NATHANIEL STERN & SCOTT KILDALL IN CONVERSATION:
DATA-DRIVEN ECOLOGICAL AESTHETICS
PERFORMANCE ART AND BLOCKCHAIN
conversations – Interview with Anika Meier – 7 January, 2024
This interview coincided with the release of hashnadoes with Expanded.Art on fxHash
See the original interview in context here.
The artistic collaborations between Scott Kildall, who transforms data into tangible art, and Nathaniel Stern, an artist deeply engaged in a multidisciplinary approach to technology, invite viewers to step into the transformative power of words, ecological aesthetics, and data.
In conversation with Anika Meier, Stern and Kildall explore data and words, performance art and interactive art, and delve into the broader realm of blockchain and generative art.
Anika Meier: Scott and Nathaniel, being creative alone is already a challenge. How does being creative and creating together work for you?
Scott Kildall: My primary focus of my artwork is around transforming data into sculptures and sound installations, and my collaborative work combines my art practice with that of someone whose work can amplify mine and theirs. But, since art-making is so deeply personal, trust and care are vital to a successful collaboration, and this is why I keep working with Nathaniel.
Nathaniel and I have a lot of similar skills and approaches: working with top-level conceptual ideas combined with our strong technical skills, but more than anything, we just get along so well. We’ve collaborated on many projects since 2008. We get excited, argue, laugh, and bicker, and we’re like an old married couple who work together to succeed. Neither one of us knows who wrote what, and we don’t care who came up with which idea first. We put aside our egos and make sure, in the process, that we both feel good about what we’ve done.
When working alone, I certainly don’t have that level of self-care. The artwork is in my head somewhere, and the process of making something solid takes longer, like mining some gold from my psyche.
Nathaniel Stern: I actually collaborate a lot, and I have pretty different relationships with most of my collaborators. When Scott and I work together, we tend to spend a fair amount of time going back and forth between form and concept. We talk a lot, put in some time playing with code, drawing, or materials, write up what we see and feel (and what we hope to see and feel), and back and again.
It admittedly often takes longer than working alone, at least for me, which is counterintuitive when you have a partner, and it’s sometimes unclear who needs to do what next, but in the end, because of both our tastes and how we push each other, I feel like the work is always stronger for it. Honestly, even when I work alone, I show versions of my work to others and ask for critique until it’s the best version it can be, sometimes even abandoning pieces after years of work, before deciding to show it in public if they don’t feel right. In fact, this is part of how Scott and I began our friendship: we used to do virtual critiques of each other’s work until it grew into ideas we decided to do together.

Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern, Hashnadoes, 2024, on-chain interactive and generative NFT series (edition 128), test mint, with ‘m’ keypress toggled, to show live movement in the camera.
AM: When did you meet for the first time? And what made you realise you would like to work together as artists?
NS: This is a pretty funny story. Back in the 1990s and 2000s, Turbulence.org was a major commissioning organisation for net.art that Scott and I had both done some work with. They had a call for what they had started calling mixed reality art—between the Internet, a physical gallery, and a virtual space (back then, most commonly, the latter was Second Life). When I had some ideas for the project but no experience with SL, I asked a mutual friend if she knew anyone who might be interested in working on it with me, and she introduced me to Scott. Funnily enough, we both decided to go in a different direction—me working with another artist and him working with Victoria Scott.
In the end, he got the commission, and I didn’t! Still, we liked each other a lot and started our monthly Zoom meet-ups; I even got him a show with the gallery I was working with in Ireland at the time (where I was completing my PhD). He came to visit me when I moved back to the States for the job I now hold as a Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) in 2008, and that’s more or less when we finally cooked up WIKIPEDIA ART, which became a bigger deal than we ever expected.
Here’s a bit on that work:
A collaborative project initiated by Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern, Wikipedia Art was originally intended to be art composed on Wikipedia, and thus art that anyone can edit. Since the work itself manifested as a conventional Wikipedia page, would-be art editors were required to follow Wikipedia’s enforced standards of quality and verifiability; any changes to the art had to be published on, and cited from, ‘credible’ external sources: interviews, blogs, or articles in ‘trustworthy’ media institutions, which would birth and then slowly transform what the work is and does and means simply through their writing and talking about it. Wikipedia Art, we asserted at its creation, may start as an intervention, turn into an object, die and be resurrected, etc, through a creative pattern / feedback loop of publish-cite-transform that we called “performative citations.” Despite its live mutations through continuous streams of press online, Wikipedia Art was considered controversial by those in the Wikipedia community, and removed from the site 15 hours after its birth. But the debate and discussion there, and later in the art blogosphere and mainstream press, produced a notable work after all. These communities still “transform what the work is and does and means simply through their writing and talking about it,” despite its absence from Wikipedia.
