Hyperrhiz 29

Thematics in Web3 Artworks

Merve Güven Özkerim
Giresun University

David M. Berry
University of Sussex

Citation: Güven Özkerim, Merve and David M. Berry. “Thematics in Web3 Artworks.” Hyperrhiz: New Media Cultures, no. 29, 2025. doi:10.20415/hyp/029.i01

Abstract: In this study, we conducted a thematic analysis of interviews with artists Ana Maria Caballero, Bas Uterwijk Ganbrood, Golan Levin, Harvey Rayner, Matt Deslauriers, and Ania Catherine (Operator Duo), all of whom create algorithmic and generative artworks on the blockchain. Using qualitative data analysis software, we identified codes from the interviews and organized them into themes and subheadings based on similarities, differences, and contradictions within the data. As a result, the use of blockchain technology in algorithmic art spans various aspects, including sales, archiving, and creative generation, with its significance amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the Web3 art environment, key characteristics such as the evolving artist-collector relationship, the promise of a democratic and pluralistic space, interoperability, technical challenges, community engagement, and ethical responsibilities are central to its development. Ownership and hyper-ownership concepts also redefine traditional notions of artistic value. While decentralization offers potential for reshaping the art world, it remains a complex and unresolved challenge, with Web3 platforms still tied to centralized economic structures. Questions about the relevance of traditional artistic concepts like creativity, originality, and aura/cyber aura in Web3 art have been explored, revealing diverse interpretations. In addition, we also discuss the creative limits of blockchain technology and its possibilities for communal/collective creativity.

Keywords: NFT, blockchain, generative art, post-digital, aesthetic, Web3.

Introduction

The first example of NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, was CryptoPunks, introduced in 2017. Since its first iteration, famous names such as Stephen Curry, Jay-Z, Cameron Jordan, Gary Vee, Madonna, Paris Hilton and Melania Trump have invested in NFTs. The Ethereal Summit in New York (May 2018) hosted a live auction of blockchain-based digital artworks, known as ‘crypto-art’ NFTs, organized by Codex and the RARE art platform. The artworks, which included pieces like a Twitter whale and an Ethereum logo watercolor, sold mostly between $3,000 and $10,000. However, the final lot—a unique cryptokitty called Celestial Cyber Dimension, combining both physical and cryptographic elements along with a custom hardware wallet—sparked intense bidding, ultimately selling for $140,000 (O’Dwyer, 2023). In 2020, the NFT market was boosted by the release of ‘Everydays: The First 5000 Days’, a collage of digital artefacts produced everyday, which was sold at Christie’s auction house for $69.3 million. Although its creator Beeple (Mike Winkelmann) is not exactly an unknown artist, this sale was the third highest price paid for a work by a living artist, behind only Jeff Koons and David Hockney (Nandini et al., 2021).

2021 witnessed the entry of NFTs into the mainstream conversation, which has also influenced the art sector and gripped the minds of artists, collectors, and even museums (Lidell, 2021). Despite all these sensational prices gamified by the crypto-rich, most secondary sales were below, often far below, initial purchase prices (Okonkwo, 2021; Pennington, 2021). The economic reality of plummeting secondary sales became starkly apparent by 2022. One example is a tax-loss harvesting platform creating a collection of ‘worthless NFTs,’ drawing a parallel to the Salvage Art Institute’s work with devalued physical art. This development underscores the state of digital art that, while still existing, has become economically valueless after the speculative bubble burst, leading one to consider what endures once the initial excitement fades (O’Dwyer, 2023). Obviously, the exorbitant valuations we saw in the case of Beeple did not come from the art world. The crypto-rich wanted to emphasise the power and effects of this new financial reality (Anadol, 2024).

In the background of these developments, the environmental cost of blockchain technology was strongly criticised by crypto-sceptics. When the term ‘Crypto-Colonialism’ was coined by Herzfeld in 2002, blockchain projects, cryptocurrencies, NFTs and their associated political and environmental issues were not yet on the agenda. Herzfeld only conceptualised a politically anthropological problem. Herzfeld (2002) would call this phenomenon crypto-colonialism and define it as relations with, and the management of, certain nations positioned as buffer zones between colonised territories and those not yet subjugated. Steyerl (2023) suggested that this concept could be reapplied to crypto-mining operations in Eastern Europe and beyond. She revealed that the political crisis is directly related to mining in these regions, and all of this is directly related to political instability.

