Phil Smith: Like many of us in the generative art world, I know you have a varied background, studying architecture and working as a web developer. What are some of the other outlets you’ve found in the past to bring together your technical and creative interests? What led you to generative art?

Heeey: In my career I always struggled to combine my technical and creative interests. It was always one or the other, with creative interests usually not paying the bills, and web development becoming too monotonous. As a web developer, working for a digital agency and when clients allowed, I was always trying to think out of the box by creating quirky unusual websites, but I was unaware that art and code was even a thing. Discovering generative art was a blessing for me. From the moment I found out about ArtBlocks in 2020 I was hooked and never looked back.

PS: We both shared an early interest and appreciation for EthBlockArt, which allowed collectors to customize parameters of an artist algorithm before minting artwork. You’ve also spent a lot of time exploring seeds from QQL by Tyler Hobbs and Indigo. They each used terms to elevate the role of the end user, either as a “Creator” using artist “BlockStyles”, or as a “Parametric Artist”. How do you view the relationship between the algorithmic artist and the collector?

H: At the time I released Starry Nights on EthBlockArt in 2021, I was really interested in portraying blockchain data and sought to give creators an exploring visual experience through blocks and transactions. I didn’t have expectations and let the collection emerge at the whim of the collectors but from a very constrained set of traits that I obsessively controlled. It was a really interesting experiment.

With QQL, I’ve found myself passionately on the other side of co-creation and learned a lot as well. It’s an algorithm that allows the “parametric artist” to find their own voice, to express themselves. There’s so much freedom, emergence and discovery that a collector, like myself in this case, can take years and millions of outputs to find completion in their relationship with the algorithm.

PS: What are some ways that generative artists need to think differently when creating an algorithm that allows for collector curation and customization, as opposed to traditional long-form generative collections?

H: In my opinion, there are two main aspects to take into account when creating a curatable artwork.

One is the amount of freedom you are willing to give to the algorithm explorers. The more constrained your algorithm is the less appealing exploring it becomes, as outputs are more seemingly random than curated. The more variance is introduced on the other hand, the more the artist has to be prepared to forfeit control of the visual space.

The other is about crafting the curation path. You need to ask yourself, how and why you want collectors to interact with your art, what the user experience through your artwork is going to be like for them, as an enhanced experience compared to blind minting. Interactivity is not for every artist and not for every artwork.

PS: How did you apply this thinking as you were developing One Ring?  

H: In One Ring I was hoping that QQL enthusiasts like myself as well as art appreciators could have the opportunity to craft their own “simple” ring with a composition that excited them, with a color combination that they felt represented in. It’s not as much about what you discover or what’s the best possible ring, but more about what you feel attracted or connected to.

PS: What were some of the challenges you faced?

H: The biggest challenge was in finding the right balance to make it easy for collectors to explore the visual space of the collection through color while giving them as much variance as possible. To give them all “good” color combinations and no “bad” ones in the simplest possible way.

PS: You’ve created and studied MANY seeds from QQL, and compiled them into some fascinating themes at Exploring QQL. Why do you think the ring shape inspired you to develop One Ring?

H: One of the things that’s fascinated me the most about QQL is its unfathomable complexity through combining relatively simple elements. All QQLs are made of “simple” rings. But when you have a closer look, discover that there’s nothing simple about them. Rings have this human-made quality to them. Color changes slightly from one to another. Variable thickness, quantity of bands, ring juxtaposition…

I thought, “what if I could take these rings a little further?” Adding more color variation from band to band, within a band and through the artwork itself, more bands, wilder stacking or rotation at variable speed. Taking the ring as far as I could dare.  

PS: There's a long history of artists incorporating ring motifs into their work. It really is a timeless and inescapable image. Are there any artists from the past or present that have inspired you in your work today? 

H: I’ve always felt a deep connection to abstract expressionism and minimalism. I get really emotional with Mark Rothko’s work for instance. I had the chance to see his retrospective in Paris earlier this year and it was cathartic. Lately, I’ve been very obsessed with the op art of Victor Vasarely.