There was a whole host of press and academic articles on the piece, making what we called “performative citations”—when something is on Wikipedia, even though truth is not their threshold for inclusion, it becomes true. We were finalists for the Transmediale Prize and showed versions of that work in various venues across the world.
Internet culture is weird.
SK: Yes, this is more or less the story of how we met up, though I think it was pre-Zoom and we were on Skype some. Gosh, that seems like such a long time ago. If memory serves, we looked at one another’s proposals for that Turbulence Commission and gave feedback and thoughts on them post-submission. I was impressed by Nathaniel’s poetic approach to net art, and we stayed in touch on a regular basis.
Our first collaboration was when we cooked up WIKIPEDIA ART, which Nathaniel just described. We slowly poked at the conceptual framework behind doing something with Wikipedia after being frustrated with the reality that Wikipedia articles on contemporary artists were routinely getting deleted, specifically of women in the field. And this started a research project around the behind-the-scenes decision-making culture of Wikipedia, which was, well, revealing.
It was during this process that we became friends, and I learned how to collaborate with Nathaniel on a slow build, developing our conceptual framework fully before executing the work.

Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern, Wikipedia Art, networked performance 2009 and dynamic installation 2011. Installation view at Furtherfield Gallery, London.
AM: Scott, you have been working with art and technology for over 15 years. You focus on transforming data from the natural environment, such as water quality, air quality, and plant data, into sound installations, sculptures, and video works. How did you get into digital art and later become interested in NFTs?
SK: My work often uses a combination of digital and analog practices, so a form of digital art has always been core to my practice. This includes virtual world performance art, VR, AI, and other actions in spaces of emergence. I see this as a push-pull between technology and territory, such that when a new technology becomes available for general use, a territory of possibilities opens up, and this is when I prefer to jump in with artistic participation before the territory has become colonized by various startups and corporate entities.
NFTs certainly captured my fascination early because they solve the problem of digital authenticity that many of us in the field have been grappling with. When doing deeper research and in conversation with Nathaniel, we discovered so many other possibilities around the technology: a platform-independent, browser-based experience; replicability through transaction hashes; performance possibilities; and much more. We decided to create our first collaborative NFT project, called NFT CULTURE PROOF.
AM: Nathaniel, your medium is also words. You have collaborated in the past with Sasha Stiles and Anne Spalter. How did you get into digital art and later become interested in NFTs? And how do you choose the artists you would like to collaborate with?
NS: I went to an engineering high school in New York—Staten Island Technical High School—but found myself wanting more creative outlets. I wound up studying fashion design (I still have a passion and flair for style) and music (I was one of the singers and songwriters and the saxophone player in a 7-piece band for years) at Cornell University. But some time in my second or third year, around 1997, I took a textile design class that was taught in PhotoShop—it must have been version 2!—and was blown away. I was thinking, “Why did no one tell me computers could do this?” I started combining my interests, learning code and design, and more, not yet realizing the potential for art, writing, and intervention online.
At this time, it was thought web sites were difficult to make, and that was left mostly for programmers and computer science folks. But when my professor, Charlotte Jirousek, saw my skills and interests, she offered to pay me to learn how to make her website, thinking I could do a snazzier job. During this process, she pointed me towards the ITP web site, an amazing Art and Technology graduate program at New York University. Years later, I found out she was merely telling me to make her site look like theirs, but at the time, I thought she was telling me to apply to the program!
I remember getting off the elevator to interview at ITP in the spring of 1999 and seeing a prototype of Danny Rozin’s WOODEN MIRROR, an amazing piece that reflects a live video feed back at you as an image through hundreds of tilted concave wood pixels. I knew I had to go there, found myself a fellowship to pay for my studies, and never looked back. My entire first year was spent working in navigable and interactive poetry, where I published HEKTOR.NET (video poetry pre-YouTube) and made the first version of ENTER, an immersive, interactive installation where you chase animated texts with your body to trigger spoken word. Here, music, rhythm, poetry, and my interest in embodiment (initially through fashion) all came together in so many ways. And although these lasting pieces were produced solo, even back then, I would often collaborate with others to play differently and learn more.

