Hyperrhiz 29

Coding Creativity: Insights from Matt Deslauriers on Generative Art

Matt Deslauriers

Interview by
Merve Güven Özkerim

Citation: Deslauriers, Matt and Merve Güven Özkerim. “Coding Creativity: Insights from Matt Deslauriers on Generative Art.” Hyperrhiz: New Media Cultures, no. 29, 2025. doi:10.20415/hyp/029.int05

Abstract: This interview with Matt Deslauriers delves into his creative process, inspirations, and perspectives on algorithmic art, blockchain technology, and the evolving dynamics of originality, creativity, and power in the post-digital art world.

Keywords: decentralization, generative art, blockchain art, digital ownership, power dynamics, information systems, secure data storage.

Interview

Merve Güven Özkerim: Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us, let's talk about your background first. How do you define yourself and your work?

Matt Deslauriers: I define myself broadly as an artist, but more specifically as a “generative artist” or “artist working with software and generative processes.” I also sometimes use the term “creative coder” to describe myself, which hints more at a hobbyist approach to tinkering and hacking with computers and software in creative ways. My work tends to span all of these areas: in some cases, I am developing an algorithm with the intention of it being used for a generative artwork, perhaps a serial output or something for print media or a spatial installation (see Sierra, FOLIO). Other times, I am developing software that is more like a “tool” for the open source community of coders and generative artists (see canvas-sketch, gifenc). And, in other cases, I might develop “toys” or “demos” that do not neatly fit in either camp (see here, here), and these I would consider under my creative coding practice.

In terms of my art practice, I often focus on subjects such as randomness, emergence, and infinity, and like to decode and deconstruct complex subjects into approachable and playful systems. I find an elegance in semi-autonomous and generative systems, and try to bring this to the forefront in my work. I often highlight the real-time nature of these systems, or create interactive controls to allow audiences to better understand the underlying processes involved. I also have an avid interest in analog artistry such as printmaking, bookbinding, weaving, and other traditional crafts, as I see similar processes and parallels between these systems and the digital algorithms I am coding. In much of my work, I lean on nature as a point of inspiration—naturally complex and emergent systems like coral reef growth, hydraulic erosion, reaction diffusion, etc. serve as a sublime standard for my own algorithms to strive toward.

Merve Güven Özkerim: Are there any artists or communities that you draw inspiration from or interact with in the process of producing algorithmic generative art?

Matt Deslauriers: I think there are a few distinct areas that I draw inspiration from:

1. Computer art history: I am fascinated by the constraints in the 1960s and 70s, for example having to use pen plotters to visualize algorithmic art, or having to use ASCII as a drawing mechanism before complex computer graphics became accessible. I often weave these ideas into my own work, and find that the use of constraints, much like those in the early days of computing, has helped me in my creative practice. I also love to promote the rich history of computer art, as it is relatively under-appreciated, and some of the earliest pioneers were women, like Vera Molnar and Lillian Schwartz.
2. Natural systems: as described in my earlier answer, it is a great point of inspiration as it produces the most complex algorithms, and anything I make would be a crude imitation. And, yet, the audience can see some semblance of this beauty within a simple set of instructions, such as an algorithm that attempts to mimic hydraulic erosion in a mountainscape, and by watching this process unfold the audience can more closely relate to it.
3. Design, craft, contemporary art: I find a lot of inspiration within the fields of textile design (Anni Albers, Gunta Stölzl), graphic design (Josef Albers, Sophie Taeuber-Arp), and contemporary art (hard-edge painters like Ellsworth Kelly, and conceptual artists like Sol LeWitt).

The community around generative art has grown over time, and is now quite rich and international. Most of us have connected through social media (Twitter and Instagram) over shared interests (generative art, or sometimes specific hashtags like #plottertwitter), and now communicate sometimes privately amongst ourselves via WhatsApp, Slack, Discord, etc. There is one such Slack group, “Generative Artists Club” or GenArtClub (website: genartclub.com), that frequently discusses techniques, inspirations, ideas, logistical & business operations, etc in private with each other, and often meets in person in different cities during global events and art exhibitions.

Merve Güven Özkerim: Would you like to talk a little about the relationship your works establish with nature? In your opinion, what is the importance of the concepts of chaos and entropy in terms of generative art? Have you considered these concepts while creating your works?

Matt Deslauriers: Nature provides a sublime sort of inspiration; humans are drawn to its beauty, even something as simple as the growth of a tree or the venation of a leaf. These are very commonly explored ideas in generative art, with things like L-Systems that can mimic tree growth, or space colonization to mimic leaf venation. I have an interest in capturing and containing some of these processes; even if my code is only a crude approximation, watching a simple set of instructions produce something that can be reasonably understood as a tree or leaf venation pattern is a really captivating thing. The output itself is rarely the thing of interest here, but rather the process of that evolution, and the system (algorithm) itself. This is where generative art excels: we can exhibit our work in real-time, add interactivity, and help the audience connect directly with the underlying processes and systems. In some ways, it often brings them closer to nature, they feel they can better understand it, even if only fractionally.

More recently, I have been developing The Sferic Project, a long-term project that draws heavily on nature and natural systems—that of Earth’s random atmospheric noise due to lightning strikes and chaotic electromagnetic activity in the ionosphere. This project is one that specifically examines chaos, entropy, randomness, and noise, especially in comparison with “randomness” that exists in the world of computing (which is often pseudo-random, i.e. deterministic). The natural systems provide a source of ‘true randomness’, one that could even be used in cryptographic protocols (as I did with Ethereum’s multi-party computation ceremony, KZG). However, in a rather melancholic and poetic way, these truly random sources are slowly being drowned out by the churn of human progress. We can no longer ‘hear’ this natural signal anywhere within a city due to radio interference, and it can only be heard miles away from the electricity grid in a natural environment. As we wire the world and add electricity to more remote areas, there are fewer and fewer places that we can ‘listen’ to Earth’s natural radio.

