Aesthetics Art Art Computing Artificial Intelligence Uncategorized

Contemporary “AI Art” In Context

The “AI” used by current “AI Art” is machine learning – recursive neural networks or linear regression if you want to deflate it. These algorithms are not “artists”, they are tools or faculties. Harold Cohen’s long-running AARON project, software written under the previous AI paradigm of “expert systems” was an apprentice or studio assistant. Its use of explicit written rules also makes it a form of discourse. Machine learning could be used to produce digital muses but for the most part AI inflates menial work rather than deflating the status of the artist or their inspiration.

Appropriating a GAN is appropriation art and, ignoring the legal status of appropriation art and the political question of who-appropriates-whom, can be evaluated as such. Appropriating kitsch or canonical high art is a critical move. The critical value of appropriating the art of peers is less clear. Art GANs have at least a claim to the status of art or artistic materials. The producers of it have at least a claim to the status of artists. To treat the products of the GAN as found objects and the GAN’s algorithm as their author is a conceptually provocative move but its precedents lie in the erasure of skilled labour in the work of Koons and Kostabi.

GANs produce pastiches and AST produces interpretations. These are robust art historical categories and are hardly unprecedented. Art that falls into these categories should not be fetishised or rejected based merely on a misapprehension of novelty.

An AI-generated pastiche is of something that (almost certainly) does not exist. This non-existence may consist in several senses:

  1. The image produced does not exist in the training set.
  2. The image produced does not exist in the oeuvre, genre, movement or medium that the training set draws from.
  3. The image did not previously exist and exists only as this image. This is trivial compared to the other senses but it the sense of existence usually meant.
  4. The entities depicted by the image do not exist in reality.
  5. The entities depicted by the image have never existed in the arrangement or event depicted.

An AI-generated interpretation is of something that (almost certainly) does not look like that interpretation.

  1. Where the interpretation is of photographic imagery (in the last moment of its popular acceptance as a mechanical capturing of reality) the results will not resemble it due to the imposition of the distortions and modulations of artistic style.
  2. Where the interpretation is of one artist’s work in the style of another, the results will not stylistically resemble the source work. This is trivial but it usefully illustrates the level at whist AST operates.

At the level of content the introduction, removal, or alteration of subjects and themes is approached more by Deep Dream’s “puppyslugs” than by other contemporary methods. Even then it is a Surrealist’s idees fixes that intrude from the AI’s “subconscious” into every image rather than a freer or more reflective play of concepts and influences.

The current tools of AI art fit neatly into the history of artistic tools and art theory but begin to problematize them.

  1. Historical styles being competently revived may no longer simply be forgery or quotation.
  2. Influence (and at the level of law, copyright infringement) becomes both mechanically explicit and operationally diffuse.
  3. The impact of AI on art is an automation of production, replacing manufacturing jobs the same as in other industries.
  4. The opacity of artist’s explanations of the construction of their work is doubled, as the artist is now using tools that perform actions for reasons that may be opaque to them.

The technology used in contemporary AI art is that which threatens democracy with facial recognition and deep fake images, video and text. Its explanatory opacity (why does the image look like this, which exact sources did it draw on, etc.) can be addressed by the same systems that are being developed to address the need to explain the operation of algorithms within corporations, law enforcement and other powerful organizations if they are to remain accountable. So this entanglement can be critically and politically positive where it is acknowledged and explored.

Current AI art works at the level of style, in the shallows of form. To extend their reach through the realm of form more profoundly and into subject and content is possible with current tools should we choose to do so. This may require more complex pipelines of generation, classification and search but these can be constructed within the same frameworks that current systems are.

The operation of GANs tends to produce art with a compositional scheme of all-overness, for the composition as a whole and for any object (rarely objects) within it. This has a deconstructive effect, deterritorializing an image corpus and reterritorializing it in novel compositions that find new local maxima in the dissolved state space of the corpus’s images. These images are latent in the corpus, generated from within it but lying outside of it. The local sense but global nonsense of markov chains and dreams. The challenge of a new metastability, but only of a new metastability.

Now, about AI curation, collection and critique…

(With thanks to Cynthia Gayton and Seryna Myers.)


