With generative or algorithmic art, is the algorithm (the code) the art, or is it the output(s) it creates? I feel arguments on both sides have some validity. Some say it’s the algo, and any outputs are performances or even editions. Others argue the algorithm is a tool, akin to a pencil, and it’s how that tool is used that outputs art.

With on-chain NFTs you can take this question further, because the smart contract is also a collection of algorithms serving and controlling what is output.

When I set out to study this conundrum I posited the question, “What if the smart contract algorithm served itself as the piece of art?” I couldn’t help trying, and ended up creating Quine.

Quine is bytecode that can run as a smart contract on Ethereum, or any other EVM chain. It fulfills the requirements of the ERC-721 standard, meaning it’s an NFT collection. What’s unique is that it renders its own runtime bytecode as the sole NFT’s artwork. The code is completely self-contained with no external dependencies, even the metadata and collection image are generated from it.

You can view the NFT on OpenSea.

Quine is the algorithm, and it serves text art that is identical to its own runtime bytecode. Algo and output are interchangeable, self-serving, and could even be self-replicating.

Going back to the original question, is the algo or the output the art? I set out on this study because I thought it would bring some clarity, but for me it hasn’t. In this case I could say the algorithm is the artwork because I created it with the intention of evoking a conceptual response. However, when I was creating it, I was visualizing the NFT output and code as just the way to get there, similar to how a painter would view a paintbrush.

Ultimately, this question touches on broader philosophical inquiries about the nature of art and the evolving relationship between humans and technology in creative processes.

I am interested what others think of this. I created this post on X for comments or discussion:

https://x.com/nix_eth/status/1810374794476765458

If you are curious about the etymology of the name Quine: In theoretical computer science a quine is a self-replicating metaprogram that, when executed, produces a copy of its own source code as its only output. It was named after the late philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine.

Available on GitHub, entirely OSS:

https://github.com/nix-eth/quine-nft

With generative or algorithmic art, is the algorithm (the code) the art, or is it the output(s) it creates? I feel arguments on both sides have some validity. Some say it’s the algo, and any outputs are performances or even editions. Others argue the algorithm is a tool, akin to a pencil, and it’s how that tool is used that outputs art.

With on-chain NFTs you can take this question further, because the smart contract is also a collection of algorithms serving and controlling what is output.

When I set out to study this conundrum I posited the question, “What if the smart contract algorithm served itself as the piece of art?” I couldn’t help trying, and ended up creating Quine.

Quine is bytecode that can run as a smart contract on Ethereum, or any other EVM chain. It fulfills the requirements of the ERC-721 standard, meaning it’s an NFT collection. What’s unique is that it renders its own runtime bytecode as the sole NFT’s artwork. The code is completely self-contained with no external dependencies, even the metadata and collection image are generated from it.

You can view the NFT on OpenSea.

Quine is the algorithm, and it serves text art that is identical to its own runtime bytecode. Algo and output are interchangeable, self-serving, and could even be self-replicating.

Going back to the original question, is the algo or the output the art? I set out on this study because I thought it would bring some clarity, but for me it hasn’t. In this case I could say the algorithm is the artwork because I created it with the intention of evoking a conceptual response. However, when I was creating it, I was visualizing the NFT output and code as just the way to get there, similar to how a painter would view a paintbrush.

Ultimately, this question touches on broader philosophical inquiries about the nature of art and the evolving relationship between humans and technology in creative processes.

I am interested what others think of this. I created this post on X for comments or discussion:

https://x.com/nix_eth/status/1810374794476765458

If you are curious about the etymology of the name Quine: In theoretical computer science a quine is a self-replicating metaprogram that, when executed, produces a copy of its own source code as its only output. It was named after the late philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine.

Available on GitHub, entirely OSS:

https://github.com/nix-eth/quine-nft