Most of the time, my collaborations come out of mutual respect and ongoing discussions. I meet someone who suggests we have regular chats to catch up about our work—just out of interest—and then sometimes an idea and/or proposal deadline pops up that pushes us to try out working together. That’s how it was with Sasha Stiles; we had been shooting ideas around until Art Blocks and I were talking, and we decided to try together (that piece, THE WORD AFTER US, wound up launching on fxhash, but we later released STILL MOVING on the AB curated program). With Anne Spalter, we had met and been talking a bit after she had an amazing solo show in Milwaukee, where I live, that truly inspired me—which is in fact when I started working with AI and NFTs—and it was the invite to be part of theVERSEverse’s genText program that prompted me to court her directly for FUTURE MYTHOLOGIES.As mentioned above by Scott, my first major NFT collaboration was with him: NFT CULTURE PROOF. This was an experimental, participatory NFT project and performance on Polygon, launched back in 2021. We at first planned a more snarky intervention about “the market,” but found such amazing and earnest artists in the scene that we decided to go for something more community-oriented. The idea was that the dialogs happening off chain were the best part of the crypto art world, so why not put them on chain? We made a series of text-based SVGs with collaborative content—submitted and the time of mint—prompted by some of the biggest NFT artist names at the time.

Scott Kildall, Cut-up Poet Trees, 2023, generative sound installation using tree data.
AM: Your latest project, HASHNADOES, follows your longtime playing with performance and performativity online. Can you share a bit about your background in performance art with us?
NS: The performed—that which is in the process of being formed—has been a vital part of my practice from the beginning. But in a more literal performance mode, Hektor—of hektor.net—began as a slam poetry character on the stages of the Nuyorican Poet’s Cafe and CBGBs in New York in the late nineties. And his web site, too (which no longer runs because it was mostly built in Flash but is slowly being re-minted with theVERSEverse), performed and unfolded a non-linear story of his past for its viewers. My interactive installations began as explorations of performativity, where text and activity entwine, a la JL Austin’s How to Do Things with Words, and then during my time in South Africa (2001–2006), I worked extensively making performance poetry and video projections for dance companies like the Forgotten Angle Theatre Collaborative. My first book is titled INTERACTIVE ART AND EMBODIMENT: THE IMPLICIT BODY AS PERFORMANCE, and my second, ECOLOGICAL AESTHETICS: THINKING WITH HUMANS, NATURE, AND POLITICS, continues by exploring conceptual-material formations—everything that is—as ongoing and performed events. I’ve been at this for 25+ years, and although some works that are years apart can seem vastly different from others, taken as a whole, I see a clear trajectory of performance philosophy and aesthetic activism, continually asking myself and others not only to look but to look again. For me, art frames and amplifies who and how we are, and more importantly, asks how we could be.
SK: My performance artwork began in the digital art space with the online virtual world of Second Life in 2006. I began looking at this space because I was doing research into various social networks to create participatory artwork to reflect that world. Second Life blew my socks off. They had digital objects that you could buy and wear! I knew there was something amazing to be done here.
I soon began performing with a group called Second Front, which was a performance art group in Second Life, and we did something like 40 different performances over an intense period of about 4 years and still occasionally work together. These were live-streamed into galleries across the world and included virtual performances such as bank heists, dancing with minotaurs, and burning cars. We used Fluxus art as inspiration, and the group was chaotic but dedicated. I really loved that time and everyone in it. The seven of us were situated in cities all over the world, and we never met up in person.
While today I work with data-inspired soundscapes, often building on the chance work of John Cage, it was the conversations with Nathaniel around performance that influenced this change. The data doesn’t allow for predictive forms and just helps delineate them. Like our scores in Second Life, which were often vague, such as “sweep leaves” (I brought a virtual lawnmower to the action), the forms of data can make things you would never guess based on the algorithm.
AM: Is HASHNADOES performance art?
SK: I consider this to be a variant of NFT performance, where we set up a framework for the creation, but the data is you, the one who is looking at the NFT, as the camera responds to your body in real-time. How the hashnadoes swirl and move is defined by the mirror into the real world.
With HASHNADOES, while not electronic circuits, the sensor is the camera on your device, and the actor is whomever is viewing the screen: a person, a couple, a family, a cat, and that idea of a conversation with nature in the form of the swirling digital data of the transaction hash itself is what excites me. It looks like a tornado of sorts, but a digital one. The palettes are based on the colors of celestial bodies in our solar system, reminding us of the physical climate, which also extends to systems outside of our planet.
NS: I think of the general category of performance art as most commonly live, with the artist’s body—or at least making an intervention into how we understand liveness—and
embodiment. I could make the case for HASHNADOES being performance art. But I think that HASHNADOES’ value lies outside (though related to) that category: in the space of human and non-human performativity.
