should keep going, keeping our heads down, and if something turns out to be good then it’s great! I see the future of humanity being post-apocalyptic punk, which I love! A future in which all values will be inverted, where you’ll have to survive with not much, reuse what was created before you: adapt to survive. Although it’s a future I don’t wish for anyone, too violent to be lived. Who knows whether humanity will be saved from its own auto destruction, maybe by artificial intelligence coming to show us the path to salvation... As for now, things are pretty messed up. It’s sad to see we’ve forgotten our traditions; the wise peasants used to plant trees for their nephews because it takes time for a walnut tree to sprout, same goes for an olive tree and so on… Nowadays everything needs to be consumed fast. N: We tend to think “If I can’t eat the walnuts in my lifetime, why should I plant a walnut tree? Let’s have tomatoes instead, let’s enjoy some fresh summer salad”, then the winter comes and the tomato plants go rotten… S: That’s why I don’t like cities, they burn all energies. Life in the countryside or by the mountains is way more sustainable. BUT FRANKLY HACKATAO, DID YOU ENJOY THIS INTERVIEW? Very much so! It helped us shed some light on ourselves. You surprisingly made us talk a lot… We normally spare a few words. THANK YOU, HACKATAO! This interview was conducted by curator Eleonora Brizi

From Pixels to Paint In The Studio with artist Joanne Hastie by Sandy Liu Sandy: When first thinking about robots making art, common sentiments probably centre around curiosity or fear. HOW DO ROBOTS CREATE ART? WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR ART? IF ROBOTS CAN EVEN REPLACE HUMANS IN A FIELD OF CREATIVITY, DOES IT MEAN HUMANS CAN ENTIRELY BE REPLACED? Walking into Joanne’s studio, I was welcomed by the gentle buzzing sound of the robot arm. There was really nothing intimidating about the robot, it was just quietly, diligently waving its paint brush, dipping paint as if a studious art student refining its craft, one brush stroke at a time. Most of the walls were covered with distinct schools of artwork from abstract to impressionism, from shapes to landscape, from human to robot-made. Joanne ran through her folders of robot art experiments as I went through the array of questions I meditated on, curious to get her insights on this fascinating way to create artwork. Sandy: WHAT INSPIRED YOU TO CHOOSE ROBOTS AND MACHINE LEARNING TO CREATE? Joanne: I have been painting for as long as I can remember, but coming from a family of engineers, it was just natural to become an engineer as well. I chose mechanical engineering because of the drawing and design work involved. My first few work terms were based in automation. I had a 2 week opportunity to work with an industrial KUKA robot (KUKA is a German manufacturer of industrial robots and solutions for factory automation), the whole time I was working with it I wanted to have it hold a paint brush. Years later, I still had this idea so I eventually bought myself a desktop robot to see if I could learn to program it to paint. It was a solid year of learning to code in Python, after that I started experimenting with machine learning. Joanne first started automating her painting process when she entered the 2018 international RobotArt competition. The challenge was to paint a picture with no human intervention. She won 5th place in the competition and gained international recognition. Read about Joanne’s experience: https://joannehastie.com/project/2018-robotart-competition/ GAN - GENERATIVE ADVERSARIAL NETWORK Some of Joanne’s latest tech art uses GANs. To understand Joanne’s process, it would be useful to define GAN - Generative Adversarial Networks. GANs are deep neural net architectures comprised of two nets, pitting one against the other (thus the “adversarial”). They can learn to mimic any distribution of data. That is, GANs can be taught to create worlds eerily similar to our own in any domain: images, music, speech, prose. (Source: https://pathmind.com/wiki/generative-adversarial-network-gana) In this sense, with the two networks, a generator and a discriminator, GANs can take in random inputs and learn from a training set to produce new combinations of output that could mimic a human’s work and then have the ability to classify it as good or bad. An example of GAN is the project This Person Does Not Exist, where every image here although looks like a real person, is actually a dreamed up image by a GAN based on the inputs it was trained by. With this in mind, let’s talk about Joanne’s process. Joanne uses GANs in 3 of her non-robotic, hand-painted series including: This is Not a Place, generating style filters for her cityscape paintings and her Matisse inspired still lifes Throughout these image generation processes she uses another algorithm called a classifier to sort through large amounts of images her code generates. She uses both trained and untrained classifiers in both her GAN processed art and her robotic abstract paintings. Sandy: WHAT DOES THE PROCESS LOOK LIKE? Joanne: In order to automate something, you have to know something to its very basic motions. The reason we practice something is so we don’t have to think about how to do it - we can do it automatically. I practice painting so I can focus on creating the painting and not on the details such as how to mix colors, clean the brush or what brush to use. Sandy: SAME AS GREAT ATHLETES ACTUALLY DON’T THINK WHEN THEY PERFORM, THEY KEEP A BLANK MIND. Joanne: That’s right, but in setting up the automation, it forces me to think of each discrete step so I can program the robot (ex. Dipping the paint, apply paint in a ‘painterly’ fashion, cleaning the brush, etc.). For my current robotic series, I follow the steps: I have python code that generates brush stroke sets. There are three different styles of brush strokes generated that are layered with different colors. Each brush stroke set is digitally layered onto backgrounds that I have painted by hand. I train a classifier on my preferences of what I deem to be good or bad based on my own preferences by labelling earlier generated paintings. The newly generated paintings are then classified as either good or bad - the top ranked ones will be considered for painting. I then place each of the backgrounds into the robot stand and paint the code-selected painting for that background Sandy: WERE THERE A LOT OF TRIAL AND ERROR IN THE BEGINNING? WHAT WERE SOME OF YOUR FAVORITE FAILS? Joanne: I have stacks of failed paintings. Often leading to new ideas. A great example is once I turned the robot on to paint and then went outside on a run, when I returned, I realized that I had forgotten to toggle on the action to clean the brush between colors. So the robot mixed all the colors together and the painting came out almost black with thick brush strokes. I had an open studio last year and people loved this example and actually preferred the one I created by “mistake”. The one on the left is the intended painting, compared to the right is where Joanne forgot to include the command to clean the paint brush between colors. Joanne’s machine learning abstracts where she uses two classifiers - one to select the composition and an untrained one to suggest what object they could be. More on this project here. Sandy: WHAT DO YOU THINK CONSTITUTES GOOD ROBOT ART? Joanne: At the beginning of this work I used my Instagram account (@paintingvariables) where I posted all the robot paintings and did not disclose that the art is done by a robot to see the audience’s reaction. I had an idea that I could train classifier to understand what “good or bad” art was based on the number of likes I get for each picture. I quickly realized this is not a proper experiment because the platform is more in control of what people see and the more I posted the more likes I got. Reverting back to traditional standards, I became the critic and started to categorize the paintings myself with my own preferences. Since the code generates so many good paintings I often focus on the question, “Would I use paint and time on this?” Sandy: WHAT ABOUT