“Code Is Law” Shall Be The Whole Of The Law

In “Code And Other Laws of Cyberspace“, American legal scholar Lawrence Lessig distilled the argument of his earlier essay “The Constitution of Code” to sum up the unintended effects of Internet network protocols and server software on the regulation of human behaviour in what was then called “cyberspace’:

In real space, we recognize how laws regulate— through constitutions, statutes, and other legal codes. In cyberspace we must understand how a different “code” regulates—how the software and hardware (i.e., the “code” of cyberspace) that make cyberspace what it is also regulate cyberspace as it is. As William Mitchell puts it, this code is cyberspace’s “law.” “Lex Informatica,” as Joel Reidenberg first put it, or better, “code is law.”

Code v2.0 p.5

“Code is law” is an inspired turn of phrase. But as written it is a descriptive statement rather than a prescriptive one. Not “code must be law” but “code happens to share some salient features with law in the ways that it constrains human action online”.

As with the concept of the negative freedom of free speech, “code is law” can become (mis)understood as a positive, prescriptive norm in environments that collapse the distinction between expression and effect by embodying them in software. For Ethereum no less than for LambdaMOO, all the world is code and to speak is to change that world. Code is speech, after all, as Bernstein v. Department of Justice established in the US.

“Code is law” became an early slogan of the Ethereum Comunity. Inspired by Nick Szabo’s concept of “smart contracts” and the possibility of organizing human collaboration and allocating economic resources on the blockchain, this made sense. To model contracts in software that runs independently of human control makes code law in a more literal way than internet protocols do.

And then the DAO hack happened.

A single bug in “The DAO“, code running on the Ethereum blockchain to gather and manage investments in new projects, allowed an attacker to start draining fifty million dollars worth of cryptocurrency from it into their own account. As the attack progressed the community tried different strategies to slow down or stop it, but they could not reverse it.

If “code is law” is a normative statement for code running on the Ethereum blockchain, then the effects of the attack should not be reversed. The fact that the behaviour that was encoded in the DAO was absolutely not the behaviour that was intended by its human authors was irrelevant. Whatever the outcome of the code, it is correct because code is the just regulator of human behaviour on the network. The solution to failing to correctly translate human intentions into machine code running on top of the Ethereum blockchain is just to write better code next time. The no-takesy-backsies principle must reign supreme.

“Code is law” also applies to the code that runs the Ethereum blockchain itself, though, underneath any code that runs on it like The DAO. That code can be modified, deployed to the network, and run with newly changed behaviour independently of the code running on top of it. And whatever the outcome of doing this, if code is law here as well then it is correct because, well, code is the just regulator of human behaviour that is modelled in code on the Ethereum blockchain.

Heated debate about whether on-chain bugs or off-chain patches should be the ultimate arbiter of code-is-law led to two versions of Ethereum splitting from each other shortly after the DAO hack. (I didn’t participate in the DAO, and my concern at the time was to see the least harm done to Ethereum as a project and to avoid setting a precedent, I’m writing here entirely with the benefit of hindsight.) A modified version of the Ethereum software that neutralised the attack transfers (with apologies to critics who love to call this a “rollback“) gained majority support from the network. An initially unmodified version continued as “Ethereum Classic“.

The irony to Ethereum Classic is that once a choice had to be made whether to run the version of the Etherum network that neutralised the DAO hack or not, human choice determines which code is law. Where this decision can be implemented simply, rather than having to overcome path-dependent processes, code is not sovereign. To be sure, changes to Internet protocols are designed and implemented by human beings. But the era when the fundamental protocols of the Internet could be changed simply or quickly is long gone. Ipv6 adoption, for example, has already taken more than two decades with no end currently in sight.

We could argue that if code is not law for Ethereum Classic then code is doubly not law on the main Ethereum fork because not only was the protocol code changed but the effects of the on-chain attack were changed as well. But this would obscure the more fundamental choice. Which is between “code is law” as a normative statement for Ethereum Classic and as a descriptive statement for Ethereum.

The former becomes a contradiction as soon as it is implemented by human beings.