I mentioned JL Austin above; the way he defined performativity was an “ontological” (state of being) change through words. For example, at a wedding, with the words “I do,” I am transformed from a single person to a spouse; if I knight thee, you are Sir Anika; if I ask you to “pass the salt,” that asking is itself an activity. And according to Austin, words never simply describe what is; words are, and they make change; all speech and writing has a certain level of performativity, like, I’m explaining something to you right now, as a written action. Thinkers like Richard Schechner, Victor Turner, and later Rebecca Schneider then took this to a whole new level, arguing that signs of any kind—language, dance, theater, even purposefully sitting still and in silence, any form of explication and explanation, really—could birth and change, make, transform, and transport things in the conceptual-material world. In this way, these scholars and others themselves originated and formed the interdisciplinary field of performance studies.Learning about this as a graduate student in the late nineties in New York, as a slam poet and writer as well as an artist and embodiment nerd, was kind of magical to me. HASHNADOES plays with text and data, being and change, in a number of ways that speak back to that work.
Ah, my kids are waking up (banging banging banging on the doors downstairs). (Talk about birth and transportation, performance, and performativity!) To be continued… Here we go, they are now watching TV with oatmeal. I’ve got coffee cup number two; where was I? —-
First and foremost, minting this live, generative NFT births it into existence, both as performance and as text or data. When you click or submit, sending ASCII and bits and bytes as 0s and 1s, you are inaugurating that form. Our choice to use the trans-action (also a performative reference) hash itself as the material make-up of each tornado amplifies this for us. Second, when opened in its own frame and in live view, your movements—how you move and are moved—are both affective (moved-thought-felt) in your body and in the body, form, and data of the hashnadoes that follow you.
Yes, the hashnadoes “feel,” in that they take account of their surroundings and change. We often forget that the material forms of bits and bytes, as volts and current, or light, quickly starting and stopping through copper wires or fibre optics, the concepts and movements of time, what we had for lunch, my kids interrupting me, how much Eth is in our wallets… all of these things make a difference in what is and what could be, including in the simple interface of our fxhash mint. This is where performance and ecology are so interrelated. Ecological Aesthetics: humans, matter, concepts, things, not-yet-things, politics, economics, and industry are all actively shaped in and as a result of their interrelation.
Again, it’s magical, humbling, and inspiring.
With another of my collaborators, Erin Manning (who I made physical tornadoes with as WEATHER PATTERNS: THE SMELL OF RED at Glasshouse Gallery in Brooklyn (2014) and the Vancouver Art Museum as part of ISEA, the International Symposium on Electronic Art (2015)), I like to compare ecological thinking to the complexity of weather patterns, to think about celestial bodies, winds and weights, gravity, food and thought, and the news, all making change. These are referenced everywhere in HASHNADOES, from the coded gravitational pushes and pulls of your movements and the tornadoes on each other to the palettes we chose from extra-terrestrial planets and bodies.

Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern, Hashnadoes, 2024, on-chain interactive and generative NFT series (edition 128), test mint, with rare “rain” attribute.
AM: How did you approach working on HASHNADOES?
NS: A couple of years ago, inspired by early Art Blocks works, I started teaching myself p5.js, a javascript library for artists initiated by Lauren McCarthy, because I wanted to make more ubiquitous work easily available on the internet and via blockchain via any browser. Before that, I had mostly been working on gallery installations, where I could give my own specifications on a case-by-case basis. These older works were projects made in a variety of ways: in the early days with things like Lingo and Director, later with Max/Msp+Jitter, and then OpenFrameworks (C++) and Arduino (among other tech). As a custodial effort, I sometimes re-made earlier works on new platforms to keep them running on modern machines. Another issue I talk about in this article I wrote in 2021 is: CUSTODIANSHIP, COPYRIGHT, AND PROVENANCE: ON THE NON-MONETARY VALUE OF NFTS.
Anyhow, I was playing a lot with texts and performances in p5, given my background, and just prototyping a lot of different ideas, most of which grew into very different projects I released later down the road. THE WORD AFTER US, with Sasha Stiles, came out of these early experiments when I approached her to play with its content and form, though it of course changed drastically once she was on board. Some solo stuff inspired by On Kawara and Felx Gonzales-Torres will be released on some major platforms later this year.
HASHNADOES, too, began here. I liked the early look, feel, and idea, but it was far from feeling right—or feeling at all. I approached Scott to ask for his help and thinking, and when we decided to tackle it together, our dialogs took it in all kinds of new directions, suggesting and implementing all the gravitational pulls, coming up with the idea for planetary palettes, and making the tornadoes more ethereal and cloud-like. Whereas with Sasha Stiles, I did all the coding, she did all the embedded writing, and we would meet frequently to discuss aesthetics. Scott and I both code, so we used GIT to push and pull, make and remake. We’d write in a Google Doc and text message each other alongside our javascript efforts, all of which also led to making it interactive and highlighted our performative and ecological understanding, which finally led us to decide that on-chain was an absolute necessity.
