One thing I’ve learned from doing research on artists and works in digital art is that the information is usually there, but rarely in one place. It can be in old websites, interviews, catalogues, books, screenshots, broken links, marketplace pages, forum posts, Twitter interactions, or someone’s memory. Finding it is already difficult. Understanding what is reliable, what matters, and how it all connects is the real work.

ngl we were all extremely right about CT being broken and they gaslit us for 9 months saying it wasn't broken. Who could have guessed that most neurotic, terminally online power users of a product would be correct about the product being broken

.@SFMOMA acquires two of my works for its permanent collection The acquisition was made through the Catherine Clark Gallery in SF and with the help of three generous collectors. It is an honor that a museum with such a legacy for contemporary art and photography continues to support my practice. Their first acquisition of my work was in 2012. This would be the 4th body of work they acquire. This work was created 10 years ago and still speaks of the current issues between the US and Mexico. Daughter on the USA-Mexico Border Wall, at Friendship Park, California., Mother on the Mexico-USA Border Wall, Friendship Park, Playas de Tijuana, Mexico. 2017

Something is stirring in NFT and digital art, and if you can’t feel it you’re not paying attention. Artists hanging in museums. On billboards. Stunning commissions. Bleeding into TCGs and across culture itself. This isn’t hype anymore. It’s infiltration. And the ones still here? They’re not fucking leaving. Ever. They survived the bear, the mockery, the obituaries, and they’re still building, still minting, still showing up every single day. Credit where credit is due. This is a family. A dysfunctional, chaotic, beautiful fucking family. And families like that don’t quit. We are early. And we are going to make it.

Endorse. 💯 No one would believe that people used to think "did you use a word processor to create this?" When documents first started having formatting—the first indication was a prolific use of hyphenated words because that was the first thing solved automagically in word processors—people would viscerally devalue the material. Early word processing docs (of the Mac era) had *too* much formatting and ImageWriter output looked toy like. The lack of typos and spelling seemed a bit mysterious. The software and hardware had to improve. The LaserWriter was the tipping function. Then documents looked like something created by a commercial printer. Amazing as it sounds people would ask "how did you do that?" in 1985. There were many things in word processing that needed to improve before they could fully replace old processes. Many were just how people used the tools (less formatting and ransom notes). Many were missing features like tables which used to be hand drawn and literally pasted into empty space. And many were just bugs like how subscript/superscript worked and footnotes. All along people could "tell" you used the new thing and had emotional reactions ranging from awe to disdain. If you made a mistake with a word processor believe me everyone pointed it out. A single typo would make you a laughing stock for low quality work. When Word introduced AutoCorrect we took out full page adds with giant typography "teh -> the" it was so important. AI is going through all this right now. The bugs will get fixed. New ways of acceptable writing will emerge. People will "catch" others using these new tools and scream busted. Embarrassing mistakes will happen. But "It's happening" is definitely true.

It’s an exciting day! 6529 Meme GIFs have started to arrive in @GIPHY search results! @punk6529 You can now find them in GIF search on X by typing 6529, the artist’s name, the meme, or image characteristics. @margaret_ngigi_

I've officially fallen down the 6529 rabbit hole. I messed around with my own profile. Looked at others. I found the Memes. Then the Gradients. Then finally I found NextGen - Pebbles by @Ze_blocks (@Ars0nic @Cheaterflums) The moment I saw this piece, I wanted it. It's wild because if you had told me a few years ago that I'd be collecting digital art like this, I would've laughed. I've never considered myself an "artsy" person. Becoming a father and traveling the world changed that. It expanded my perspective and helped me appreciate how much life has to offer especially when it comes to art. The more I learn about 6529, the more fascinated I become. The metrics they track, the values they emphasize, and the overall collector experience feel genuinely different while still embracing everything that makes blockchain special. When I collect art—or anything else I believe has value—onchain, it feels like we’re only scratching the surface of what’s possible. The opportunities, communities, and experiences seem endless. One of the things I appreciate most is that I get to build something I can pass on to my children. Maybe it'll have monetary value someday, maybe it won't. Either way, it'll represent something that broadened their dad's perspective and helped him see the world differently. It’ll be fun to tell them about the day dad fell down the 6529 rabbit hole. This piece I bought today will be what represents that story. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. I love it here. 🤘

Bösendorfer by @lphacentaurikid I’m very grateful to collect this new personal commission from ACK today that began more than seven months ago. He had complete creative freedom with this incredible work and the monumental physical will soon be displayed at the Carl Sagan Art Residence project. Thank you ACK for your true friendship and allowing me to steward this epic piece. I couldn’t be happier 🙏 @MuseumModernArt

The EDPB has adopted yesterday the final version of its guidelines on processing personal data through blockchain technologies. The first draft, over a year ago, took a hard line: if personal data can't be deleted from a public blockchain, the chain itself should be deleted. We spent that year making the case for a different approach, alongside co-signatories across the ecosystem. The final text is substantively unchanged from that draft. We'll be publishing our analysis soon. In the meantime, here you can find our position paper with detailed argumentation:

Today is a dark day for freedom and democracy in Europe. General chat surveillance has been implemented in Brussels. A disgrace. The so-called Chat Control 1.0 cleared a crucial hurdle in the European Parliament today. This means platforms may once again be allowed to scan private messages, officially on a “voluntary” basis, but in practice this marks the return of indiscriminate monitoring of private communication. What makes this especially bitter is that a majority of the MEPs who voted were reportedly against it. According to Patrick Breyer, 314 MEPs voted against the regulation, 276 voted in favor and 17 abstained. And yet the rejection failed because it was not enough to have a simple majority of those voting. An absolute majority of all MEPs would have been required. That is the democratic scandal. When a majority of those present votes against a proposal and it still passes because a formal threshold is not reached, it does not feel like democratic decision-making to many citizens. It feels like a procedural trick. And it becomes even more problematic when you look at the context: Chat Control had already been rejected before. Yet the issue was put back on the agenda shortly before the summer break, through an urgent procedure, at a time when absences could become decisive. This is not just some technical regulation. It goes to the very core of private communication. It is about whether digital messages remain fundamentally private or whether platforms may systematically scan content again, without concrete suspicion, without a court order and without any individual cause. A free society must not turn private communication into a potential surveillance zone. Anyone who takes digital fundamental rights seriously cannot accept millions of innocent people being placed under general suspicion. Today, a dangerous signal was sent: fundamental rights can be hollowed out through procedural logic, timing and political tricks. Not through an open, clear and honest majority, but through a system in which absence effectively helps the supporters. This is a dark day for Europe. Not because the fight is over, but because today showed how easily digital fundamental rights come under pressure when surveillance logic, symbolic politics and institutional tricks come together. Anyone who wants a free internet, anyone who wants to protect private communication and anyone who takes democracy seriously should talk about this. Share this issue. Inform yourself. Look at who voted how. And never forget: freedom rarely disappears all at once. It disappears step by step, often in technical details, often in complicated procedures and often exactly when too few people are watching.