PRICING? DO YOU PRICE THE ART DIFFERENT FROM HOW YOU WOULD PRICE THE ORIGINALS? Joanne: I actually don’t think about robot art as different from human art because it’s really just another tool that I use to create, I value the art similarly. Therefore, I usually price by square inch like any other artwork I create, but the bigger challenge is getting validation on what’s considered good. Sandy: BEYOND PRICING, WHAT IS THE VALUE OF COMPUTER OR ROBOT ART IN YOUR OPINION? Joanne: To the artist I think it’s super valuable because in order to teach the robot, the artist has to understand how she paints down to a granular level, each decision is deliberate. It also allows artists to iterate on more ideas and test out color palettes much faster. I do have a fear though that people would think it’s less valuable if the art is made by a robot, but to me it’s not personified, it’s more around the question, “Why does the artist have to hold the brush?” Sandy: SO EVEN THOUGH YOU’VE PROGRAMMED A ROBOT THAT CAN DO SUCH GREAT WORK, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’D AGREE WITH THE PEOPLE THAT THINK CREATIVITY AND ART IS PROBABLY THE ONE THING THAT ROBOTS CAN’T REPLACE HUMANS IN DOING? Joanne: That’s right, I don’t think robots can replace artists if people just understood how much work is required to get the robot to paint. The creativity is all based on my inputs, so the work that a robot creates is very artist dependant. I think it’s unfortunate how society has traditionally split arts and technology to two separate domains. More artists would benefit from learning about technology if they aren’t intimidated by it. It is hard for art and art galleries to survive if they don’t embrace technology. Sandy: I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT A TREND THAT WE CAN’T IGNORE IS THAT DISCIPLINES CAN NO LONGER BE INNOVATIVE BY STAYING IN THEIR OWN LANES. WE SEE MORE AND MORE INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATIONS OR ARTISTS WHO ARE ALSO TECHNOLOGISTS. LOOKING AHEAD TO THE FUTURE, WHAT’S NEXT FOR YOU? WHERE DO YOU SEE THE TECHNOLOGY GOING AND WHAT IS THE WILDEST DREAM THAT YOU CAN IMAGINE NOW WITH THE WORK YOU DO? Joanne: It has definitely been an iterative process, I now have a new 7DOF robot (seven degrees of freedom) that allows for more flexibility of movement and more positions. I am interested in getting the robot to mix its own colors as I currently do it manually. If it can mix its own colors this can open up a lot more possibilities to painting representational. Where else can I replace myself in the process? Can I get it to swap brushes (I currently do this manually) or make judgement calls as it is painting with a vision system? I frequently get invited to show my robot at conferences and events, so I wonder can the viewer interact with the robot with a set of parameters? I have other ideas such as  can an artist paint in the moment on location with a more portable tablet that informs a robot that is painting in the studio? What if the robot can be mobile in the studio to have even more reach… I have often said I’d love to have it help me paint large wall murals. In December 2014, Joanne attended a three week Art Residency in Graniti Sicily. During her stay she was to paint a mural in the town. A new robotic arm Joanne just acquired that allows more flexibility in how the paint brush is held. Joanne and I with the adorable parrot Larry in the studio. Sandy: Thank you Joanne for sharing your art with us Interview by Sandy Liu

Originally published on erlang-solutions.com Introduction Seven months of intense activity have passed since the release of Blockchain 2018 Myth vs. Reality article. As a follow-up to that blog post, I would like to take the opportunity to analyse in further detail the impact that this new technology has on our perceptions of asset ownership and value, how we are continuously exploring new forms of transactional automation and then conclude with the challenge to deliver safe and fair governance. Since the topic to cover is vast, I have decided to divide it into two separate blog posts, the first of which will cover how the meaning and perception of ownership is changing, while the second will discuss how Smart Contract automation can help deliver safe, fair, fast, low-cost, transparent and auditable transactional interoperability. My intention is to provide an abstract and accessible summary that describes the state-of-the-art of blockchain technology and what motivations have led us to the current development stage. While these posts will not focus on future innovation, they will serve as a prelude to more bold publications I intend to release in the future. Digital Asset Ownership, Provenance and Handling How we value Digital vs. Physical Assets In order to understand how the notion of ownership is currently perceived in society, I propose to briefly analyse the journey that has brought us to the present stage and the factors which have contributed to the evolution of our perceptions. Historically people have been predominantly inclined to own and trade physical objects. This is probably best explained by the fact that physical objects stimulate our senses and don’t require the capacity to abstract, as opposed to services for instance. Ownership was usually synonymous with possession. Let us try to break down and extract the fundamentals of the economy of physical goods: we originally came to this world and nothing was owned by anyone; possession by individuals then gave rise to ownership ‘rights’ (obtained through the expenditure of labour – finding or creating possessions); later we formed organisations that exercised territorial control and supported the notion of ownership (via norms and mores that evolved into legal frameworks), as a form of protection of physical goods. Land and raw materials are the building blocks of this aspect of our economy. When we trade (buy or sell) commodities or other physical goods, what we own is a combination of the raw material, which comes with a limited supply, plus the human/machine work required to transform it to make it ready to be used and/or consumed. Value was historically based on a combination of the inherent worth of the resource (scarcity being a proxy) plus the cost of the work required to transform that resource into an asset. Special asset classes (e.g. art) soon emerged where value was related to intangible factors such as provenance, fashion, skill (as opposed to the quantum of labour) etc. We can observe that even physical goods contain an abstract element: the design, the capacity to model it, package it and make it appealing to the owners or consumers. In comparison, digital assets have a stronger element of abstraction which defines their value, while their physical element is often negligible and replaceable (e.g. software can be stored on disk, transferred or printed). These types of assets typically stimulate our intellect and imagination, as our senses get activated via a form of rendering which can be visual, acoustic or tactile. Documents, paintings, photos, sculptures and music notations have historical equivalents that predate any form of electrically-based analog or digital representations. The peculiarity of digital goods is that they can be copied exactly at very low cost: for example, they can be easily reproduced in multiple representations on heterogeneous physical platforms or substrates thanks to the discrete nature in which we store them (using a simplified binary format). The perceivable form can be reconstructed and derived from these equal representations an infinite number of times. This is a feature that dramatically influences how we value digital assets. The opportunity to create replicas implies that it is not the copy nor the rendering that should be valued, but rather the original digital work. In fact, this is one of the primary achievements that blockchain has introduced via the hash lock inherent to its data structure. If used correctly the capacity to clone a digital item can increase confidence that it will exist indefinitely and therefore maintain its value. However, as mentioned in my previous blog post (Blockchain 2018 – Myth vs. Reality) the immutability and perpetual existence of digital goods are not immune from facing destruction, as at present there is a dependence on a physical medium (e.g. hard disk storage) that is potentially subject to alteration, degradation or obsolescence. A blockchain, such as that of the Bitcoin network, represents a model for vast replication and reinforcement of digital information via so-called Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT). Repair mechanisms can intervene in order to restore integrity in the event that data gets corrupted by a degrading physical support (i.e. a hard disk failure) or a malicious actor. The validity of data is agreed upon by a majority (the level of majority varying across different DLT implementations) of peer-to-peer actors (ledgers) through a process known as consensus. This is a step in the right direction, although the exploration of increasingly advanced platforms to preserve digital assets is expected to evolve further. As genetic evolution suggests, clones with equal characteristics can all face extinction by the introduction of an actor that makes the environment unfit for survival in a particular form. Thus, it might be sensible to introduce heterogeneous types of ledgers to ensure their continued preservation on a variety of physical platforms and therefore enhance the likelihood of survival of information. The evolution of services and their automation In the previous paragraph, we briefly introduced a distinction between physical assets and goods where the abstraction element is dominant. Here I propose to analyse how we have started to attach value to services and how we are becoming increasingly demanding about their performance and quality. Services are a form of abstract valuable commonly traded on the market. They represent the actions bound to the contractual terms under which a transformation takes place. This transformation can apply to physical goods, digital assets, other services themselves or to individuals. What we trade, in this case, is the potential to exercise a transformation, which in some circumstances might have been applied already. For instance, a transformed commodity, such as refined oil, has already undergone a transformation from its original raw form. Another example is an artefact where a particular shape can either be of use or trigger emotional responses, such as artefacts with artistic value. Service transformation in the art world can be highly individualistic (depending on the identity of the person doing the transforming (the artist; the critic; the gallery etc) or the audience for the transformed work. Thus, Duchamp’s elevation (or, possibly, degradation) of a porcelain urinal to artwork relied on a number of connected elements (i.e. transformational actions by actors in the art world and beyond) for the transformation to be successful – these elements are often only recognised and/or understood after the transformation has been affected. Even the rendering from an abstract form, such as with music notation or a record, the actual sound is a type of transformation that we consider valuable and commonly trade. These transformations can be performed by humans or machinery. With the surge of interest in digital goods, there is a corresponding increasing interest in acquiring services to transform them. As these transformations are being automated more and more, and the human element is progressively being removed, even services are gradually taking the shape of automated algorithms that are yet another form of digital asset, as is the case with Smart Contracts. Note, however, that in order to apply the transformation, an algorithm is not enough, we need an executor such as a physical or virtual machine. In Part 2 we will analyse how the automation of services has led to the evolution of Smart Contracts, as a way to deliver efficient, transparent and traceable transformations. Sustainability and Access to resources Intellectual and imagination stimulation is not the only motivator that explains the increasing interest in digital goods and consequently their rising market value. Physical goods are known to be quite costly to handle. In order to create, trade, own and preserve them there is a significant expenditure required for storage, transport, insurance, maintenance, extraction of raw materials etc. There is a competitive and environmental cost involved, which makes access to physical resources inherently non-scalable and occasionally prohibitive, especially in concentrated urban areas. As a result, people are incentivised to own and trade digital goods and services, which turns out to be a more sustainable way forward. For example, let us think about an artist who lives in a densely populated city and needs to acquire a canvas, paint, brushes, and so on, plus studio and storage space in order to create a painting. Finding that these resources are difficult or impossible to access, he/she decides to produce their artwork in a digital form. Services traditionally require resources to be delivered (e.g. raw material processing). However, a subset of these (such as those requiring non-physical effort, for instance, stock market trading, legal or accounting services) are ideally suited to being carried out at a significantly lower cost via the application of algorithmic automations. Note: this analysis assumes that the high carbon footprint required to drive the ‘Proof of Work’ consensus mechanism used in many DLT ecosystems can be avoided, otherwise the sustainability advantage can be legitimately debated. The Generative Approach The affordable access to digital resources, combined with the creation of consistently innovative algorithms has also contributed to the rise of a generative production of digital assets. These include partial generation, typically obtained by combining and assembling pre-made parts: e.g. Robohash derives a hash from a text added to the URL that leads to a fixed combination of mouths, eyes, faces, body and accessories. Other approaches involve Neural Net Deep Learning: e.g. ThisPersonDoesNotExist uses a technology known as Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) released by NVidia Research Labs to generate random people faces, Magenta uses a Google TensorFlow library to generate Music and Art, while DeepArt uses a patented neural net implementation based on the 19-layer VGG network. In the gaming industry we should mention No Man’s Sky, a mainstream Console and PC Game that shows a successful use of procedural generation. Project DreamCatcher also uses a generative design approach that leverages a wide set of simulated solutions that respond to a set of predefined requirements that a material or shape should satisfy. When it comes to Generative Art, it is important to ensure scarcity by restricting the creation of digital assets to limited editions, so an auto-generated item can be traded without the danger that an excess of supply triggers deflationary repercussions on its price. In Blockchain 2019 Part 2 we will describe techniques to register Non Fungible Tokens (NFT) on the blockchain in order to track each individual replica of an object while ensuring that there are no illegal ones. Interesting approaches directly linked to Blockchain Technology have been launched recently such as the AutoGlyphs from LarvaLabs, although this remains an open area for further exploration. Remarkably successful is the case of Obvious Art where another application of the GAN approach resulted in a Generated Artwork being auctioned off for $432,500. What prevents mass adoption of digital goods Whereas it is sensible to forecast a significant expansion of the digital assets market in the coming years, it is also true that, at present, there are still several psychological barriers to overcome in order to get broader traction in the market. The primary challenge relates to trust. A purchaser wants some guarantees that traded assets are genuine and that the seller owns them or acts on behalf of the owner. DLT provides a solid way to work out the history of a registered item without interrogating a centralised trusted entity. Provenance