SK: HASHNADOES was originally from one of Nathaniel’s experiments in NFT-based artwork, and he made these sketches in 2021, just before we launched NFT Culture Proof. He was quicker to embrace the NFT world than I was and wanted to play around with generative art on the blockchain. Since my work tends to be more physically situated than digitally, this made sense, and like all of our collaborations, one of us often comes up with the seed idea.
He showed me several sketches and invited me to collaborate with him. I zoned in on this one as I found the preliminary forms to have something that intrigued me. I could see it and where it could go, and I began restructuring the code and form to make them feel complete, adding the fine touches, improving the color palettes, and making the behaviors dynamic. We’re both strong with code, and my approach tends to be more structured, coming from a professional software development background, and his to be more fluid. This was also amazing because it was the first code-based project that we truly collaborated on, where we both worked on the code itself.
To make it feel just right took a lot of work, since we were making editions that had to appear differently within a tight framework of swirling transaction hash data.
It was the camera interaction, though, that was the big challenge here and where our collaborative efforts sparkled. Nathaniel has more experience with interactive camera systems, and I have a lot more experience with interactive museum design, having worked as an exhibit developer for the Exploratorium in San Francisco for a couple of years. Together, we leaned into his rapid prototyping techniques along with my more structured approach to building a quadrant-based tracking system that doesn’t rely on any external libraries, making the p5.js sketch able to be put on-chain in a more feasible way.
AM: What comes first when you work on projects? The title and story, meaning the concept, or do you start with a thought and start exploring what might come out of it?
SK: I have a methodology that I call “art thinking,” which is a 5-step process that is similar to design thinking but only for artists. It starts with an inquiry-experiment phase, where I have some sort of idea and I just play around to see if the idea “has legs” and can shape into a more cohesive whole. It usually fails at this point since there are many exciting ideas that I can’t cohere into meaningful artwork.
With HASHNADOES, Nathaniel approached me with something that was already in the experiment phase, and together we worked it into a finished form. I have expert skills in p5.js and teach it and use it in my own practice, so I could see the pathway for compelling artwork from my own skill set.
It becomes easier over time, with a mastery of tools and years of successful and less successful artwork, to see how a story emerges. The story itself is then an iterative process. I talked about mining earlier, and that feels like the right metaphor. Sometimes you get the nugget of the story itself, and other times, you have to really work at it. The title is the dressing and comes last.NS: Every project is initiated so differently, so I could point to each of your examples in different works. WEATHER PATTERNS and GIVEN TIME, a mixed reality installation circa 2010, began with titles and a story, respectively; HASHNADOES came out of experimenting with p5 as a medium, material, or discipline; ENTER started as a thought—to literalize performativity – and then became a whole body of work over more than a decade, BODY LANGUAGE. HEKTOR.NET started as a single poem.
I guess I am saying that my entire practice is performative and ecological.

Dunewind Resonator, 2023, Scott Kildall, Michael Ang, Tegan Ritz McDuffie, generative sound installation using wind data.
AM: Scott, you work with data. Nathaniel, you work with words. What influences your artistic practice?
NS: Everything.
Life and love, breakfast and children, technology and culture, materials, processes, and thoughts—together, this magic and tragic world. It is poetry and reality, physics and feelings, and more.
All of it. I feel all of it and want us to feel it, too. I want us to feel it, make it, and make it better.
SK: I guess mine is more focused. It has shifted for me. In the last several years, it has become the natural world, and we are thinking about the invisible layer of data that we can’t see and what is really going on there.
I’m beginning to shift my perceptual space into what non-humans might sense. Vibrations in the air, magnetic energy, the flow of electrons, and what else is out there. It feels like magic, but it is, in fact, reality, just not what we can perceive.
This exploration feels profound and in many ways circles back to what Nathaniel talked about, which is everything, and that most specifically includes dynamic ecological systems and, for me, tracking the data from that world so that we can better understand, respect, and love the physical world we inhabit.
AM: Thank you, dear Nathaniel and Scott, for the conversation.
—
This interview coincided with the release of hashnadoes with Expanded.Art on fxHash
See the original interview in context here.
Related artworks:
Other related texts:
Crypto Writer Talks
Crypto Writer Talks is a weekly podcast about crypto writing, organized and hosted by members of the Crypto Writers (CW) Discord. In this podcast, crypto writers talk shop and share their work in panel discussions, one-on-one interviews, dialogues and poetry and short story readings.
On Nov 10, 2021, CW founder Kalen Iwamoto interviewed Nathaniel Stern and Scott Kildall about their first-of-its-kind Blockchain Performance, NFT Culture Proof.