While I was writing this essay news came in of a series of 51% attacks on Ethereum Classic, with an attacker rolling back its blockchain over a thousand blocks in one instance. The response of Ethereum Classic’s developers has been to retain lawyers off-chain.

If code is law is the use of code on computers to bring hash power to bear on a blockchain also law? At the level of the code that runs the Ethereum Classic blockchain, yes it is (I am not a lawyer, and I mean this in the same sense as the original statement that “code is law”…). A 51% attack is simply a choice of which chain to mine with which software. This is how the Ethereum Classic Chain came into existence in the first place.

We can try to extract a coherent ethics from all of this. The operating system, blockchain network and on-chain software levels of code can all be examined as sites where “code is law” can be descriptive or prescriptive and where deploying resources to run different code can be argued to be just or unjust.

But if recourse to these resources, and to the resources of the fiat economy and to centralized state law, is a human choice then seeking to simply normatively assert that code is law proceeds from a contradiction. It becomes at best a taboo. And to seek to enforce that taboo through state legal means intensifies the contradiction more than a little.

As proof-of-stake systems and maturing blockchain protocol software locks in the operation of on-chain software the normative sense of “code is law” will gain in strength alongside the descriptive sense.

But the ethics of blockchain software operation will remain a more complex game for some time yet.



Sam Hart and Sarah Hamerman curated artworks on the theme of “Secrets” for a show in the OmiseGO Vault in the basement of San Francisco Mint for the Decentralised Web Summit 2018.

This included my new project “Secret Artwork (Content)”, projected onto the metal wall of the Vault. It’s one of the more explicit call-backs to Conceptual Art that I’ve made. A smart contract contains the encrypted description of the artwork’s content and a web-based presentation of that smart contract’s information does everything it can to distract you from the fact that it is not telling you what that content is.

More about it on the project page.

Crypto Philosophy Uncategorized


A “bit” is a basic unit of information entropy. It’s binary, either on or off, present or absent, one or zero.

A “string” in computer programming is a sequence of items of a particular length. They may be fixed or variable length. Eight, sixteen, thirty-two and sixty-four bit numbers are fixed length. A text string is variable length.

A byte is a series of eight bits that’s used as a standard representation for typographic characters, colour values and many other things. Up until IBM’s OS/360 project in the late 1960s there was no real standard for this – computers might be decimal, or alphabetic, or have “words” of sizes from four to twenty-four bits. Some Soviet computers of the same period used ternary logic rather than binary. Alan Turing used a logarithmic measure of information entropy called a “ban“. So be wary of naturalising the bit and the eight-bit byte, but when you see bits grouped together in strings of lengths that divide neatly into eight, recognise that this is related to the reality of how most modern computer sytems divide up their memory.)

Bitstrings can be used to represent the presence or absence of properties. A fixed-length bitstring is a bitfield, but we’re going to stick with the more general name. Integer numbers represented in binary use bits to represent the presence or absence of quantities of increasing sizes within the number. 0110 is six in a four bit “nibble”. UNIX filesystems represent the permissions that the owner and other users of a file have to access and manipulate it as a sequence of bits.

Such bitfields can be found throughout computing. The satirical proposal for an “evil bit” to be set on Internet messages that have evil intent, shows both the prevalence of bitstrings and their users awareness of the limitations of binary thinking and computational representation.

As with their use to represent integer numbers using binary, bits can represent doubling or halving of quantities. It takes 33 bits of entropy to uniquely identify an individual among seven billion on Earth. Cryptographic hashes, which produce compact unique “names” for any input file of any length, often output 128, 160 or 256 bit values. Each bit doubles the possible size, quantity, or uniqueness of the thing it represents. It also doubles the size of the space in which it can hide.

Contemporary cryptographic encoding and signing systems use keys several thousand bits in length. They would take a conventional computer an infeasable amount of time to break. This property is used in Bitcoin mining to create cryptographic puzzles that require capital outlay to solve.

A proposal for “vectored signatures” for the “V” version control system uses features of these different strings of bits. It represents assertions about an individual’s relationship to and opinion of a piece of code using a bitstring. It asserts the identity of that individual using cryptographic signatures. This combination is a generalization of cryptographic “keysigning” as recognition of identity, and the fact that Bitcoin transactions involve cryptographic signatures of communications between individuals about single-dimensional (monetary) quantities.