and ownership are inferable and verifiable from a number of replicated ledgers while block sequences can help ensure there is no double spending or double sale taking place within a certain time frame. The second challenge is linked to the meaning of ownership outside of the context of a specific market. I would like to cite as an example the closure of Microsoft’s eBook store. Microsoft’s decision to pull out of the ebook market, presumably motivated by a lack of profit, could have an impact on all ebook purchases that were made on that platform. The perception of the customer was obviously that owning an ebook was the same as owning a physical book. What Microsoft might have contractually agreed through its End-User License Agreement (EULA), however, is that this is true only within the contextual existence of its platform. This has also happened in video games where enthusiast players are perceiving the acquisition of a sword, or armour as if they were real objects. Even without the game closing down its online presence (e.g. when its maintenance costs become unsustainable), a lack of interest or reduced popularity might result in a digital item losing its value. There is a push, in this sense, towards forms of ownership that can break out from the restrictions of a specific market and be maintained in a broader context. Blockchain’s DLT in conjunction with Smart Contracts, that exist potentially indefinitely, can be used to serve this purpose allowing people to effectively retain their digital items’ use across multiple applications. Whether those items will have a utility or value outside the context and platform in/on which they were originally created remains to be seen. Even the acquisition of digital art requires a substantial paradigm shift. Compared to what happens with physical artefacts, there is not an equivalent tangible sense of taking home (or to one’s secure storage vault) a purchased object. This has been substituted by a verifiable trace on a distributed ledger that indicates to whom a registered digital object belongs. Sensorial forms can also help in adapting to this new form of ownership. For instance, a digital work of art could be printed, a 3D model could be rendered for a VR or AR experience or 3D printed. In fact, to control what you can do with a digital item is per se a form of partial ownership, which can be traded. This is different from the concept of fractional ownership where your ownership comes in a general but diluted form. It is more a functional type of ownership. This is a concept which exists in relation to certain traditional, non-digital assets, often bounded by national laws and the physical form of those assets. For instance, I can own a classic Ferrari and allow someone else to race it; I can display it in my museum and charge an entry fee to visitors; but I will be restricted in how I am permitted to use the Ferrari name and badge attached to that vehicle. The transition to these new notions of ownership is particularly demanding when it comes to digital non-fungible assets. Meanwhile, embracing fungible assets, such as a cryptocurrency, has been somewhat easier for customers who are already used to relating to financial instruments. This is probably because fungible assets serve the unique function of paying for something, while in the case of non-fungible assets there is a range of functions that define their meaning in the digital or physical space. Conclusion In this post we have discussed a major emerging innovation that blockchain technology has influenced dramatically over the last two years – the ownership of digital assets. In Blockchain 2019 – Part 2 we will expand on how the handling of assets gets automated via increasingly powerful Smart Contracts. What we are witnessing is a new era that is likely to revolutionise the perception of ownership and reliance on trusted and trustless forms of automation. This is driven by the need to increase interoperability, cost compression, sustainability, performance (as in the speed at which events occur) and customisation, which are all aspects where traditional centralised fintech systems have not given a sufficient solution. It is worthwhile, however, to remind ourselves that the journey towards providing a response to these requirements, should not come at the expense of safety and security. Privacy and sharing are also areas heavily debated. Owners of digital assets often prefer their identity to remain anonymous, while the benefit of socially shared information is widely recognised. An art collector, for instance, might not want to disclose his or her personal identity. Certainly, a lot more still remains to be explored as we are clearly just at the beginning of a wider journey that is going to reshape global digital and physical markets. At Erlang Solutions we are collaborating with partners in researching innovative and performant services to support a wide range of clients. This ranges from building core blockchain technologies to more specific distributed applications supported by Smart Contracts. Part of this effort has been shared on our website where you can find some information on who we work with in the fintech world and some interesting case studies, others of which remain under the scope of NDAs. This post intentionally aims at providing a state-of-the-art analysis. We soon expect to be in a position to release more specific and, possibly controversial, articles where a bolder vision will be illustrated.

Originally published on Hackernoon After a successful year of involvement in a variety of blockchain projects, I felt it healthy to take a step back and observe the emerging trends in this nascent (but still multi-billion dollar) industry and question whether some of the directions taken so far are sensible or whether any corrections are necessary. I will provide a ‘snapshot’ of the state of advancement of the blockchain technology, describing the strengths and weaknesses of the solutions that have emerged so far, without proposing innovations at this stage (those ideas will form the subject of future blog posts). If you are interested to hear what I and Erlang Solutions, where I work as Scalability Architect and Technical Lead have to say about blockchain, let me take you through it: The context I do not propose in this blogpost to get into the details of the blockchain data structure itself, nor will I discuss what is the best Merkle tree solution to adopt. I will also avoid hot topics such as ‘Transactions Per Second’ (TPS) and the mechanisms for achieving substantial transaction volumes, which is de facto the ultimate benchmark widely adopted as a measurement of how competitive a solution is against the major players in the market; Bitcoin and Ethereum. What I would like to examine instead is the state of maturity of the technology, and its alignment with the core principles that underpin the distributed ledger ecosystem. I hope that presenting a clear picture of these principles and how they are evolving may be helpful. The principles As the primary drive for innovation emerges from public, open source blockchains, this will be the one on which we will focus our attention. The blockchain technology mainly aims at embracing the following high level principles: Immutability of the history Decentralisation of the control ‘Workable’ consensus mechanism Distribution and resilience Transactional automation (including ‘smart contracts’) Transparency and Trust Link to the external world Let us look at them one by one: 1. Immutability of the history In an ideal world it would be desirable to preserve an accurate historical trace of events, and make sure this trace does not deteriorate over time, whether through natural events, or by human error or by the intervention of fraudulent actors. The artefacts produced in the analogue world face alterations over time, although there is often the intent to make sure they can withstand forces that threaten to alter and eventually destroy them. In the digital world the quantized / binary nature of the stored information provides the possibility of continuous corrections to prevent any deterioration that might occur over