Of the 2020s longform generative art movement, I’m deeply inspired by artists like Zach Lieberman, Martin Grasser or Ippsketch who so successfully craft minimalistic geometric art. 

PS: Where do you see generative creativity heading in the next couple of years, and what do you see yourself doing? 

H: Since 2020, generative art has been a monolithic space of longform, blind-minting collections. In the past year, we’ve seen many artists going back to curated releases, as well as others exploring co-creation as a way to express themselves. I see more of this happening.

As for myself, while I’ve been consistently working on simple geometries through color theory, I’d also like to find my voice and expand my practice as an artist by connecting art and architecture.

PS: I can't wait to see the One Ring outputs that people choose as their expression, and looking forward to seeing what you do next! Thanks for your time!

H: Thank you!

You can read more about One Ring by Heeey in his essay on Paragraph.

Learn more about intrinsic.art by reading our introductory article, or by visiting our website.

Phil Smith: As I’ve gotten to know you, I’ve been struck by the breadth of your creative pursuits. I know you studied film and animation in your MFA program at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). Can you walk us through how your interests and practice have evolved over time? 

Matto: Technology has always been a cornerstone in my creativity, and my first real creative outlet was photography, back in junior high. Later, I went to Cornell to study Physics, and I had my own computer for the first time! Besides writing papers, I made a lot of digital art, and by the end of my Freshman year I knew I wanted to pursue pixels more than particles. RIT was known for its imaging science programs, so I transferred, as an engineering student, essentially minoring in digital art. It was during my undergrad that I discovered experimental animation, where I could make abstract artworks that challenged me to think outside of the constraints of a single image. And I continued on to do an MFA in film afterward. My studies involved bridging technologies and techniques to create new experiences, both still and moving. This experimentation in approach combined with my science and engineering aptitude led me to algorithmic image manipulation and creation, and my films and professional work after college continued to lean heavily on my unique assemblage of skill and creativity.

PS: Is there a common element or reference point that has stayed important to you throughout your career, that you often find yourself coming back to? 

M: I think curiosity and computers have been the two things that have kept me dancing in life. I believe most of my work has a deeply human connection within it - even my work with AI - and this soul is probably evident in many of my artworks. Beyond those, maybe my stubbornness! Being an artist can be very challenging, and if I wasn’t stubborn as hell, I probably would have given up long ago. 

PS: Buddhism has played an important part in your past work, especially in your Zenerative series of projects. Is there something unique about generative art in particular that you feel is well-suited to exploring Buddhist beliefs?

M: Abstract work can lend itself to the exploration of spirituality, because it is personal, different for everyone, and in many ways, nebulous. I actually think generative art and Buddhism work exceptionally well together, for many reasons. First is the reliance on chance. We generative artists work side by side with entropy, and in Buddhism, being open to - and embracing - change and spontaneity are important. Long form generative art adds another level of Buddhism: release of control and letting go of the power to curate outputs. Finally, malleable generative art goes one step further in adding impermanence of the artwork into the mix.

PS: Your Zenerative series, including Ensō, FOCUS, Scratch, and Time Between the Lines is Thread Through the Mind, focuses on internal growth and meditation. Visually, they tend to do more with less, and invite the viewer to do the same. Metta feels like a shift in your work away from growth through internal contemplation and towards embracing the complexity of a networked world. Is this part of a broader shift in your world-view, or is it more just an additional lens to interpret what you’re experiencing?

M: Actually, both! Metta marks a significant change from my earlier work in the Zenerative series, which were algorithms that made highly controlled images. Every Ensō is a single brushstroke, every FOCUS highlights a single artificial space. Scratch is made with a background of parallel lines and a foreground of arcs in a pattern, and Time Between the Lines is Thread Through the Mind are “merely” random parallel lines but with specific coloration. Each is a single idea, and none are malleable - they are fixed once minted. Metta on the other hand is a malleable artwork whose content is not a single expression of an idea, but a window to view an animated, changing world. Since I began my journey as an NFT artist, I definitely have felt my community grow (and sometimes be strained). Metta is a reflection of those changes I experienced, but it is also allowing me to grow in new directions artistically.