The bitstring representation of logical operators developed by the Logical Geometry project provides a compact and information-rich notation for various logics. Each bit represents a fact about an operator such as “true in all possible worlds”, and relates to geometric and trellis representations of the same operators. Bitwise operations on these representations are meaningful – for example bitwise NOT on p (1100) gives ¬p (0011).

The combination of logically manipulable bitstring representations (as with Logical Geometry) asserted through cryptographic signatures (as with vectored signatures) seems like a possibly fruitful area of investigation.

Art Crypto Ethereum Projects Uncategorized

“Hot Cold” on Homestead


Here’s “Hot Cold” live on the Ethereum “Homestead” network.

“Hot Cold” calls back to Art & Language’s 1960s Conceptual Art involving abstract aesthetic properties. It looks (and is implemented to be) twice as complex as “Is Art“, but it’s still really only one bit of information.

You can run the user interface locally in a web browser with an Ethereum node such as geth. Once geth is running, the user interface can get the contract’s state from the blochchain and, if you have Ether for gas, modify it. If someone else changes the contract’s state, you’ll see this updated.

If you want to change the contract’s status without using the user interface, you can do so using the contract’s address and ABI in EtherWallet.

The address:


The ABI:

Art Crypto Ethereum Projects Uncategorized

“Is Art” On Homestead


Ethereum has been live for several months now and has progressed to the point where the network has been declared stable.

So I’m deploying my contract artworks to the Ethereum blockchain. First up is “Is Art“.

“Is Art” is an Ethereum contract that can be instructed to nominate itself as art (or not). Whoever toggles the contract’s state as art sets it unimpeded until the next person sends a transaction to change it. A more rational system should be used – bidding, voting, a prediction market. The Duchampian aesthetic transubstantiation of artistic nomination is long played out. It is an art historical found object, as basic as a contract with a single bit of state. Brought together, the art historical and the contemporarily technological (or their audiences) can mutually animate and interrogate each other.

You can run the user interface locally in a web browser with an Ethereum node such as geth. Once geth is running, the user interface can get the contract’s state from the blochchain and, if you have Ether for gas, modify it. If someone else changes the contract’s state, you’ll see this updated.

If you want to change the contract’s status without using the user interface, you can do so using the contract’s address and ABI in EtherWallet.

The address:


The ABI:


For instructions on how to do this, see the “Contracts” pane in EtherWallet.

Ethereum Projects Uncategorized

Ethereum: Truffle + Meteor

Meteor is the recommended development framework for Ethereum dApps. Truffle is Consensys’ development  system for Ethereum dApps. We cannot currently add a Meteor build phase to Truffle, but we can integrate them easily enough with a script.

Install Meteor, Truffle and testrpc:

curl | sh
sudo npm install -g truffle
sudo npm install -g ethereumjs-testrpc

Then create a file called truffle-meteor-build, in ~/bin or somewhere else easily accessible and paste the following into it:


# By Rob Myers 
# CC0 2016
# To the extent possible under law, the person who associated CC0 with this
# work has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work.

# We copy the .meteor/ dir from app/ into the specified environment's build/ dir
# then call meteor-build-client in there, building into a meteor/ directory
# next to build/ .

if [ "${1}" = "-h" ] || [ "${1}" = "--help" ]
    echo "Usage: truffle-meteor-build [environment]"
    echo "       Copies the .meteor directory from app into the truffle build,"
    echo "       then calls meteor-build-client."
    echo "ARGS:  [environment] - The truffle environment to use (default developmpment)."
    echo "       Make sure you have npm install -g meteor-build-client"
    echo "       and meteor init in the truffle app/ directory."