time. Writing an immutable blockchain aims to retain a digital history that cannot be altered over time and on top of which one can verify that a trace of an event, known as a transaction, is recorded in it. This is particularly attractive when it comes to assessing the ownership or the authenticity of an asset or to validate one or more transactions. We should note that, on top of the inherent immutability of a well-designed and implemented blockchain, hashing algorithms also provide a means to encode the information that gets written in the history so that the capacity to verify a trace/transaction can only be performed by actors possessing sufficient data to compute the one-way1 cascaded encoding/encryption. This is typically implemented on top of Merkle trees where hashes of concatenated hashes are computed. Legitimate questions can be raised about the guarantees for indefinitely storing an immutable data structure: If this is an indefinitely growing history, where can it be stored once it grows beyond capacity of the ledgers? As the history size grows (and/or the computing power needed to validate further transactions increases) this reduces the number of potential participants in the ecosystem, leading to a de facto loss of decentralisation. At what point does this concentration of ‘power’ create concerns? How does the verification performance deteriorate as the history grows? How does it deteriorate when a lot of data gets written on it concurrently by the users? How long is the segment of data that you replicate on each ledger node? How much network traffic would such replication generate? How much history is needed to be able to compute a new transaction? What compromises need to be made on linearisation of the history, replication of the information, capacity to recover from anomalies and TPS throughput? Further to the above questions we would also like to understand how many replicas converging to a specific history (i.e. consensus) would be needed for it to carry on existing, and in particular: Can a fragmented network carry on writing to their known history2 ? Is an approach designed to ‘heal’ any discrepancies in the immutable history of transactions by rewarding the longest fork, fair and efficient? Are the deterrents strong enough to prevent a group of ledgers forming their own fork3 that eventually reaches a wider adoption? Furthermore, a new requirement to comply with the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) in Europe and ‘the right to be forgotten’ introduced new challenges to the perspective of keeping permanent and immutable traces indefinitely. This is important because fines for breach of GDPR are potentially very significant. The solutions introduced so far effectively aim at anonymising the information that enters the immutable on-chain storage process, while sensitive information is stored separately in support databases where this information can be deleted if required. None of these approaches has yet been tested by the courts, nor has a definition of what the GDPR ‘right to be forgotten’ means in practice. The challenging aspect here is to decide upfront what is considered sensitive and what can safely be placed on the immutable history. A wrong upfront choice can backfire at a later stage in the event that any involved actor manages to extract or trace sensitive information through the immutable history. Immutability represents one of the fundamental principles that motivates the research into blockchain technology, both private and public. The solutions explored so far have managed to provide a satisfactory response to the market needs via the introduction of history linearisation techniques, one-way hashing encryptions, merkle trees and off-chain storage, although the linearity of the immutable history4comes at a cost (notably transaction volume). 2. Decentralisation of the control During the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis (one interpretation of which is that it highlighted the global financial disasters that could occur from over centralisation and the misalignment of economic incentives) there arose a deep mistrust of ‘traditional’, centralised institutions, political and commercial. One reaction against such centralisation was the exploration of various decentralised mechanisms which could replace those traditional, centralised structures. The proposition that individuals operating in a social context ideally would like to enjoy the freedom to be independent from a central authority gained in popularity. Self determination, democratic fairness and heterogeneity as a form of wealth are among the dominant values broadly recognised in Western (and, increasingly, non-Western) society. These values added weight to the movement that introducing decentralisation in a system is positive. I have rarely seen this very idea being challenged at all (in the same way one rarely hears criticism of the proposition that ‘information wants to be free’), although in some circumstances the unwanted consequences of using this approach can clearly be seen. For instance, one might argue that it is only due to our habits that we normally resolve anomalies in a system by contacting a central authority, which according to our implicit or explicit contractual terms, bears the responsibility for what happens to the system. Therefore, in the event of a damage incurred through a miscarried transaction that might be caused by a system failure or a fraudulent actor, we are typically inclined to contact the central bearer of the responsibility to intervene and try to resolve the damage sustained. Human history is characterised by the evolution of hierarchical power structures, even in the most ‘democratic’ of societies, and these hierarchies naturally create centralisation, independent of the dominant political structure in any particular society. This characteristic continues into the early 21st century. With decentralisation, however, there is no such central authority that could resolve those issues for us. Traditional, centralised systems have well developed anti-fraud and asset recovery mechanisms which people have become used to. Using new, decentralised technology places a far greater responsibility on the user if they are to receive all of the benefits of the technology, forcing them to take additional precautions when it comes to handling and storing their digital assets. In particular they need to keep the access to their digital wallets protected and make sure they don’t lose it. Similarly when performing transactions, such as giving away a digital asset to a friend or a relative, they have to make sure it is sent to the right address/wallet, otherwise it will be effectively lost or mistakenly handed over to someone else. Also, there’s no point having an ultra-secure blockchain if one then hands over one’s wallet private key to an intermediary (more ‘centralisation’ again) whose security is lax: it’s like having the most secure safe in the world then writing the combination on a whiteboard in the same room. Is the increased level of personal responsibility that goes with the proper implementation of a secure blockchain a price that users are willing to pay; or will they trade off some security in exchange for ease of use (and, by definition, more centralisation)? It’s too early to see how this might pan out. If people are willing to make compromises here, what other compromises re, say, security or centralisation would they be prepared to accept in exchange for lower cost/ease of use? We don’t know, as there’s no secure blockchain ecosystem yet operating at scale. Another threat to the broad endorsement and success of the decentralisation principle is posed by governmental regulatory/legal pressures on digital assets and ecosystems. This is to ensure that individuals do not use the blockchain for tax evasion and that the ownership of their digital assets is somehow protected. However any attempt to regulate this market from a central point is undermining the effort to promote the adoption of a decentralised form of authority. 