PS: You’re a multidisciplinary artist. Just within the digital realm, you’ve released work in a dizzying variety of formats: long-form generative, plotter, photography, PFPs, interactive software, and AI art to name a few. You’ve released work on multiple blockchains and platforms, in addition to building your own minting platform and writing custom smart contracts for novel onchain mechanics. You also have an extensive background in film, animation, photography, and creative writing. How do you go about choosing the right medium to explore a creative idea?

M: Wow, yeah I sound like a crazy person, huh.. Honestly, I follow my curiosity, and because I love challenges, it usually leads me to trying something new or inventing something. In life, we experience such a breadth of experiences and emotions, and I find that some ideas are best expressed in one medium vs another. Being able to create across genres and media helps me follow my inspirations and communicate my ideas better than having to, for example, use a camera for everything. Sometimes the comfort of a medium for expressing an idea wins out. More often, though, it’s a challenge to best express an idea, and I’ll choose a medium that allows me to more fully develop and explore the idea.

PS: With all of those possibilities, how did you decide that Metta would be a good fit with intrinsic.art? 

M: Actually, when I first heard your idea of a unique platform where the traits were given value and collectors had control, I was hooked! Metta was made with a platform like intrinsic in mind - it really is not designed to work as a ‘random-mint’ Long Form Generative Artwork (LFGA). It works because it's personal and because the platform leans into malleability. No others do or go nearly as far. Metta and intrinsic were developed side by side.

PS: I love the word malleable! We developed intrinsic.art in the context of a broader trend in art that embraces the more ephemeral nature of natively generative art. People have talked about this using a variety of labels like dynamic or software art. You introduced the term “Malleable Generative Art” in a recent article to describe what you and others have been doing lately. How do you define malleability, and what are some projects you admire that exemplify this emerging trend? 

M: Thank you! A quick summary is that malleable gen art projects embrace changes to the artwork over time and add a new aspect of ‘ownership’ to the art. Instead of merely owning a piece in the traditional sense, a collector can craft their own output, so there’s an ownership over that artwork because it was ‘their’ creation. In my essay, I discuss a few projects that I admire for experimenting with malleability, including QQL and Terraforms. QQL is special in its awe-inspiring output space and collector control over parameters. It’s truly software art where collectors can strive to create their ideal piece, and their choice is immortalized. Terraforms, a technical marvel, has modes that allow continual adjustment of the artwork over time by the owner, always maintaining a specific output style. Both projects exemplify key aspects to the trend I see in malleable gen art, and each have a very strong following among collectors. I would love to own either / both of these projects as I see them as groundbreaking in different ways. Maybe someday! :)

PS: How does Metta build upon and extend this idea of malleable generative art? 

M: I wanted Metta to be the best example possible of malleable gen art while still holding a specific aesthetic and following my artistic vision. I’ve explored malleability in generative art for years, both in completely EVM generated algorithms and onchain JavaScript projects. In my prior work, outputs reflected changes in ownership and gave owners significant control over the outputs. The traits were sometimes static, and output malleability was extended through alternate rendering algorithms. Metta is totally different. Instead of a discrete output ‘having’ traits, the arrangement is flipped: traits ‘have’ an output - or thousands. These intrinsic traits, that are assembled together by the collector, are paired with a random hash selected by the collector, to enable creation of countless possible outputs. It’s a totally different approach that places incredible control into the hands of the trait-owners. Also, because Metta only uses one rendering algorithm, it has a very …coherent output space, even if that space is astoundingly vast.

PS: What do you plan to further explore creatively over the next year? 