The Web3 concept, which is still in its infancy, is global and knows no borders. However, we live in a real world divided into different geographical and political jurisdictions that dictate different rules (Aria et al, 2023). The lack of universal laws and standards in this regard brings many problems. The fact that crypto-miners in various parts of the world turn any crisis that creates the possibility of using cheap or illegal electricity into an opportunity remains a problem not only for states but also for the future of the world. For example, in the United States, mining vehicles have been detected at free fast charging points for Tesla vehicles. Some people have tried to get involved in this process by using their smartphones and even their body heat to reduce the cost of Bitcoin mining. In Türkiye, the miners have been orientated towards the Southeastern Anatolia Region during the winter months, when cold climatic conditions and illegal electricity use are common. In this region, where electricity smuggling is about 65%, miners could easily hide their activities. Another method of these miners is taking advantage of the cheap electricity and water incentives offered to support agricultural and industrial policies. In particular, mining was carried out with illegal electricity drawn from transformers close to barns, while the basements of houses close to industrial zones were also used for this purpose (Akbaş, 2017). This situation can be read similarly to Steyerl’s (2023) example of Bitcoin farms in Eastern Europe. The Southeastern Anatolia Region of Türkiye has become an uncontrolled backyard where mining policies driven by illegal electricity are pursued due to years of civil war, political instability and chaos. Mining activities under these conditions are largely ignored in terms of ethical and ecological issues.

On the other hand, Mark Alizart (2020), using a synthesis of liberal ideology, the principles of thermodynamics, and Bitcoin’s conceptual framework, proposed the possibility of a crypto-communism that could develop in a speculative future, perhaps within a century. Alizart argued that capitalism is inefficient in its use of knowledge and prone to crises resulting from the misallocation of financial resources, investments and technological advances. In Alizart’s paradigm of crypto-communism, individuals can independently generate money, which responds to capitalism’s inefficiencies in decentralised production finance and eliminates the need for the banking sector. There are, of course, many criticisms of Alizart’s approach. One of these criticisms is that blockchain and crypto technologies have not developed in a class-based structure, although the emergence of Bitcoin is explained by different references (Isidro, 2022).Blockchain ecosystems—especially those surrounding major cryptocurrencies like Ethereum—have not evolved in a vacuum or within a truly egalitarian structure. Rather, their development has been shaped by and integrated into existing class dynamics, capital accumulation practices, and power structures. Another thing is that the widespread use of blockchain technology tends to integrate into neoliberal economic policy, turning into a quest for faster consumption rather than creating critical and decentralised platforms. Moreover, according to crypto-sceptics, the fundamental problem is not how blockchain technology will develop, but how to limit humanity’s energy consumption. To this end, crypto-sceptics propose solutions such as small and green technology by addressing the development of technology from a critical and political-economic dimension (Steyerl, 2023). All of the early examples of NFT technology were based on blockchain technologies, which utilises a high energy-consuming PoW (Proof-of-Work) consensus mechanism. More crypto mining means faster human consumption of nature.

As Berry (2025) argues, “The contradiction between cryptocurrency’s claimed independence and its actual dependence reveals deeper philosophical tensions at play in the proposal.” This contradiction becomes especially visible in attempts to align decentralised technologies with emancipatory or post-capitalist narratives while they simultaneously remain embedded in and enabled by existing extractive systems—technological, financial, and ecological.

The responsibility of artists, galleries, and even collectors to utilise these technologies has become increasingly visible. With crypto-sceptics and crypto opponents raising their voices on many platforms, this contradictory situation has begun to reach a wider audience. A collection of short essays created by artists, activists, and theorists titled ‘Episode V: Towards a New Crypto Art Ecology: A Hybrid Manifesto’ was published in 2001 (Akten et al., 2021). In this study, the environmental cost of crypto art was discussed at length. Akten designed CryptoArt.wtf to share the best available information about the energy use and environmental impact of the growing Proof-of- Work (PoW)-based CryptoArt and NFT markets (Cryptoart, 2021). This platform was unfortunately blocked by Akten because it was used for harassment against some artists.

The effect of these criticisms by crypto-sceptics and climate activists led to a major shift from energy-intensive mining methods towards more sustainable consensus mechanisms. Blockchain platforms widely used in the art world, such as Ethereum and Tezos, have adopted or implemented variants of Proof of Stake that offer more energy-efficient operations. Institutions like Sotheby’s have embraced these platforms to facilitate digital art sales, particularly through NFTs.

NFTs are frequently discussed both in terms of their global production cost and their sales value. However, rather than the financial implications of NFTs, our research focuses on the relationship between algorithmic or generative creative practices and blockchain technology and the innovations they bring to the art world. NFTs hold particular significance for artists in two key ways. First, they offer an entirely new environment for making and sharing art—an experience beyond previous media platforms (Web2)—ushering in a novel paradigm within the Web3 context. Second, they carry the potential to contribute meaningfully to an artist’s economic independence.

We try to reveal the paradigm shifts in Web3 art and the potentials of these platforms. We hope that the series of interviews we have prepared as part of this research will lead to discussion, reaction and further criticism. Given this complex landscape of technological promise and critique, our research seeks to move beyond the speculative discourse surrounding Web3 art to examine the lived experiences of practitioners working within these emerging technologies.