3. Consensus The consistent push towards decentralised forms of control and responsibility has brought to light the fundamental requirement to validate transactions without the need for (or intervention of) a central authority; this is known as the ‘consensus’ problem and a number of approaches have grown out of the blockchain industry, some competing and some complementary. There has also been a significant focus around the concept of governance within a blockchain ecosystem. This concerns the need to regulate the rates at which new blocks are added to the chain and the associated rewards for miners (in the case of blockchains using proof of work (POW) consensus methodologies). More generally, it is important to create incentives and deterrent mechanisms whereby interested actors contribute positively to the healthy continuation of the chain growth. Besides serving as economic deterrent against denial of service and spam attacks, POW approaches are amongst the first attempts to automatically work out, via the use of computational power, which ledgers/actors have the authority to create/mine new blocks5. Other similar approaches (proof of space, proof of bandwidth etc) followed, however, they all suffered from exposure to deviations from the intended fair distribution of control. Wealthy participants can in fact exploit these approaches to gain an advantage via purchasing high performance (CPU / memory / network bandwidth) dedicated hardware in large quantity and operating it in jurisdictions where electricity is relatively cheap. This results in overtaking the competition to obtain the reward, and the authority to mine new blocks, which has the inherent effect of centralising the control. Also the huge energy consumption that comes with the inefficient nature of the competitive race to mine new blocks in POW consensus mechanisms has raised concerns about its environmental impact and economic sustainability. The most recent report on the energy usage of Bitcoin can be seen here on digiconomist. Proof of Stake (POS) and Proof of Importance (POI) are among the ideas introduced to drive consensus via the use of more social parameters, rather than computing resources. These two approaches link the authority to the accumulated digital asset/currency wealth or the measured productivity of the involved participants. Implementing POS and POI mechanisms, whilst guarding against the concentration of power/wealth, poses not insubstantial challenges for their architects and developers. More recently, semi-automatic approaches, driven by a human-curated group of ledgers, are putting in place solutions to overcome the limitations and arguable fairness of the above strategies. The Delegated Proof of Stake (DPOS) and Proof of Authority (POA) methods promise higher throughput and lower energy consumptions, while the human element can ensure a more adaptive and flexible response to potential deviations caused by malicious actors attempting to exploit a vulnerability of the system. Whether these solutions actually manage to fulfill the inherent requirements, set by the principle of control distribution, is debatable. Similarly, when it comes to the idea of bringing in another layer of human driven consensus for the curation, it is clear that we are abandoning a degree of automation. Valuing trust and reputation in the way authority gets exercised on the governance of a particular blockchain appears to bring back a form of centralised control, which clearly goes against the original intention and the blockchain ethos. This appears to be one of the areas where, despite the initial enthusiasm, there is not yet a clear solution that drives consensus in a fair, sustainable and automated manner. Moving forward I expect this to be the main research focus for the players in the industry, as current solutions leave many observers unimpressed. There will likely emerge a number of differing approaches, each suitable for particular classes of use case. 4. Distribution and resilience Apart from decentralising the authority, control and governance, blockchain solutions typically embrace a distributed Peer to Peer (P2P) design paradigm. This preference is motivated by the inherent resilience and flexibility that these types of networks have introduced and demonstrated, particularly in the context of file and data sharing (see a brief p2p history here). The diagram below is frequently used to explain the difference among three network topologies: centralised, decentralised and distributed. A centralised network, typical of mainframes and centralised services6, is clearly exposed to a ‘single point of failure’ vulnerability as the operations are always routed towards a central node. In the event that the central node breaks down or is congested, all the other nodes will be affected by disruptions. Decentralised and distributed networks attempt to reduce the detrimental effects that issues occurring on a node might trigger on other nodes. In a decentralised network, the failure of a node can still affect several neighbouring nodes that rely on it to carry out their operations. In a distributed network the idea is that failure of a single node should not impact significantly any other node. In fact, even when one preferential/optimal route in the network becomes congested or breaks down entirely, a message can reach the destination via an alternative route. This greatly increases the chances to keep a service available in the event of failure or malicious attacks such as a denial of service (DOS) attack. Blockchain networks where a distributed topology is combined with a high redundancy of ledgers backing a history have occasionally been declared “unhackable” by enthusiasts or, as some more prudent debaters say, “difficult to hack”. There is truth in this, especially when it comes to very large networks such as Bitcoin (see an additional explanation here). In such a highly distributed network, the resources needed to generate a significant disruption are very high, which not only delivers on the resilience requirement, but also works as a deterrent against malicious attacks (principally because the cost of conducting a successful malicious attack becomes prohibitive). Although a distributed topology can provide an effective response to failures or traffic spikes, we need to be aware that delivering resilience against prolonged over-capacity demands or malicious attacks requires adequate adapting mechanisms. While the Bitcoin network is well positioned, as it currently benefits from a high capacity condition (due to the historical high incentive to purchase hardware by third party miners7 ), this is not the case for other emerging networks as they grow in popularity. This is where novel instruments, capable of delivering preemptive adaptation combined with back pressure throttling applied to the P2P level, can be of great value. Distributed systems are not new and, whilst they provide highly robust solutions to many enterprises and governmental problems, they are subject to the laws of physics and require their architects to consider the trade-offs that need to be made in their design and implementation (e.g. consistency vs availability). This remains the case for blockchain systems. 