Related artworks:
Other related texts:
Custodianship, Copyright, and Provenance
Custodianship, Copyright, and Provenance: on the non-monetary value of NFTs
nathaniel stern
Abstract
The value of NFTs for creators, collectors, and historians goes far beyond this speculative moment. This brief think-post posits that the custodianship of digital art which NFTs facilitate can be central to producing historically vital living archives. It then builds on other discussions around the Blockchain to differentiate, and show some of the relations between, custodianship, copyright, and provenance in the post-NFT era.

Custodianship
Back in 2004, I sold this interactive installation to the Johannesburg Art Gallery (JAG) for R30,000 – about $2,000US. That is the same amount as the Brett Kebble Art Award I had won for showing the work a few months prior, without having to hand over any rights. But the truth is that I wanted to give rights to the JAG. I wanted to very much.
As an early digital artist – not to mention one living in Africa for the better part of my early career – I’d always lost money on my work overall. I was lucky enough to – quoting Dmitri Cherniak’s interview on Proof – “find refuge in academia” for my income (I love teaching, and am currently a Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), but part of why I often lost money here is precisely because when I did make sales – especially to large collections or museums – I was often willing to do so at a loss, because it meant someone was taking care of that art.
NFTs (non-fungible tokens) double the potential for long-term care of an artwork.
The analogy we often hear for NFTs is that they are like a deed to a house. They are “certificates of ownership,” for digital assets. These assets can be one-of-kind or editioned, where the image or video (etc) usually lives across several outside servers (like IPFS – though some live directly on-chain), and the Blockchain verifies who owns that work. Instead of a government-backed legal document in the form of a deed, NFTs are backed by a highly secure, digital, networked, and public ledger.
Briefly – as this has been exhaustively rehearsed elsewhere – one of the more tedious debates on the Internet at present goes something like: Own a digital file? But I can copy it! I can download it! I can “right-click” and “save as” – and it’s on my hard drive! Sure, but like money, land, credit, and most things we have, ownership and value are mostly perception- and consensus-based. If enough people agree that someone owns that image (land, credit, etc), and that there is value in that ownership, then – for better or worse – it becomes true for those involved.
Interesting to me (as a writer, and a visual artist often working with text – but also with regards to the Blockchain), is that contemporary ownership almost always happens with words and code. Performative action: if I “knight thee,” you are Sir Vitalik; with the words, “I do,” Kate Stern has me for a husband (poor thing). With this legal document, that house is mine. Those stocks: in my digitally signed portfolio. That food: I’ve got an e-receipt… If a large enough number of individuals view these performative documents – including the ownership of NFT-images – as legitimate, it is. And – as the argument continues – while you may not be able to live in an NFT the way you live in a house, the former is already provably trade-able, like most forms of credit, money, or physical art.
I’d like to build on the house analogy, branching out to custodianship. As a creator, I prefer the term “custodianship” over “ownership” because it brings to the front that aforementioned thing I think should be talked about more often around digital art: care. If a house goes unsold – whether through foreclosure or market conditions, etc – it not only loses “face” value, but rarely has someone maintaining its condition. That’s dangerous to the owner – whether an individual, a builder, or a bank. A few years ago, for example, I was looking at buying a gorgeous foreclosed house in a great neighborhood near my university, but because no one was living in it and turning on the heat in Winter, the pipes had frozen and burst. I lost interest, as did everyone else. The house never sold, and it is now falling to ruin.
This happens to art as well. Paintings degrade; prints get too much sun; DVDs get scratched; uncollected, they usually wind up in a landfill. Operating systems, plugins, and software languages are similarly discontinued, leaving a lot of digital art on hard drives that go to waste in those same landfills. My first net.art work is no longer viewable because it was built in (now-dead) Adobe Flash in 1999; I have had to re-write my interactive installations from the early 2000s three times – in different programming languages – in the last 20 years to compile them properly for newer computers (and will have to do so again in the near future). The hardware for these has also had to be down-, up-, and cross-graded over the years, along with their drivers and software. Yes, there are some archival attempts at upkeep, like the Rhizome initiated oldweb.today (now run by webrecorder; Rhizome also catalogs metadata, and is working on a Flash viewer) and Cornell University’s Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media, but these also need upkeep, as well as ongoing funding and support (which I hope they continue to get!).
Digital rot is real.
Being in the JAG collection, for me, meant that they take care of upkeep, and maintenance. Someone willing to buy that house, or art work, will do their best to not let it fall to ruin. Museums all have well-maintained collection rooms at the right humidity, with the safest light, etc, for their physical work; and more and more of them also have ways to archive and update digital forms. In this way, custodianship means a given work is less likely to be lost to rot, and far more likely to become a part of history. When I sold the JAG step inside, I gave them the software, the code, the pseudocode, and the rights to not only exhibit the work, but remake it – using my everyday language pseudocode descriptions – in another programming language or digital form in some distant future. They have exhibited the work twice since their purchase, and put it in another catalog each time.