M: I’m so excited to continue exploring malleable gen art with a project titled 100x10x1 Composition A. I’m also going to continue work on the creation of physical outputs from generative projects with robots: pen plotter and a custom CNC machine I’ve been tinkering with. I have a few 1/1 generative works that I’ve been playing with, a more traditional LFGA project, some fun distractions (for the culture), and some non-generative work in experimental photography that’s way overdue for the limelight!

PS: I can’t wait to see all of those! With so many projects in progress, I know you are busy these days, so I appreciate your time! We’re excited to see how the community explores and shapes the output from Metta over the coming weeks, months, and years!

M: Me too! I think intrinsic is a truly special platform, and I’m both excited and honored to be releasing Metta with you. It’s a project about connection and change over time, and thanks to intrinsic.art, Metta can live and grow over time by allowing new owners to remake a piece that speaks to them.

To read more about Metta by Matto, visit the project writeup on his personal site.

You can learn more about intrinsic.art by reading our introductory article, or by visiting our website.

Generative Art Is Different.

Historically, people have collected artifacts – the physical output of artists. As a generative artist, I wanted collectors to get closer to the ideas underlying the art.

We created intrinsic.art to embrace and highlight the unique features of natively generative artwork, rather than hide them behind traditional models of buying and selling artifacts. Our design is founded on three key principles.

1. Generative art is unpredictable. The best work features many paths leading to exciting discoveries. intrinsic.art allows you to fully explore an artist’s generative algorithm and select your desired traits before purchasing the art as an NFT.

   

2. Generative art is ephemeral. It’s a system that can take on many different forms, creating indefinitely. New structures appear and old structures collapse. intrinsic.art lets you reclaim your traits and recombine them in new ways. Artwork on intrinsic.art can always be reborn.

   

3. Generative art is living code. It’s complex and multi-faceted, and it deserves to be enjoyed by many over time, instead of bottled, preserved, and put on a shelf. Traits on intrinsic.art are composable and tradeable on any secondary marketplace, allowing others to continue exploring an algorithm. We choose to store an artist’s code onchain not simply as a static permanent record of provenance, but because the underlying smart contracts allow continued dynamic engagement with an audience.

   

When you explore a project on intrinsic.art, you choose your favorite traits before you purchase the artwork. The artwork is minted to your wallet as a standard Ethereum ERC-721 non-fungible token, which includes:

• The artist’s code to render the art.

• A unique random seed.

• The individual trait tokens that you selected.

  

Once you own the artwork, you can choose at any time to “reclaim” the underlying traits, which burns the artwork NFT and in its place gives you the individual component traits as ERC-1155 fungible tokens.

If you have trait tokens in your wallet inventory, you can use them at any time towards the purchase of a new artwork from the same project. Because you already own the traits, you don’t have to pay to use them again.

Traits are variables chosen by an artist to represent the most important ideas guiding a generative algorithm. Mapping to the words of Sol LeWitt, traits are the ideas, and code is the machine that makes the art.

Ownership allows many people to form a closer, more intimate connection with art. We want collectors to feel emotionally connected not just to artifacts, but also to the ideas behind the art. Trait tokens can help make that possible.

Traditional long-form generative art discourages artists from taking risks. When generative work is released in permanent, fixed editions, artists end up making safer choices with their algorithm to ensure predictable output.

We think predictable is boring. We’re seeking artists eager to take risks, who want their work to be explored and discussed even after the last edition has sold. Composable trait tokens ensure that future generations of collectors can continue discovering and sharing new trait combinations long after the last primary mint.

You can learn more and explore our first project, Metta by Matto, at intrinsic.art. Minting starts on April 30, at 1pm EDT.

For the latest on our upcoming releases and product features, join us on Discord, X, Farcaster, or subscribe via email.

We love talking to generative artists willing to create boldly expansive algorithms. If this sounds like you, get in touch with us at inquiries@intrinsic.art, or strike up a conversation on Discord.

We look forward to exploring generative art together with you!