5. Automation In order to sustain a coherent, fair and consistent blockchain and its surrounding ecosystem a high degree of automation is required. Existing areas with a high demand of automation include those common to most distributed systems. For instance; deployment, elastic topologies, monitoring, recovery from anomalies, testing, continuous integration, and continuous delivery. In the context of blockchains, these represent well-established IT engineering practices. Additionally, there is a creative R&D effort to automate the interactions required to handle assets, computational resources and users across a range of new problem spaces (e.g. logistics, digital asset creation and trading etc). The trend of social interactions has seen a significant shift towards scripting for transactional operations. This is where ‘Smart Contracts’ and constrained virtual machines (VM) interpreters have emerged — an effort pioneered by the Ethereum project. The possibility to define through scripting how to operate an asset exchange, under what conditions and actioned by which triggers, has attracted many blockchain enthusiasts. Some of the most common applications of Smart Contracts involve lotteries, trade of digital assets and derivative trading. While there is clearly an exciting potential unleashed by the introduction of Smart Contracts, it is also true that it is still an area with a high entry barrier. Only skilled developers that are willing to invest time in learning Domain Specific Languages (DSL)8have access to the actual creation and modification of these contracts. Besides, developers can create contracts that contain errors or are incapable to operate under unexpected conditions. This can happen, for instance, when the implementation of a contract is commissioned to a developer that does not have sufficient domain knowledge. Although the industry is taking steps in the right direction, there is still a long way to go in order to automatically adapt to unforeseen conditions and create effective Smart Contracts in non-trivial use cases. The challenge is to respond to safety and security concerns when Smart Contracts are applied to edge case scenarios that deviate from the ‘happy path’. If badly-designed contracts cannot properly rollback/undo a miscarried transaction, their execution might lead to assets being lost or erroneously handed over to unwanted receivers. A number of organisations are conducting R&D effort to respond to these known issues and introduce VMs operating under more restrictive constraints to deliver a higher level of safety and security. However, from a conceptual perspective, this is a restriction that reduces the flexibility to implement specific needs. Another area in high need for automation is governance. Any blockchain ecosystem of users and computing resources requires periodic configurations of the parameters to carry on operating coherently and consensually. This results in a complex exercise of tuning for incentives and deterrents to guarantee the fulfilment of ambitious collaborative and decentralised goals. The newly emerging field of ‘blockchain economics’ (combining economics; game theory; social science and other disciplines) remains in its infancy. Clearly the removal of a central ruling authority produces a vacuum that needs to be filled by an adequate decision making body, which is typically supplied with an automation that maintains a combination of static and dynamic configuration settings. Those consensus solutions referred to earlier which use computational resources or social stackable assets to assign the authority, not only to produce blocks but also to steer the variable part of governance9, have originally succeeded to fill the decision making gap in a fair and automated way. Successively, the exploitation of flaws in the static element of governance has hindered the success of these models. This has contributed to the rise of popularity of curated approaches such as POA or DPOS, which not only bring back a centralised control, but also reduce the automation of governance. I expect this to be one of the major area where blockchain has to evolve in order to succeed in getting a widespread market adoption. 6. Transparency and Trust In order to produce the desired audience engagement for a blockchain and eventually determine its mass adoption and success, its consensus and governance mechanisms need to operate transparently. Users need to know who has access to what data, so that they can decide what can be stored and possibly shared on-chain. These are the contractual terms by which users agree to share their data. As previously discussed users might require to exercise the right for their data to be deleted, which typically is a feature delivered via auxiliary, ‘off-chain’ databases. In contrast, only hashed information, effectively devoid of its meaning, is preserved permanently on-chain. Given the immutable nature of the chain history, it is important to decide upfront what data should be permanently written on-chain and what gets written off-chain. The users should be made aware of what data gets stored on-chain and with whom it could potentially be shared. Changing access to on-chain data or deleting it goes against the fundamentals of the immutability and therefore is almost impossible. Getting that decision wrong at the outset can significantly affect the cost and usability (and therefore likely adoption) of the blockchain in question. Besides transparency, trust is another critical feature that users legitimately seek. This is one of the reasons why blockchain manages to attract customers who have developed distrust in traditional centrally-ruled networks (most notably banks and rating organisations after the mishandling of the subprime mortgages that led to the 2008 financial crisis). It is vital, therefore, that central operating bodies in the shape of curated POA/DPOS consensus act in a transparent and trustworthy manner, so that decision makers are not perceived as an elite that could pursue their own goals, instead of operating in the interest of the collective. Another example of trust towards the people involved becomes relevant when the blockchain information is linked to the real world. As it will be clarified in the context of the next principle (see heading 7), this link involves people and technology dedicated to guarantee the accurate preservation of these links against environmental deterioration or fraudulent misuse. Trust also has to go beyond the scope of the people involved as systems need to be trusted as well. Every static element, such as an encryption algorithm, the dependency on a library, or an fixed configuration, is potentially exposed to vulnerabilities. Concerns here are understandable given the increasing amount of well-publicised hacks and security breaches that have occurred over the last couple of years. In the cryptocurrency space, these attacks have frequently resulted in the perpetrators successfully walking away with large sums of money, without leaving traces that could be realistically used to track down their identity, or rollback to a previous healthy state. In the non-crypto space they have resulted in widespread hacks of data and the disabling of corporate and civil IT systems. In some circumstances digital wallets were targeted, as the users might not have stored the access keys in a sufficiently secure place10, and in other circumstances the blockchain itself. This is the case of the ‘DAO attack’ on Ethereum or the so known ‘51% attacks’ on Bitcoin. Blockchain enthusiasts tend to forget that immutability is only preserved by having a sufficient number of ledgers backing a history. Theoretically in the event that a genuine history gets overruled by a large group ledgers interested in backing a different history, we could fall in a lack of consensus situation, which leads to a fork of the chain. If supported by a large enough group of ledgers11, the most popular fork could eclipse the genuine minor fork making it effectively irrelevant. This is not a reason to be excessively alarmed; it should just be a consideration to be aware of when we put our trust in a system. The bitcoin network, for instance, is currently backed by such a vast amount of ledgers that makes it impractical for anyone to hack. Similar considerations need to be made for state-of-the-art encryption, which has a deterrent against brute force attacks based on the current cost and availability of computational power. Should new technologies such as quantum computing emerge, it is expected that even that encryption would need an upgrade. 