if [ ! -f "${base_dir}/truffle.json" ]
    echo "Please call from within the top level of a Truffle project."
    exit 1


if [ ! -d "${environment_dir}" ]
    echo "Cannot find directory for environment ${environment}."
    exit 1

pushd "${base_dir}" > /dev/null
echo "Truffle: building ${environment} in ${truffle_build_dir}"
truffle build "${environment}"
cp -r "${app_dir}/.meteor" "${truffle_build_dir}"
pushd "${truffle_build_dir}" > /dev/null
echo "Meteor: building client in ${meteor_build_dir}"
meteor-build-client "${meteor_build_dir}" -p ''
popd > /dev/null
popd > /dev/null

And make it executable:

chmod +x truffle-meteor build

In one shell window start testrpc:


In another shell window create the Truffle/Meteor project:

mkdir truffle-meteor
truffle init
cd truffle-meteor
cd app
rm -rf *
meteor create .
meteor add ethereum:elements

This will create files called app.html, app.js, and app.css . You can rename them to whatever you like. Open truffle-meteor/truffle.json in a text editor and make sure the filenames match those in app/, that the Javascript file has the requisite post-processing commands to add Truffle and the Contract code and that there are no post-process commands for the HTML files.

The results should look similar to this:

  "build": {
    "is-art.html": {
      "files": [
      "post-process": []
    "is-art.js": {
      "files": [
      "post-process": [
    "app.css": [
    "images/": "images/"
  "deploy": [
  "rpc": {
    "host": "localhost",
    "port": 8545

Edit the contract, HTML, CSS and JavaScript as needed.

Deploy the contract:

truffle deploy

Then build the meteor project:


You can now open the Meteor client in a web browser:

chromium environments/development/meteor/index.html

As you continue to develop the project you can reload the Meteor client in the web browser to see your changes. Make sure you keep testrpc running – if you stop and restart it you’ll need to deploy the contracts again.


Artwork Of The Century

Shareable Readymades Sheet

Great at the London Art fair – Rob Myers ‘Artwork of the Century’ shareable ready-mades with ‘Certificate of Inauthenticity’

(Image and quote – Bruno Martelli.)

Art Computing Free Software Generative Art Projects Uncategorized

Minara 0.4.0


I’ve been making the regular (accidentally) six-yearly update to Minara, my vector graphics program.

The new version switches from GLUT to Gtk for the windowing system, from GLU to Cairo for the renderer, and from C to pure Scheme for the core application. It’s all written in The GNU project’s Guile Scheme system.

Minara is Lisp all the way down: the application, tools, and graphics files are all written in Scheme. It’s designed as an environment for 2D generative vector art hacking.



Operationalizing curation, after a presentation by the excellent Mohammad Salemy.

The source code uses’s API to find and rank similar artists and extract their shared themes.

Here’s an example:

Andy Warhol

2000-present (29), United States (26), Painting (26), Popular Culture (19), Appropriation (18), Contemporary Pop (16), Mixed-Media (14), Cultural Commentary (13), Human Figure (13), Engagement with Mass Media (13), Sculpture (12), Figurative Painting (12), Installation Art (11), Advertising and Brands (10).

Elizabeth Peyton (0.44)

(American, 1965)

1990s, Abstract versus Figurative Art, Childhood, Engagement with Mass Media, Figurative Art, Figurative Painting, Glamour, Group of Portraits, Individual Portrait, Painting, Photographic Source, Popular Culture, Portrait, Related to Fashion, United States, Work on Paper.

Richard Phillips (0.44)

(American, 1962)

2000-present, Appropriation, Art in Art, Bright/Vivid, Cinematic, Contemporary Pop, Drawing, Engagement with Mass Media, Erotic, Figurative Painting, Glamour, Human Figure, Nude, Oil Painting, Painting, Photographic Source, Popular Culture, Portrait, Provocative, Related to Fashion, Related to Film, United States, Work on Paper.

Bäst (0.40)

(American )

2000-present, Abstract versus Figurative Art, Advertising and Brands, Americana, Appropriation, Bright/Vivid, Collage, Comic/Cartoon, Consumerism, Contemporary Faux Naïf, Contemporary Pop, Cultural Commentary, Face, Graffiti/Street Art, Human Figure, Hybrids and Imaginary Creatures, Layered Images, Mixed-Media, Multiple Styles, Painting, Patterns, Popular Culture, Printed Matter, Silkscreen, Site Specific Art, Text, The Fantastic, Typography, United States, Use of Vintage Imagery.