Research Methods

Within the scope of our research, we conducted semi-structured in-depth (online) interviews with artists Ana Maria Caballero, Bas Uterwijk Ganbrood, Golan Levin, Harvey Rayner, Matt Deslauriers, Ania Catherine (Operator Duo), whom we purposively selected from our research on algorithmic and generative artworks on the blockchain. The artists we interviewed produce artworks using blockchain technology, artificial intelligence, human-computer interaction (HCI) and various technologies as a part of or the entirety of their work.

During the preliminary study, we created a pool of questions by examining in detail the issues, messages, technical and technological challenges that the artists emphasised. Based on the resulting sub-problems and the basic concepts of our research, we prepared personalised semi-structured interview questions for each artist, as follows:

1. What are the purposes, technical challenges, environmental, socio-cultural and economic impacts of blockchain technology in algorithmic and generative creative practices?
2. What are the characteristics of the Web3 culture and art environment?
3. What are the artists’ views on the idea of “decentralisation”?
4. On which values are the post-digital aesthetics in the Web3 art environment shaped?
5. How do algorithmic and generative creative practices relate to artificial intelligence?

In addition to all these, we also asked the artists various questions about their background and sources of inspiration. Each artist meticulously answered the interview questions covering all or most of these sub-problems. We analysed the interviews through a software for qualitative data analysis. We obtained some codes and transformed the codes we reached through similarities, differences and contradictions into themes and subheadings of our study.

Nevertheless, in line with the uniqueness and personal characteristics of our sample group, the necessity to show flexibility increased the diversity of the questions. Although this situation caused difficulties in the analysis of the study, it enabled us to reach very comprehensive and sensitive data in terms of revealing the diversity of the current situation.

In cases where the artists had many interesting projects to talk about, we tried to find ways to discuss one or a few projects by consensus, rather than choosing one of them directly, and sometimes and sometimes we focused on the general atmosphere.

In our research, we refer to examples and expressions of algorithmic and generative art that use code as a creative medium or instrument, synthesising blockchain with traditional and new media possibilities (hybrid). Although non-computerised practices of generative art form the historical background of our topic and have fundamentally similar characteristics, we have limited our research to the post-digital creative practices of artists who actively use blockchain technology.

Our analysis operates at the intersection of post-digital aesthetics, platform studies, and emerging theories of decentralized artistic production. By examining how blockchain technologies mediate artistic expression, we aim to interrogate not just new technical possibilities but the reconfiguration of fundamental artistic values including creativity, originality, and the artist-collector relationship. The analysis that follows reveals how blockchain technology operates not merely as a distribution mechanism, but as a constitutive element in reshaping artistic practice itself.

Analysis

1. What are the purposes, technical challenges, environmental, socio-cultural and economic impacts of blockchain technology in algorithmic and generative creative practices?

In the interviews we conducted, we asked artists various questions about the purposes of using blockchain technology, the technical difficulties they face, as well as the socio-cultural, economic, and environmental impacts of this usage. In this section, in line with the analysis of our interviews with artists, we have tried to explain thematically the purposes of using blockchain technology, especially in algorithmic art. Technical difficulties and socio-cultural economic and environmental impacts will be discussed in detail in the following sections.

Exhibition: Blockchain technology facilitates the secure and transparent exhibition and certification of artworks in a digital environment, enabling them to reach large audiences.

Sale: Smart contracts make it possible to sell artworks securely and without intermediaries. When working with communities, it has the potential to eliminate dependency on gatekeepers and third parties or individuals.

In addition to artists working with creative coding and algorithms, for artists working with performative and interactive works (such as dance or provocative physical works), blockchain offers a practical method of sale when presented in a hybrid format. Instead of buying artworks as commodities, it opens up the discussion of alternative sales methods to support the artist’s production with reasonable budgets.

Archiving: It facilitates the archiving and tracking of artworks by preserving ownership information.

As a Creative Medium (Generation):

• Blockchain technology is also used as a new creative medium for artists.
  It could create the potential to breathe new life into the art world by supporting creativity through transdisciplinary transitions and hybrid forms.

Covid-19 Pandemic Process:

During the pandemic, there was an impulse towards the post-digital, with shifts towards both analogue artistic practices and forms such as network art, which were more common in the early days of the web (Nacher, Søren, Scott, 2023).

• The pandemic caused the closure of physical galleries and salons and restricted social life, which accelerated the rapid adoption of these platforms.

Although many of the artists were familiar with the use of this technology in the field of culture and art earlier, Covid-19 restrictions spurred on their adoption of it. We can evaluate this sometimes as an economic necessity, and sometimes as following the general trend, adapting to the developing culture, art environment, and the changing market. While these practical applications demonstrate blockchain’s instrumental value, they point toward more fundamental questions about the cultural ecosystem emerging around Web3 art.