Merve Güven Özkerim: What do you think is the importance of blockchain technology in terms of (long form) generative art works? How do you benefit blockchain technology in your work?

Matt Deslauriers: I think “long-form” art works (as described by Tyler Hobbs) presents a narrow scope of what generative art can be, and how it can exist on the blockchain. It is one avenue for deploying and distributing work, but not the only one.

Generally, the blockchain provides a new mechanism for selling and distributing work for digital artists of all kinds, but it is an especially good fit for artists working with software and algorithms. Previously, generative artists would often sell their work as prints, which was mis-aligned with their practice—a primarily-digital artist should not need to produce prints if they do not wish to. The blockchain enables these artists to distribute their work in its native and source format (digital, algorithmic, conceptual, process-driven). The entire flow of sale, distribution, access, etc. becomes a primarily-digital experience. With this, there are other benefits, such as provenance, archiving, and decentralization.

Probably the most notable benefit of blockchain and NFT is decentralization, and really it stands as the raison d'etre. A collector can purchase some work with the knowledge that it “belongs” to them, rather than belonging to Art Blocks, Sotheby’s, or Google, or any other art or tech service. They can freely dispose of the asset, transfer it, and the asset can continue to live on even if the original site that deployed the asset (Art Blocks, etc) is no longer present. This is a real concern within the digital world; most tech platforms do not survive the span of multiple decades, and if the work is not preserved in a decentralized manner, it will quickly lead to link rot and 404 errors.

This is where coders and software artists tend to benefit most from NFT and blockchain technology, because we have the capacity to store our work directly on the blockchain, or lean on the blockchain to produce some kind of conceptual work (such as Autoglyphs, which do not even store any images of the outputs). We can become almost like demoscene-coders, compressing our algorithms to fit within these constraints. On the other hand, digital artists working with video, for example, will have a harder time, because they will need to find some storage solution for their large files (IPFS, Arweave are examples, but they also present challenges when dealing with scale).

Merve Güven Özkerim: In your opinion, have art and technology developed historically within power relations, and have their basic principles been shaped by this dynamic? In this context, what do you think about blockchain technology and generative art?

Matt Deslauriers: Yes, I feel it has always developed within power relations. There is a power relation between artists and their collectors, artists and galleries, artists and auction houses, etc. Blockchain has the capacity to, and has already proven to, disrupt many of these power relations, although we also see it introducing new power relations. But, one can point to something like royalties as an example. Prior to NFT and blockchain, most secondary market sales on Sotheby’s would not pay royalties out to artists. However, in digital sales (NFTs sold on Sotheby’s in their secondary crypto marketplace), Sotheby’s has chosen to follow the trend of 5% NFT royalties and send these to artists upon sale. This is a huge departure from hundreds of years worth of auction house tradition, and one that gives a significant benefit to the artists whose work is being traded.

Another point of disruption is in decentralization. Previous to blockchain and NFTs, ceding control of artworks to a tech platform (such as DeviantArt, at one point, or another platform like Instagram or Twitter today) gives them a strong amount of control. Users and their audiences become locked into these services, and it becomes hard to extricate. This was obvious when Elon Musk took over Twitter, much to many users’ dismay, but there was little the users could do to protest this change. This centralized vendor-lock-in (“Web2”) is in stark contrast to the ethos of NFT and blockchain space (“Web3”). You can see this clearly with Hicetnunc.xyz, which was shut down by the owner some months after a roaring success, and yet all of the tokens deployed and distributed on the platform (including my own artworks) remain unaffected, and are continuing to sell and appreciate on secondary marketplaces. You can read more about all of that here.

Merve Güven Özkerim: Do you think the concepts of post-digital and post-internet have any meaning in terms of understanding your own work and generative art?

Matt Deslauriers: When I think of post-digital and post-internet I think of a new direction for technology that includes more peer-to-peer technologies (such as Willow), more decentralization, local-first and offline-first software, locally-run AIs rather than cloud-run, low-power and solar-chargeable e-ink readers, and better privacy and verifiability through zero-knowledge proofs. These things give me hope, they are ideals that could lead to a much more human-friendly “internet” and global communication system. I am not sure exactly how generative art will continue to fit within these ideals—especially considering how AI and ML is rapidly changing the landscape of art and media as a whole—although I am sure it will not disappear entirely.

Merve Güven Özkerim: What do you think the concepts of originality, creativity, uniqueness and aura mean for algorithmic art?

Matt Deslauriers: Although some might view generative and software-based art as a sterile and machine-driven process, it really always is led by the hand of a human. A human must make decisions about parameters, configurations, instructions, rules, colours, designs, etc. All of these things together tend to create an “aura” of some work, especially when the algorithm and process is presented holistically, rather than only presenting the final output images (which do little for the audience, and will continue to do less as audiences become better acquainted with AI image generators). So I do feel these concepts are important for algorithmic and generative art, and will continue to be more important in the future. The field might end up similar to conceptual art—where the ‘aura’ and concept of the work is far more significant than what the audience sees when looking at, say, the final visual mural or canvas.

Merve Güven Özkerim: Do you want to add anything else?

Matt Deslauriers: Think that’s it!