7. Link to the external world The attractive features that blockchain has brought to the internet market would be limited to handling digital assets, unless there was a way to link informations to the real world. For some reason this brings back to my mind the popular movie “The Matrix” and the philosophical question from René Descartes about what is real and if there is another reality behind the perceived one. Without indulging excessively in arguable analogies, it is safe to say that there would be less interest if we were to accept that a blockchain can only operate under the restrictive boundaries of the digital world, without connecting to the analog real world in which we live. Technologies used to overcome these limitations include cyber-physical devices such as sensors for input and robotic activators for output, and in most circumstances, people and organisations. As we read through most blockchain whitepapers we might occasionally come across the notion of the oracle, which in short, is a way to name an input coming from a trusted external source that could potentially trigger/activate a sequence of transactions in a Smart Contract or which can otherwise be used to validate some information that cannot be validated within the blockchain itself. Under the Transparency and Trust section we discussed how these peripheral areas are as susceptible to errors and malicious interference as the core blockchain and Smart Contracts automations. For instance, suppose we are tracking the history of a precious collectible item, unless we have the capacity to identify reliably the physical object in question we risk that its history is lost or attributed to another object. A remarkable example of object identification approach via physical characteristics is the one used by Everledger to track diamonds. As briefly explained, 40 metadata information can be extracted from the object, including the cut, the clarity, the colour, etc. Given the quasi-immutable nature of the objects in question, this has proved a particularly successful use case. It is more challenging instead to accurately identify objects that degrade over time (e.g. fine art). In this case typically trusted people are involved, or a combination of people and sensor metadata. Relying on expert actors to provide external validation relies upon a properly aligned set of incentives. ‘Traditional’ industries have a long history of dealing with these issues and well-developed mechanisms for dealing with them: blockchain-based solutions are exploring many ways in which they can interface (and adapt) these existing mechanisms. On a different perspective even wealth itself only makes sense if it can be exercised in the ‘real world’. This is as valid for blockchain as well as traditional centrally-controlled systems, and in fact the idea of virtualising wealth is not new to us as we shifted from trading time and goods directly, to stacking wealth into account deposits. What’s new in this respect is the introduction of alternate currencies known as cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin and Ethereum, the two dominant projects (in September 2018) in the blockchain space are by many investors seen as an opportunity to diversify a portfolio or speculate on the value of their respective cryptocurrency. The same applies to a wide range of other cryptocurrencies with the exception of fiat pegged currencies, most notably Tether, where the value is effectively bound to the US dollar. Conversions from one cryptocurrency to another and to/from fiat currencies is typically operated by exchanges on behalf of an investor. These are again peripheral services that serve as link to the external world. From a blockchain perspective, some argue that the risk control a cryptocurrency investor demands — so that there is the possibility to step back and convert back to fiat currencies — is the wrong mindset. Evangelising trust towards the cryptocurrency diversification however, understandably, requires an implementation period during which investors legitimately might want to exercise the option to pull-out. Besides oracles and cyber-physical links, an interest is emerging with linking Smart Contracts together to deliver a comprehensive solution. Contracts could indeed operate in a cross-chain scenario to offer interoperability among a variety of digital assets and protocols. Although attempts to combine different protocols and approaches have emerged (e.g. see the EEA and the Accord Project), this is still an area where further R&D is necessary in order to provide enough instruments and guarantees to developers and entrepreneurs. The challenge is to deliver cross-chain functionalities without the support of a central governing agency/body. Conclusion The financial boost that the blockchain market has benefited from, through the large fundraise operations conducted through the 2017–2018 initial coin offerings (ICO), has given the opportunity to conduct a substantial amount of R&D studies aimed at finding solutions to the challenges described in this blogpost. Although step changes have been introduced by the work of visionary individuals with mathematical backgrounds such as S. Nakamoto and V. Buterin, it seems clear that contributions need to come from a variety of expertises to ensure a successful development of the technology and the surrounding ecosystem. It is an exercise that involves evangelisation, social psychology, automation, regulatory compliance and ethical direction. The challenges the market is facing can be interpreted as an opportunity for ambitious entrepreneurs to step in and resolve the pending fundamental issues of consensus, governance, automation and link to the real world. It is important in this sense to ensure that the people you work with have the competence, the technology and a good understanding of the issues to be resolved, in order to successfully drive this research forward. As discussed in the introduction, this blog post only focuses on assessing the state of advancement of the technology in response to the motivating principles, and analyses known issues without proposing solutions. That said, I and the people I work with, are actively working on solutions that will be presented and discussed in a separate forum. If you are interested to learn more, stay tuned for the next chapter :-) .. Footnotes 1. One-way in this context means that you cannot retrieve the original information from a hash value which also frequently involves the destruction of an information, potentially leading to rare collisions (read more on perfect hash function).↩ 2. In the event of a split brain, a typical consensus policy is to allow fragmented networks to carry on writing blocks on their known chain and once the connection is re-established the longest chain part (also known as fork) is preferred while the shortest is deleted. Note this could lead to a temporary double spending scenario, a fundamental ‘no-go’ in the blockchain (and ‘traditional’) world.↩ 3. Note that in this case the very concept of ownership of an asset can be threatened. E.g: if i remain the only retainer of a history that is valid, while the rest of the world has moved on in disagreement with it. My valid history gets effectively invalidated. History is indeed written by the victors 4. Blockchain stores its blocks in a linear form although there have been attempts to introduce graph fork tolerant approaches such as the IOTA tangle.↩ 5. Mining is the process of adding a block of transactions to the chain (see here for instructions and here for more context).↩ 6. Historically a central server was the only economically viable option given the high cost of performant hardware and cheaper cost of terminals.↩ 7. Bitcoin’s POW rewards a successful miner with a prize in bitcoin cryptocurrency. This is no longer an incentive in some countries. See here a report released in May about the cost to mine 1 bitcoin per country.↩ 8. For example Solidity is a popular DSL inspired by JavaScript.↩ 9. Once discovered and understood, malicious users can take advantage of any static / immutable configuration. For instance, rich/resourceful individuals could gain an advantage via the purchase of a vast amount of computational resources to bend the POW fairness.↩ 10. A common guideline is to split the access key into parts and store each in a different cryptovault.↩ 11. The Bitcoin network estimated computing power at the time of writing (September 2018) amounts to 80704290 petaflops while the world’s most powerful supercomputer reaches200 petaflops. This obviously only allows to infer by analogy the magnitude of the amount of ledgers on the network. ↩ Original post published on Erlang Solutions: http://www2.erlang-solutions.com/l/23452/2018-10-17/5sr8yb