2. What are the characteristics of the Web3 culture and art environment?

The Web3 concept has a global and borderless structure and is still in the development phase. However, it has many problems to be solved such as computational and storage capacity, technology standards, compatibility, national policies, ethical, social and environmental issues. For example, while Web3 needs strong technological infrastructures, important issues such as energy consumption and environmental impacts cannot be ignored. At the same time, the principle of decentralization can sometimes lead to ethical issues such as lack of accountability in Web3 and exploitation of its developers. Privacy and security are also a major concern in this process, and a balance needs to be struck on issues such as data collection and delegation of tasks to artificial intelligence (Aria et al., 2023).

Web3 foundation Polkadot, Kusama, XCM: The Cross Consensus Message Format promises a decentralized and fair internet where users can control their own data, identity and destiny (Web3 Foundation, n.d.). All this could lead to interesting changes in many areas, including the internet itself. In this sense, Web3 continues to make many attempts to create a new social form with its own cultural, economic and legal systems.

In this part of our research we seek clues about the possible characteristics of the Web3 culture and arts ecosystem and the values around which they might be shaped. We try to articulate the direction of the dynamic flow, keeping in mind that the inclusion of many interesting creators and many interesting cases that we were unable to interview due to time and various limitations may enhance and transform the results. One of the artists we interviewed, Harvey Rayner, wrote an essay titled “Why Long Form Generative Art may become the most important artistic movement of the last 50 years”, which was very inspiring in this sense:

We might still be too close to Web3 to fully grasp the extent of its future impact on areas like culture, economics, politics, rationality, and perhaps even spirituality. If we consider Web3 as just one step in the broader evolution of the internet, it’s hard to predict how significant it will seem when viewed from the perspective of Web10. However, if we reflect on the entire journey of the internet so far (Web 1, 2, and 3) and its effects on society, we might see it as a sign that we’re on the verge of another major expansion in the realm of art. This could mark the start of a profound and transformative revolution in the arts.” (Rayner, 2022)

Bordeleau (2024), finds Web3 significant in that it conveys a self-organising intent. The prevailing narrative suggests that the Web2 era has been coopted by platform capitalism; in contrast, Web3 emerges as an attempt to reclaim aspects of the cypherpunk vision rooted in the internet culture of the late 1990s. In this context, Web3 embodies an autonomist ethos, offering a fertile ground for the development of alternative technological and societal frameworks.

Artist and Collector Relationship:

• Many changes in the artist-collector relationship and new role definitions have emerged.
• It promises to make the artist-collector relationship faster, safer and stronger.
• It can also make the historical boundaries in this relationship softer and blurred.
• Within the framework of the rules set by the artist in Web3 art, the collector can also be given a field of action and a mission.
• It encourages the collector to be a participant.
• It has created its own typology of collectors: early adopter, cryptocurrency user, participant, etc.

Democratic and Pluralistic Environment:

• Although Web3 art promises to offer artists a more democratic, equal and pluralistic environment for identity representation, it has yet to offer a practical solution to gender and socio-economic inequality.
• Although they initially developed around the idea of decentralization, it is now widely believed that these platforms have become increasingly centralized.
• In many ways, it facilitates access to artworks.

It is interesting to note that this tension between democratic aspiration and centralized reality reflects broader contradictions within platform capitalism that Web3 has yet to resolve.

Interoperability:

• Cross-blockchain interoperability is defined as a combination of different blockchain systems, each representing a unique distributed ledger. In these systems, atomic transaction execution can span multiple heterogeneous blockchain systems, and data stored in one blockchain must be accessible, verifiable and referenced by another (possibly foreign) transaction in a semantically compatible way (Belchior, 2021). Therefore, interoperability plays a major role in the sustainable use of Web3 art. Below are the themes that we extracted from the artists’ views on this issue.
• While the limitations of Web2 platforms are advantageous for some art forms, they are particularly limited for promoting generative/interactive artworks.
• Artists and collectors need alternative/Web3 platforms.

Technical Challenges:

• The interface of Web3 platforms is still quite complex.
• Many challenges for artists require a technical and versatile skill.

Community:

• There are numerous blockchain communities where artists can interact and collaborate with each other and with audiences.
• The concept and mission of a community is a crucial element for the cultural ecosystem of blockchain technology.
• Communities are often built with the support and mediation of web2 platforms.
• Web3 has the potential to increase the collaboration between artists and collectors through communities.

Ethical and Environmental Responsibilities:

• Creates ethical responsibilities regarding energy consumption and environmental impact.
• Artists tend to prefer blockchain technologies with lower environmental costs.
• All of the interviewed artists have detailed information about their responsibilities on these platforms.

Ownership and Hyper-ownership:

• Blockchain protects ownership and authenticity of artworks through immutability.
• The concept of hyper-ownership highlights not the mere possession of an artwork, but the right to participate in shaping its meaning, future, and direction.
• It offers an alternative way to support the artist while keeping the commodity value of artworks in the background.

Perhaps most significantly, these platform dynamics are reshaping fundamental assumptions about what it means to “own” a work of art. While the characteristics outlined above suggest significant transformations in the Web3 art environment, the principle of decentralization remains perhaps the most contested and complex aspect of this emerging ecosystem. Our interviews revealed substantial tensions between decentralization as ideal and practice which we turn to look at now.

3. What are the artists’ views on the idea of “decentralisation”?

Web3 is built on the principle of decentralization. These digital decentralized platforms must store transactional information that is accessible, verifiable and virtually immune to manipulation. Four key elements are required for proper decentralization of Web3 applications: (a) decentralized computation, (b) storage, (c) database, and (d) blockchain (Mozumder, 2022).

Moreover, 51% attacks, where an attacker can double-spend by capturing the majority of hashing power in the network, has become a real threat, especially for altcoins. Mining leasing services have made these attacks even more accessible by making it easier for attackers to rent hashrate. This has led to several high-value cryptocurrency attacks. While the industry learned about these attacks from media reports and exchange disclosures, 51% attacks are difficult to detect as they are often temporary. To solve this problem, a system was developed to detect chain rearrangements and report double-spending transactions. This system aims to guide the industry on security management by calculating the cost of attacks. Since 2019, more than 40 chain reorganisations have been detected in various coins including BTG, HANA, and VTC (MIT Digital Currency Initiative, n.d.). Apart from these types of technical problems, the idea of decentralization also brings with it political economic debate that has yet to be resolved.

To learn about the experiences and thoughts of the artists on this particular topic, we asked many questions about the relations of art and power in order to reveal the expectations and predictions on how decentralization could work in creative practices.

• Blockchain technology is expected to decentralize the art world through Web3 communities.
• The idea of decentralization has many complexities and challenges that have yet to be resolved.
• We are far from seeing decentralized interoperable platforms.
• Web3 platforms are implicitly tied to the centralized economy.

These tensions around decentralization extend into questions of aesthetic value itself, challenging us to reconsider how traditional concepts of artistic worth operate within blockchain-mediated environments.

4. On which values are the post-digital aesthetics in the Web3 art environment shaped?

We posed various questions to the artists to understand the place of some classic concepts in the philosophy of art (including subject-object relationship, creativity, originality, aura, etc.) in Web3 art. Although it was difficult to reach a theme in the data we obtained, we tried to interpret the answers we received. The artworks we examine pave the way for a new subject-object debate that creates a translocal emotional field.

The artists generally evaluated these questions within the framework of the question of ‘how an artwork can be a good work of art.’ In particular, the concept of ‘originality’ stood out for almost all of the artists as one of the main values that make an artwork ‘a good work of art.’

Ayık (2024) introduces the concept of cyber aura in response to communication problems and points of resistance within NFT-based art communities. This concept is discussed in relation to Norbert Wiener’s cybernetics theory, which emphasizes the importance of information transmission, system regulation, and resistance to entropy within communication channels. The concept of cyber aura is a useful reconceptualization of artistic value in distributed digital environments. Unlike Benjamin’s notion of aura, which was reduced, if not lost altogether through mechanical reproduction, blockchain technologies introduce a new form of digital scarcity and authenticity verification that creates value through encoded uniqueness within reproducible digital objects. This reconfiguration challenges us to think beyond traditional binaries of original/copy and instead consider how value emerges through verifiable provenance, community recognition, and technological mediation. It serves as a helpful conceptual framework for understanding digital art.

Although the relationship between the artist and the collector has undergone a transformation, in the context of Web3 art, it is possible to speak of a shift beyond conventional notions of ownership toward the concept of “hyper-ownership” facilitated by DAOs. This form of hyper-ownership emerges through mechanisms such as the karmic funding cycle, quadratic voting, and self-organization (Gloerich, 2025). As a result, the ownership of an artwork is no longer tied to a fixed commodity value; instead, it becomes a mode of support that helps define the direction of a micro-community. This approach also creates a space for rethinking the ontology of the artwork itself.

The concept of ‘creativity,’ especially in cases where artificial intelligence is used, and the ‘uniqueness’ of each product created by the algorithm in long-form generative art require us to rethink the concept of ‘aura.’ Artistic works gain a new “scarcity” (Chohan, 2021) through their connection to a unique and immutable code linked to the blockchain. This adds authenticity, originality, and value to these works, reviving, in Benjaminian terms, the ‘aura’ and fetishization lost in their reproducibility (Luis, 2024). However, since blockchain technology is fundamentally based on transparency and traceability, it remains uncertain whether this ‘aura’ can be fully re-established. Keeping this in mind, we might pose the question of whether Web3 art requires a Benjaminian aura. These developing conceptions of artistic value become particularly interesting when we consider how algorithmic processes and artificial intelligence complicate traditional notions of creative authorship.

5. How do algorithmic and generative creative practices relate to AI?

In this section, in line with the interviews, we focus on the themes related to long-form generative art in which artificial intelligence is involved.

Generative art refers to any art practice where the artist uses a system, such as a set of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine, or other procedural invention, which is set into motion with some degree of autonomy contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art (Galanter, 2003).

Generative art, of which we have seen examples since the 1960s - or perhaps even earlier - is an artform based on certain characteristics such as algorithm, randomness, uncertainty and autonomy. Long-form generative art, on the other hand, encompasses all these characteristics, but becomes specific in its use of artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies. In long-form generative practices, since the artist does not directly intervene in the output, they need to optimize the algorithm so that each output can adequately represent the artwork as a whole. It also requires collectors to know the algorithm in depth, which radically changes the way art is evaluated (Hobbs, 2021). In this process, artificial intelligence is used to save labour. Artists use open-source and proprietary datasets to integrate machine learning into artworks in various ways.

• Long-form generative art combines blockchain technology, algorithmic art and artificial intelligence.
• In algorithmic art, AI helps overcome challenges that are difficult or impossible to overcome in a physical environment.
• Although AI saves workload, it requires extra effort to add meaning and depth to the output.

Understanding these technical and conceptual frameworks requires additional attention to the broader intellectual and creative genealogies that inform contemporary Web3 artistic practice.

6. Artists’ Inspirations

Although it is challenging to limit the sources of inspiration of artists, it may be possible to talk about similar sources and tools. A wide variety of programming languages, libraries, tools, data sets such as p5.js, ml5.js, Max/MSP, Python, Processing, OpenFrameworks, three.js, Turtle and PyProcessing are important factors in determining the output. We can talk about the history of Nature, Data, Science and Art, biographical elements and the interaction of all these with computer science as a source of inspiration for artists working in this field.

In fact, the past decade has seen a proliferation of publications, artworks, conferences, workshops, and exhibitions contributing to the ongoing effort to rethink blockchain through artistic and activist perspectives. For many artists, the very idea of ​​decentralization has served as an expansive framework—one that enables the exploration of possibilities that are not yet real, but may potentially come into being in the future.

Artists shape their practices by drawing inspiration from concepts such as collective mind, gamification and mutual solidarity. In addition to these forms of interactive narrative, artists are also inspired by social and economic principles of the commons, collective intelligence and interdependence. The sustainability of commons-managed resources and collective decision-making processes offer new possibilities in both art production and distribution. The concept of ‘egregore’ - that is, the collective spirit of individuals acting towards a common goal - especially in DAO (Decentralised Autonomous Organisation) structures allows them to determine their own wishes and desires in closed and private spaces. In parallel, the model of mutualism (Horowitz, 2021), based on the principle of mutual solidarity, offers an inspiring ground for artists. This model aims to build long-term resilience and justice by prioritising community-based approaches over individualism. In this context, artists become representatives not only of individual creativity but also of community-based forms of production (Gloerich, 2025:16).

Results and Comments

Our analysis demonstrates that blockchain technologies are not merely alternative mechanisms for selling, exhibiting, and archiving artistic works, but, we argue, are reshaping creative practices and value systems within digital art. Particularly within algorithmic and generative technologies, blockchain potentially enables new forms of creator-audience relationships, challenges traditional notions of authorship, and creates possibilities for collective creativity that were previously difficult to realize.

In this context, it is important to question the dominant narratives that define creativity solely through individual authorship and profit motivation. As Berry (2008) puts it, “the argument for a ‘creative’ economy can... cast everyone in the unlikely Thatcherite model of one-dimensional profit-motivated entrepreneurs rather than complex and multifaceted human beings.” Moreover, this narrative often overlooks the “army of teachers, friends, peers, producers, editors and managers” behind every creative output, reminding us that “no woman or man is an island and creativity is always a collective achievement.

Decentralised structures supported by technical infrastructure and communities formed in Web3 are changing and reshaping many paradigms about the functioning of artistic creativity on a minor level by creating new systems through experimental processes. We argue that the use of blockchain technology as a new tool for artistic expression in this ecosystem triggers interesting associations and intuitions in terms of artistic creativity. We also discuss collective creativity within the value system of Web3 art and how this creativity can change the basis for artistic and sophisticated forms of decision-making.

Based on the examples we have analysed, we can metaphorically use the concept of an octopus mind to map such an understanding of creativity. In this way, we can take into account the blurred roles between the artist and the collector, Web3 platforms and the involvement of communities, and position the artist as a catalyser that initiates this. In the functioning of the work of art, within the understanding of relational aesthetics, the rules set by the artist define various roles or missions for the collector or the viewer through smart contracts. In many samples, artificial intelligence, robotics and various non-human actors are also involved in this creative practice, and all actors are involved in a collective endeavour, similar to sensors and limbs. Although the entire process, including the beginning, is still the responsibility of the artist or the creative team, the final output, the artwork, is created through the coordination and micro-decisions of many actors through mechanisms such as quadratic voting, self-organisation, and the karmic funding cycle.

The final work of such a creative practice raises new debates in terms of ownership, hyper-ownership, fractional ownership of the work of art. The Web3 collector economically supports the idea in which they actively participate or adopt. Therefore, it is still a controversial issue how much of the final product belongs to the collector, how much to the artist and how much to the community. This process may vary depending on the production process of the artwork and the rules/values ​​of the micro-community.

In this process, collectors move towards becoming a part of the artwork in both the economic and cultural spheres rather than being its direct owner. Thus, in order to experience or support the creative practice that emerges, blockchain technology can contribute to the development of new forms of engagement with the work of art in our understanding of creativity.

Discussion

The direction of technological advancement is largely shaped by research and infrastructure funded by public institutions or other funding bodies. In this context, the relationships between culture, art, technology, and power dynamics—emphasized in the interviews we conducted—form the main axis of this discussion.

As Gloerich (2025:169) states: “While they may not be able to dismantle the power of capitalism in the near future, artistic and activist experiments with DAOs and similar socio-technical systems can reinvigorate an economic and political awareness that is necessary for people to start building alternatives to extractive and oppressive structures and power relations.” These systems offer significant tools for rethinking and redesigning the infrastructure of the art world.

However, this potential is tested within the structural precarities of the art world and is often limited by existing financial pressures. In the fields of art and culture, both public and private funding are increasingly under strain in various contexts. Indeed, it is often the imperatives of capital that ultimately determine which forms of decentralized networks are realized.

Under such conditions, it can be argued that Web3 art faces the risk of becoming part of the increasingly homogenized mainstream culture and art world. Therefore, it is crucial for Web3 art to sustain its potential to foster an alternative, critical, and creative understanding both aesthetically and politically. At the same time, this field should be rethought and repositioned through the lens of social entrepreneurship.

Acknowledgments

This research was carried out with the support of the University of Sussex (as a Visiting Research Fellow in the School of Media, Arts and Humanities), TÜBİTAK (within the scope of the 2219 post-doctoral scholarship programme), and Giresun University (through financial support provided during my sabbatical leave).

I am deeply grateful to the artists with whom I conducted interviews — Golan Levin, Operator (Ania Catherine), Harvey Rayner, Ana Maria Caballero, Bas Uterwijk (Ganbrood), and Matt DesLauriers — for generously sharing their time, insights, and experiences. I am also grateful to Dr. Can Koçak, Dr. Alex Castelar-Cerna, Dr. Mustafa Kemal Özkul, and researcher Seda Ateş for their contributions through the essays that accompany this interview.I would like to express my special thanks to Helen J. Burgess and the Hyperrhiz team for encouraging me to publish this work in a special issue and for suggesting that I include introductions before each interview. I would like to thank my dear spouse, Rıdvan Özkerim, M.Sc. for his contributions to the essays and especially for patiently answering my endless technical questions throughout the research process. I also extend my sincere thanks to my esteemed colleagues, artist and academic Assoc. Prof. Dr. Leyla Aliyeva Önen; artist and doctoral researcher Sandy Di Yu; and Prof. Dr. Cem Sefa Sütçü for their valuable contributions. I am likewise thankful to MAH Research Manager Laura Vellacott for her continued support throughout the project from University of Sussex.

I would particularly like to thank my dear supervisor Prof. David M. Berry for being inspirational and transformative, who sponsored my arrival in Sussex and subsequently supported me in many aspects of my research, from sample selection to the formulation of interview questions and the shaping and analysis of the overall research framework; without his support this study would not have been possible.

Bibliography

Akbaş, Y. (2017). “Güneydoğuda Kaçak Elektrik ile Bitcoin Madenciliği Yapılıyor.” Donanım Haber. donanimhaber.com/Guneydoguda-kacak-elektrik-ile-Bitcoin-madenciligi-yapiliyor--96183.

Akten, M. (2021). CriptoArt.wtf [Web page]. web.archive.org/web/20210309074916/http://cryptoart.wtf/.

Akten, M., Bucknell, A., Lovink, G., De Filippi, P., Bailey, J., Diamond, C., REAS, C., Lakoubay, F., Jochim, B., & Estorick, A. (Ed.). (2021). Episode V. toward a new ecology of crypto art: A hybrid manifesto. Flash Art. flash---art.com/2021/02/episode-v-towards-a-new-ecology-of-crypto-art/.

Alizart, M. (2020). Cryptocommunisim. Librebook Press.

Anadol, R. (2021). Crypto Art and Unexplored Areas of NFTs | Bitcoin and Art with Efsun Erkılıç. youtube.com/watch?v=Izsu56AcFVQ&t=448s

Aria, R., Norm A., Moein K., and Bharat S. (2023). “Influential Factors in the Design and Development of a Sustainable Web3/Metaverse and Its Applications.” Future Internet, 15(4), 131. doi:10.3390/fi15040131.

Ayık Ersoy, Y. (2024). Teknolojik determinizm perspektifinden sanatın dijitalleşmesi ve NFT ile sanatın dönüşümü: Aura kavramı ve direnç unsurları (Doktora Tezi, Marmara University, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of Informatics).

Belchior, R.; Vasconcelos, A.; Guerreiro, S.; Correia, M. (2021). A Survey on Blockchain Interoperability: Past, Present, and Future Trends. ACM Comput. Surv., 54, 1–41.

Berry, D. M. (2008). Copy, Rip, Burn: The politics of copyleft and open source. Pluto Press.

Berry, D. M. (2025, March). The material paradox of a strategic Bitcoin reserve. Stunlaw. stunlaw.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-material-paradox-of-strategic.html.

Chohan, U. W. (2021). “Non-fungible Tokens:Blockchains, Scarcity, and Value.” Critical Blockchain Research Initiative (CBRI) Working Papers.

Cryptoart. (2021, March 9). web.archive.org/web/20210309074916/http://cryptoart.wtf.

Galanter, P. (2003). What is generative art? Complexity theory as a context for art theory. Generative Art Journal. generativeart.com/on/cic/papersGA2003/a22.htm.

Gloerich, I. (2025). Artists, activists, and worldbuilders on decentralised autonomous organisations: Conversations about funding, self-organisation, and reclaiming the future. Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam. networkcultures.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Artists-Activists-Worldbuilders-on-DAOs.pdf

Herzfeld, M. (2002). The Absence Presence: Discourses of Crypto-Colonialism. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 101(4), 899-926. muse.jhu.edu/article/39112.

Hobbs, T. (2021). The Rise of Long Form Generative Art. tylerxhobbs.com/essays/2021/the-rise-of-long-form-generative-art.

Horowitz, S. (2021). Mutualism: Building the Next Economy from the Ground Up, New York: Random House.

Isidro Luna, V. M. (2022). Book Review: Cryptocommunism. Capital & Class, 46(4), 593-595. doi:10.1177/03098168221129403c

Liddell, F. (2021). Building Shared Guardianship through Blockchain Technology and Digital Museum Objects. Museum & Society Special Issue: Digital (and) Materiality in Museums, 19(2), 220–236. doi:10.29311/mas.v19i2.3495.

Luis D. Rivero Moreno (2024). Art on the chain? On the possibilities of new media art preservation on the Web3, Digital Creativity 35(3), 221-233. doi:10.1080/14626268.2024.2348035.

MIT Digital Currency Initiative. (n.d.). 51% attacks. dci.mit.edu/projects/51-percent-attacks.

Mozumder, A.I.; Sheeraz, M.M.; Athar, A.; Aich, S.; Kim, H.-C. (2022). Overview: Technology Roadmap of the Future Trend of Metaverse based on IoT, Blockchain, AI Technique, and Medical Domain Metaverse Activity. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology, PyeongChang, South Korea, 13–16 February 2022; pp. 256–261.

Nacher, A., Pold, S. B., & Rettberg, S. (2023). “Pandemic Genres: Processing the COVID-19 Pandemic through Electronic Literature.” Hyperrhiz: New Media Cultures, no. 26. doi:10.20415/hyp/026.e01.

Nandini, M., Alessandretti, L., Di Giancinto, F., Martino, M., Aiello, L., & Baronchelli, A. (2021). Mapping the NFT Revolution: Market Trends, Trade Networks, and Visual Features. Scientific Reports. nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00053-8.

Okonkwo, I. (2021). NFT, Copyright; and Intellectual Property Commercialisation. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 29(4) pp.296-304. academic.oup.com/ijlit/article-abstract/29/4/296/6433295?login=false.

O’Dwyer, R. (2023). Tokens: The future of money in the age of the platform. Verso.

Rayner, H. (2022). Why Long-Form Generative Art Could Evolve into the Most Significant Artistic Movement in the Last 50 Years. Medium. medium.com/@harvey.rayner/why-long-form-generative-art-could-evolve-into-the-most-significant-artistic-movement-in-the-last-8076a6722673.

Özkerim Güven, M. (2024). Blok Zincir Teknolojisinin Plastik Sanatlardaki Etkileri ve NFT’lerin Kısa Tarihi. Güzel Sanatlar Alanında Gelişmeler. Platanus Publishing.

%51 Attacks. (n.d.). Erişim tarihi: 24.09.2024. dci.mit.edu/51-attacks.

Steyerl, H. (2023). The Algorithmic State: Hito Steyerl - The Algorithmic State is Burning. youtube.com/watch?v=OUboogjsr-8&t=11s.

Steyerl, H. (2016, October). If you don’t have bread, eat art!: Contemporary art and derivative fascism. e-flux Journal, 76. e-flux.com/journal/76/59726/if-you-dont-have-bread-eat-art-contemporary-art-and-derivative-fascism/.

Web page. Erişim tarihi: 24.09.2024. web3.foundation/projects/.