Collectors on the Blockchain, to me, represent a kind of double permanence: the art lives immutably on a public ledger, and it also has a shepherd to walk it into the future.
We are already seeing early digital artists from the first and second net.art waves mint their work (like MTAA’s Simple Net Art Diagram, remixed above), and NFT archaeologists working to restore and preserve early on-chain art that was thought lost (see Ascribe). And rather than transforming such work into prints, DVDs, or even putting them on USB sticks (like I used to), digital art can remain in its native form, and be archived as such. The cultural value of digital art, now and finally, has the capital investment towards preservation that it always deserved.
NFTs facilitate the potential for living archives of digital art.
Copyright
In 2007 and 2008, I gave a couple of interviews on two now defunct sites, which are thankfully archived and quoted on the Wikipedia page about me. Although both of these were about my work more generally at the time, I was also thinking and talking a lot about copyright (and alternatives to it, like Creative Commons), art ownership, and value – which is to say that the conversations happening now around NFTs have always been on digital (and probably all) artists’ minds.
From the Wiki:
Stern is an advocate of Creative Commons (CC), with his blog, and many of his pieces, under CC or GPL. He has been a contributing member of iCommons since its inception, and was an artist in residence with them in 2006 and 2007, the second year of which he ran the program.[Johnson] He believes that “as many people as possible need to see art and talk about it” because it “always brings… value” to “the cultural sphere”; he uses CC as a “tactic for the most effective art work, and with the recognition that this will only bring more value — both culturally and monetarily — to [his] work more generally, whether it’s for sale or not.”[MyArtSpace]
Nathaniel Stern Wikipedia page, citing interviews with Paddy Johnson (archived: 1, 2) and MyArtSpace (archived).
The day I started to write a Blockchain update to the above quote was also the day I got to listen to Trent McConaghy’s interview on Interdependence (as of this writing, the interview is only accessible on their Patreon), and I hope he’ll forgive my paraphrasing, while also plugging his forward-thinking project, Ocean Protocol (see “NFTs & IP 1: Practical Connections of ERC721 with Intellectual Property“). Ocean directly addresses the fact that:
Ownership and Copyright are not the same thing.
When I sold step inside to the JAG, I gave them the rights to exhibit it, to resell it, to display it, to use it in promotional materials in and around any of those actions, and even to remake it, as technologically necessary, at some future time. But I did not give them the right to allow others to reproduce its likeness. I still own the copyrights – quite literally, the rights to copy it. If an ad firm wanted to use an image of step inside, they would need to buy a license from me. If an extremist political party tried to use my images, I would have recourse to deal with them.
The analogy Trent used was that just because I own stock in Amazon, and get some benefits from that partial ownership, that doesn’t give me the right stalk their halls, change and use their logos, or sell my personal wares as “Amazon products.”
NFTs are assets or securities, whereas intellectual property (IP) and copyright are utilities. The former is ownership, the latter is a limited contract for a likeness.
Some NFTs do come with IP rights. Most do not. Ocean protocol actually divvies these up, selling the NFT as a non-fungible token, or a security that cannot be copied (known as an ERC-721 contract on the Blockchain), and IP rights as fungible tokens (ERC-20), meaning they are transferable, timed, and offer other rights – just like image and music licensing already work in the ad industry, and elsewhere.
In this way, it is not at all at odds to have my work under a Creative Commons (CC) license and to also sell the original images as NFTs, per my quote above (but back then, I sold physical prints, DVDs… and USB sticks).
All this being said, there are a few different kinds of CC, and artists would do well to choose wisely. Some of my work is under CC-BY (“BY” attribution), which means I need only be attributed as the originator – and so no one actually needs to purchase a license, and anyone could profit from, and even sell, that work. I more commonly use CC-NC (Non-Commercial), meaning someone wishing to make a profit from my work, whether in ads, re-sales, or the like, would still have to get licensing permission from – and more often work out a partnership with – me. At the time, I did this to facilitate other artists playing with my work, while preventing ad firms or political parties from using my images without permission or giving me a cut. With the birth of NFTs… I’m even happier I have mostly always done so. To be clear: I want my images to circulate and spread. And I also want to be compensated for my work, and to have my art collected, and cared for, with pride.
Provenance
To the second half of the above citation: the more that indviduals freely circulate any given image, the more value the original is likely to have. Thousands of posters, stickers, postcards, and more of the Mona Lisa have made the original priceless to collectors and museums – both monetarily and culturally. The same is absolutely true of digital files. The more we share and distribute, the more provenance a given NFT will have. The example of the Nyan Cat meme by Chris Torres was given as a prime example in Kayvon Tehranian’s very recently shared TED talk. Torres, its original creator, saw little revenue from this world-famous animated GIF in 2011… until its sale for more than a half million dollars a decade later. The inverse is also true: when collectors buy works by lesser known artists, the buzz gives more cultural value to their oeuvre, and to the NFT space more generally.