Jim Thompson (0.40)


2000-present, Advertising and Brands, Americana, Appropriation, Contemporary Pop, Contemporary Traces of Memory, Engagement with Mass Media, Figurative Art, Figurative Painting, Nostalgia, Oil Painting, Painting, Personal Histories, Photographic Source, Popular Culture, Representation of Everyday Objects, Sports/Athletics, United States.

David Kramer (0.40)

(American, 1963)

Advertising and Brands, Americana, Appropriation, Consumerism, Contemporary Pop, Engagement with Mass Media, Figurative Painting, Figurative Sculpture, Kitsch, Leisure, Mixed-Media, Painting, Photographic Source, Popular Culture, Representation of Everyday Objects, Sculpture, United States, Work on Paper.

Francesco Vezzoli (0.40)

(Italian, 1971)

2000-present, Advertising and Brands, Appropriation, Consumerism, Contemporary Conceptualism, Contemporary Pop, Cultural Commentary, Figurative Painting, Film/Video, Glamour, Human Figure, Italy, Mixed-Media, Myth/Religion, Nostalgia, Painting, Popular Culture, Provocative, Related to Fashion, Related to Film.

Russell Young (0.40)

(British, 1959)

Appropriation, Bright/Vivid, Celebrity, Color Photography, Cultural Commentary, Engagement with Mass Media, Glittery, Individual Portrait, Photography, Popular Culture, Portrait, Provocative, Silkscreen, United Kingdom and Ireland, United States, Unsettling.

James Rawson (0.36)

2000-present, Advertising and Brands, Appropriation, Consumerism, Contemporary Graphic Realism, Contemporary Pop, Cultural Commentary, Dense Composition, Engagement with Mass Media, Figurative Art, Figurative Painting, Human Figure, Oil Painting, Painting, Popular Culture, Text.

Kelley Walker (0.36)

(American, 1969)

1990s, Advertising and Brands, Appropriation, Bright/Vivid, Contemporary Pop, Dense Composition, Engagement with Mass Media, Installation Art, Mixed-Media, Painting, Photographic Source, Popular Culture, Racial and Ethnic Identity, Sculpture, Silkscreen, United States, Use of Common Materials.

Robert Mars (0.32)


2000-present, Advertising and Brands, Americana, Appropriation, Art in Art, Celebrity, Contemporary Pop, Cultural Commentary, Engagement with Mass Media, Human Figure, Layered Images, Mixed-Media, Painting, Printed Matter, Text, United States.

Leslie Holt (0.32)

(American , 1969)

2000-present, Appropriation, Collective History, Consumerism, Contemporary Pop, Cultural Commentary, Engagement with Mass Media, Figurative Painting, Food, Humor, Kitsch, Mixed-Media, Oil Painting, Painting, Popular Culture, Text, The Fantastic, United States.

Ryan McGinness (0.32)

(American, 1972)

2000-present, Abstract versus Figurative Art, Advertising and Brands, Bright/Vivid, Calligraphic, Consumerism, Contemporary Graphic Realism, Contemporary Pop, Design, Engagement with Mass Media, Erotic, Human Figure, Layered Images, Painting, Patterns, Popular Culture, Psychedelic, Sculpture, Silkscreen, United States, Work on Paper.

Kim Dong Yoo (0.32)

(Korean, 1965)

1990s, 2000-present, Appropriation, Celebrity, Contemporary Pop, Group of Portraits, Human Figure, Individual Portrait, Korea, Painting, Photographic Source, Photography, Political Figures, Popular Culture, Process-Oriented, Repetition.

Jack Early (0.28)

1990s, 2000-present, Americana, Celebrity, Contemporary Pop, Erotic, Figurative Art, Figurative Painting, Figurative Sculpture, Installation Art, Nude, Painting, Personal Histories, Popular Culture, Sculpture, United States.

Kim Luttrell (0.28)

(American, 1965)

2000-present, Appropriation, Collage, Collective History, Contemporary Graphic Realism, Contemporary Pop, Figurative Painting, Glamour, Human Figure, Individual Portrait, Mixed-Media, Painting, Popular Culture, Portrait, United States, Work on Paper.

Ronnie Cutrone (0.28)

(American, 1948)

1980s, Advertising and Brands, Comic/Cartoon, Cultural Commentary, Drawing, Engagement with Mass Media, Humor, Mixed-Media, Painting, Pop Art, Popular Culture, Representation of Everyday Objects, United States, Watercolor.

Douglas Gordon (0.28)

(Scottish, 1966)

1990s, Appropriation, Celebrity, Color Photography, Contemporary Conceptualism, Contemporary Gothic, Contemporary Pop, Cultural Commentary, Film/Video, Installation Art, Mixed-Media, Personal Histories, Photography, Popular Culture, Provocative, Relational Aesthetics, Repetition, Self-Portrait, United Kingdom and Ireland, United States, Unsettling.

Philip Hanson (0.20)

(American, 1943)

1960s, 1970s, Appropriation, Art Brut, Chicago Imagists, Comic/Cartoon, Etching/Engraving, Human Figure, Humor, Interiors, Outsider Art, Painting, Pop Art, Still Life, Text, United States, Work on Paper.

Sylvie Fleury (0.20)

(Swiss, 1961)

1990s, Appropriation, Color Photography, Contemporary Participation, Contemporary Pop, Film/Video, Found Objects, Glamour, Humor, Installation Art, Mixed-Media, Photography, Popular Culture, Provocative, Related to Fashion, Sculpture, Switzerland, Typography, Use of Common Materials.

John Ashbery (0.20)

(American, 1927)

1960s, Appropriation, Collage, Comic/Cartoon, Contemporary Pop, Contemporary Surrealistic, Human Figure, Illustration/Art, Mixed-Media, Pop Art, Popular Culture, The Fantastic, United States.

Duke Riley (0.16)

(American, 1972)

2000-present, City Scenes, Collective History, Conflict, Contemporary Conceptualism, Crime, Cultural Commentary, Drawing, Figurative Painting, Figures in Nature, Human Figure, Humor, Interactive, Mixed-Media, Modernizing of Traditional Technique, Modes of Transportation, Mosaics, Narrative, Nature, Nostalgia, Painting, Performance Art, Photography, United States, Water, Work on Paper.

Jim Morgan (0.16)

2000-present, Animals, Contemporary Academic Realism, Figurative Art, Figurative Painting, Landscapes, Nature, Oil Painting, Painting, United States, Water, Waterscapes.

Chuong Thanh (0.12)

2000-present, Abstract versus Figurative Art, Bright/Vivid, Figurative Art, Flatness, Fragmented Geometry, Human Figure, Painting, Picassoesque, Southeast Asia.

duane paul (0.12)

1990s, 2000-present, Abstract Art, Abstract Sculpture, Abstract versus Figurative Art, Assemblage, Decay, Figurative Art, Language, Personal Writing Systems, Process-Oriented, Racial and Ethnic Identity, Recycled, Sculpture, Sexual Identity, United States, Use of Common Materials, Wall Sculpture and Installation.

Matt Magee (0.12)

(American, 1961)

1990s, 2000-present, Abstract Art, Appropriation, Biomorphic, Collecting and Modes of Display, Contemporary Conceptualism, Found Objects, France, Hard-Edged, Language, Painting, Personal Histories, Personal Writing Systems, Sculpture, United States, Work on Paper.

Daniel Joseph (0.12)

2000-present, Contemporary Conceptualism, Diaristic, Engagement with Mass Media, Installation Art, Interactive, Line, Form and Color, Painting, Personal Histories, Sculpture, Text, United States.

Jane Hammond (0.12)

(American, 1950)

Abstract Art, Abstract Painting, Collage, Collecting and Modes of Display, Drawing, Language, Mixed-Media, Painting, Photographic Source, Printed Matter, Process-Oriented, Related to Literature, United States, Use of Common Materials.

Brendan Murphy (0.12)


2000-present, Abstract Art, Bright/Vivid, Calligraphic, Drawing, Flora, Human Figure, Mixed-Media, Nature, Painting, Portrait, Sports/Athletics, United States.

All data via’s API.