Interview
In Conversation with Dario Lanza on Catharsis and the preservation of digital art
by Natalia Gonzalez. March 9, 2023
Natalia Gonzalez is a researcher and expert in the preservation and conservation of New Media art.
Natalia Gonzalez: Good afternoon, Dario. Thank you very much for agreeing to this interview. I would like to begin by addressing the topic of authenticity protection in the context of digital art conservation. If you agree, we can start by discussing the concept of ownership and authorship within the artistic context of blockchain-based art.
Dario Lanza: Good afternoon, Natalia. First of all, it’s important to distinguish between the issues of ownership and authorship, and blockchain technology offers tools and solutions for both. To begin with, blockchain provides an immutable record of ownership at every point in time, who owns the work, how many hands it has passed through, and the value of each transaction. This information is indisputable. Authorship is another matter. If someone claims to be the author of an artwork they did not create, blockchain also addresses this, as the original author is recorded in an incorruptible manner within the blockchain contract. Thus, it protects authorship as well.
N.G.: Your project Catharsis (2022) emerged from the challenge of creating an algorithm capable of generating digital art that doesn’t feel geometric at all. Inspired by Abstract Expressionism, we can clearly observe the influence of artists like Jackson Pollock, without aiming to replicate them. What aspects do you consider most original and distinctive in your production that set it apart from others?
D.L.: I’ll answer in two parts: how Catharsis differs from its main reference, Jackson Pollock and other Abstract Expressionists, and how it differs from other generative projects. With such a clear reference in Pollock, I aimed not merely to emulate his aesthetic, but to inherit the energy, viscosity, and physicality found in his artworks. The risk, obviously, was getting so close that it becomes just a copy rather than something new.
Catharsis introduces at least three original aspects I consider important. First, it is the first generative project to assign a title to each piece in the collection. Typically, generative collections label pieces with its number in the series, which I found cold and numerical. I wanted the pieces to feel special, individual, and distinct. Therefore, I titled the 999 artworks after the most influential jazz pieces in history. Once a work has a title, your relationship with it changes, you seek meaning, make it your own, and it becomes unique. I believe this was a success, some titles have turned out to be almost providential, for example, when a piece titled with "Blue" happens to have a blue palette, or one called “Sunset” happened to appear in shades of orange and red.
Second, the concept of evolution. The 999 pieces follow a perceptible evolution from the first to the last. I love how, when you look at a work, you can identify whether it’s from Michelangelo’s youth or maturity, no two Michelangelos are alike, nor are all Picassos or Rothkos. This doesn’t happen in generative art, where work #1 typically feels no different from #500 or #900. I imagined a painter whose style evolves from tentative to frenzied. The result is a cathartic episode in which the 999 works progress from timidity to creative madness. Thus, Catharsis becomes not only a collection of individual cathartic artworks, but also as frames form a kind of animated sequence, a visual journey from serenity to delirium.
Lastly, there is the idea of continuity across the collection. I created a complex underlying structure where, for example, work #40 continues into #41, but also into #91 and #141, forward or backwards in multiples of fifty. Catharsis is a macro-puzzle of 999 pieces on a global scale. It’s a highly engaging collecting experience, giving collectors creative freedom to form combinations of diptychs and triptychs based on their personal taste.
N.G.: Catharsis is composed of 999 pieces, each with a unique title inspired by influential jazz works. What feelings does jazz evoke in you? Is it an important factor in producing these works?
D.L.: The first reason for using jazz titles is historical: Abstract Expressionism developed in the 1950s, and jazz was the dominant musical expression in the U.S. at the time. Secondly, jazz was the music Jackson Pollock listened to while painting, it immersed him and influenced his creation. But there’s a deeper and more meaningful reason. Catharsis seeks a delicate balance between control and randomness, which is essential to the project. Too much control leads to lifelessness, while pure randomness results in chaos. Jazz functions the same way: it's based on improvisation, but musicians build it on top of an underlying structure. Then, each instrument improvises while remaining anchored. Jazz embodies in sound what Catharsis does visually, making the choice highly appropriate.
N.G.: One very interesting idea you’ve mentioned is that writing code should eventually be regarded as a type of literature, since no two programmers write in the same way, even using the same programming language.
D.L.: I completely believe that. Code is written text, it is not just a sequence of standardized instructions. Two people wouldn’t implement the same functionality identically. There is elegant code and there is clumsy or grotesque code. A person’s essence, the way they speak, think, express themselves, communicate, and write, also manifests in code. I know this might sound strange or even provocative at first, but I’m convinced that in the future, this perspective will be appreciated.
In my case, I rewrote the Catharsis code from scratch three times to keep it as clean and elegant as possible. This process opened new possibilities for me, helping me push the algorithm further by avoiding the trap of building a complex structure around me. That approach was key to the project.
N.G.: If at some point your work needed to be migrated to another medium or undergo some form of restoration, would you consider being involved? Would you like to take part and give your opinion?
D.L.: I would definitely consider it. As an algorithm written in certain programming language, Catharsis may become obsolete. Functions change, and can happen that future versions of the programming language won’t be able to run the original code. Of course, I’d want to be involved in any effort to ensure the survival of my projects. The problem in digital media isn’t so much the obsolescence of hardware, but of languages.
N.G.: During the development of Catharsis, you must have seen many unique outputs, since each run of the code generates new results. On one hand, there are the 999 works and their NFTs; on the other, there’s the code. If the code were lost in the future, the works would still be “alive,” but they would lose part of their essence. This leads me to ask: if the code had to be migrated to a new language, could Catharsis #125, for example, remain the same? Or would it be altered?
D.L.: I don’t think I could rewrite the Catharsis code to produce exactly the same outputs. I’d probably write it differently, the numerical thresholds would vary slightly, resulting in a different, though possibly similar, outcomes. It would be like asking a painter to reproduce certain painting identically, it’s physically impossible.
Even with the original algorithm, the main challenge in migrating to another language lies in the fact that different languages often generate different random numbers, due to their internal architecture. I could transcribe all the syntax, but I couldn’t guarantee the identity of the random events the algorithm relies on. So the outputs would almost certainly be different.
N.G.: Regarding the documentation of your works, do you have records of the creation process, specifically for the Catharsis project?
D.L.: Yes, I have extensive documentation. Every time I make a significant change in the algorithm, I duplicate the project folder and create a new version, so I don’t lose the previous one. What we now call Catharsis is actually version #140, and I have 140 folders documenting every step of the development. This allows me to go back to any point in time. I also log all major changes in each version, such as improvements on the color palettes or on the movement of the paint, which is extraordinarily useful.
N.G.: How long did it take to develop the work, from the initial phase to its final form?
D.L.: On February 18, 2022, I sent my brother a video of a first sketch of what finally became Catharsis. I had actually written that first sketch in 2014, then stored it in a folder, and moved on since I was focused on my PhD at the time. That’s what I now have in the Catharsis_01 folder, marking the starting point. So February 18 can be considered the beginning. The work spanned six months, ending in July, and Catharsis was released on September 10, 2022.
N.G.: Have you considered appointing someone to make future decisions regarding the conservation of your works, as well as the authorization to continue printing them?
D.L.: Honestly, I haven’t. I believe the pieces should only be printed by me, as they are hand-signed by the artist. For me, printing only makes sense if supervised and signed by the artist. Once that’s no longer possible, no further prints should be made.
As for someone responsible for future conservation decisions, I believe that, as long as the artist retains intellectual property, those decisions should fall to my heirs.
N.G.: Thank you very much for your time, Dario. This conversation has been invaluable for gaining a deeper understanding of your project and your artistic perspective.