Monetary and cultural value feed into one another, creating stories that bind and make works everlasting, in multiple ways.
And Value
I got into NFTs relatively late – in the last few months – at least considering I’ve been a producing digital artist talking about these things for 20+ years. I’m honestly still testing the waters, and learning a lot. But my late entry is not because of some distaste for them more generally, or a disbelief in the model, or the overblown numbers around supposed energy use. (To the latter point: 1. It is questionable math and far less problematic than most naysayers argue; 2. It is less energy than spent in how we produce, store, and ship most comparable physical goods; and 3. While I worry little about 1/1s, and don’t judge others for their minting choices, I plan to do my own larger drops on proof-of-stake chains – which are 99.9% more energy efficient than their proof-of-work predecessors). It is because, in the case of crypto-currency, I’ve never had any disposable income to invest; and in the more focused case of NFTs… well, I’ve had three children in the last four years (and already two before that), so I’ve been a little busy.
When I first entered the space, I vowed to take it seriously, but was prepared to be critical. My intention was initially and only to make an interventionist piece in the vein of my previous networked performances with my collaborator Scott Kildall – Wikipedia Art (2009) and Tweets in Space (2012) – which meant participating, understanding, and empathizing as much as having a hard look at where power was focused, and how, and why, and what we might do to shed light on it. As predicted, there are a lot of people around NFTs who are there to speculate and make money; and of course some work that doesn’t sell is far superior to art that flips quickly and exponentially increases in value.

But what I mostly found was large pockets of earnest and sincere artists and collectors supporting each other, building communities, and having pride in the new creative economy they felt privileged to be a part of. I have found that many artists who got in early and made a fair amount of money tend to collect and support other artists. And I’ve seen that artists who have broken through more recently tend to do the same. Many collectors, too, want to collect more, and want as many as possible to join their club. Inspired by this, when I made my first small sale – despite (again) having lost money overall, through trial, error, and minting costs – the first thing I did was go out and buy two less expensive works from other artists. The ongoing valuation of art and artists is amazingly infectious. And the work Scott and I will wind up doing is more celebratory of participatory on-chain creativity than it is critical of anything in that space (see NFT Culture Proof).
The value we are seeing now in the NFT space – by coupling both sharing and compensation; by offering custodianship and provenance – expresses my values more than in any other space or at any other time in my artistic career.
You might ask:
- Is it a bubble?
- Will some (even most) people lose money as part of their investments?
- Aren’t there still platform-based and individual gatekeepers?
- Doesn’t this promote two economies?
Well…
- Maybe. To some extent (like Web 1 and Web 2 were… and weren’t).
- Probably. If you think of them as investments. (I follow Kevin Rose here, and advise people only to buy art if they would still be glad they own it were the price to go to 0 tomorrow.)
- Of course. But many of them use Blockchain to facilitate direct involvement from their communities.
- And sometimes. Not all NFTs are expensive, and, for example, you don’t have to be wealthy to collect comic books or baseball cards, nor do you have to collect them to enjoy Marvel movies or go see a Brewers game.
These are good and fair questions that should be asked, and then debated, and worked on.
Even so, the current value is real; the current values are real.
The creative economy is booming, and this is finally not just lip service to artists (I’m looking at you “The MFA is the new MBA.” How many MFAs did you hire that year?). I want to be part of this.
So what’s next?
That’s up to us. That’s a cliche I know, but rather than fight what is and will essentially be web3, we should all build it. And why stop with art? Might we use newer and less expensive Blockchain technologies to get rid of paywalls, and pay a nickel or a quarter to journalists every time we read their work? Music, fiction, etc. This way all kinds of creators make money, instead of Facebook and other advertisers.
People are working on this.
Could we use the ledger to both literally and figuratively invest in communities and custodianship more generally? Yes. This is in fact one of the core principles behind DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations), and some DAOs are already mind-blowingly effective.
As Holly Herndon and Mat Dryhurst (of Interdependence) often say, the Internet is already hyper-financialized. Blockchain is obviously not “the answer” to extreme capitalism and all its problems. After all, it was first conceived of for monetary transactions (of Bitcoin), and with mostly libertarian principles. But even from the most cynical, it cannot be denied that Blockchain has the potential to put some power in the hands of some creatives, and continue building from there. It gives all digital creators a greater opportunity to be compensated for their work, and be collected, cared for, and a part of history.
Related artworks:
Other related texts: