How Digital Art Found its HEFT

The inauguration of Heft Gallery back in April continued the drive to cement digital art, and Web3’s community of blockchain natives, within the mainstream contemporary art world. Building on the precedent of bitforms gallery, founded in 2001, and the more recent arrival of Nguyen Wahed in the East Village, Heft’s Founder and Director Adam Heft Berninger is in the process of introducing many of the most prominent artists from the crypto art world to a New York scene where centralizing tendencies die hard.

In truth, New York has been a hub for critical discussions around new media since the 1990s thanks to projects including Rhizome, the New Museum’s cultural incubator NEW INC, platforms such as TRANSFER and Postmasters, and the pioneering work of Christiane Paul, Curator of Digital Art at the Whitney Museum. Last year’s survey exhibition of the work of Auriea Harvey at the Museum of Moving Image, organized by Regina Harsanyi, further reinforced New York as a space for the canonization of digital art, while the arrival of Tina Rivers Ryan as Editor in Chief of Artforum has helped to normalize discussions of digital art within the mainstream art world. 

Nevertheless, questions remain about how to square a blockchain-based market premised on disintermediation with the hierarchical gallery system. By including as many as 26 artists from across the Web3 ecosystem together with pre-NFT pioneers such as Rafaël Rozendaal and LoVid, Heft’s current show “Groundwork” offers one possible solution. Here Berninger shares his long-term vision for the gallery alongside participating artists Nancy Burson, Jan Robert Leegte, Thomas Noya, and Emily Xie with curator Ameesia Marold.

Ameesia Marold: Take us back to the moment you founded Heft Gallery. What were you seeing in both the digital and mainstream contemporary art worlds that made you feel like Heft was imperative?

Adam Heft Berninger: Gallery spaces dedicated to current and urgent cultural topics are always critical to the evolution of art and its dissemination from subcultures and the avant-garde, however loaded that term is. 

I’ve watched and participated in digital art and many of its subcultures for 30 years, and now more than ever it feels critical for this work to be seen by a more mainstream world that has broadly come to terms with the level at which technology and systems are woven into society for the long haul. 

Over that time, I’ve also engaged the broader contemporary art world and seen “schools,” movements, and moments of concentrated energy come and go. Often these phases follow quieter periods where there is a lack of exceptional newness and overall market activity, which is then followed by intense, broader market growth driven by exceptional artists from socially relevant subcultures. I believe we are at the junction of such a period, and that artists using systems are the ones who will drive this movement. 

AM: What drew you to participate in “Groundwork” which feels like a foundational moment? What is it like to work with a gallery that straddles digital and analog media as well as Web3?

Nancy Burson: Adam asked to meet me and, at the last minute, asked me to be part of the exhibition. I think that everything in Adam’s background, including his history as an artist himself, has prepared him for the opening of Heft’s physical gallery space. He’s insightful, forward-thinking, and ruled by his love of art.

Jan Robert Leegte: It is great to see that the third major art movement of the internet, namely blockchain art, has made such a splash, which has led to a unique gallery such as Heft showing artists that are key to this movement. It feels very much like a home.

Thomas Noya: I’ve worked with Adam a few times in the past, before “Groundwork” and before Heft. I trust him and his vision. When he called, there was no hesitation. His vision for the gallery builds on the digital community he fostered with TENDER and brings it into a permanent gallery context that feels like a natural home for my work. It’s exciting to be with a gallery that bridges digital and analog media as well as Web3. 

Heft has the intimacy and material presence of a physical space, but we haven’t lost the innovative, community-driven approach of the crypto art scene. It feels truly like the best of both worlds, and it allows work to reach audiences on multiple levels.

Emily Xie: I worked with Adam last year for a show at Untitled Art in Miami and had an incredible experience. He did an excellent job not only presenting the work visually, but also speaking about the art in an elevated yet relatable way. I appreciate how Adam approaches art curation, so I felt compelled to join “Groundwork.”

AM: You seem to be building something more comprehensive than a traditional gallery. What infrastructure are you offering to artists beyond space for monthly exhibitions? Why is this kind of expanded support system particularly necessary for digital artists?

AHB: We’re building new approaches that are tangents from a typical gallery model, including digital releases, experimental events, monthly openings, store offerings, and more. We see these less as extracurricular initiatives or infrastructure, and more as integral aspects of a multidimensional art brand — one that maintains curatorial rigor about what we show and how we present contemporary fine art. For artists, this means exposure to a wider audience that’s engaged across those facets, hopefully on a more regular and recurring basis than is typical. 

AM: One of the persistent challenges facing digital art is the question of physical presentation, whether through screens, prints, projections, or interactive installations. Does Heft have a signature approach to the display of digital art? What approaches have you adopted that you’re most excited about?

AHB: High-quality, authentic, appropriate, and memorable presentations of art are always critical, and digital works are particularly subject to the challenges of this pursuit. But much has been done to tune exceptional, experimental approaches over recent decades, and we see the results in current shows like “Infinite Images: The Art of Algorithms” at Toledo Museum of Art. 

The bigger issue for digital art — at least at the gallery level of collector patronage — is not how to present it, but that its presentation takes forms that collectors are excited to bring home. We focus on sharing works that install easily in a collector’s environment in formats that are a pleasure to live with over a long time. 

We work closely with artists to determine the most compelling and naturally fitting material format for the work. This approach is meant to accentuate the covetability and collectibility of what we present. Of course, more collecting activity helps grow the movement and enables artists to keep creating. 

AM: “Groundwork” unites artists of a hybrid nature, including algorithmic processes alongside works of physical sculpture and textile. Your individual practices seem to move fluidly between computational and traditional, digital and physical. Are you developing custom tools, working with existing frameworks, or finding yourself switching between different approaches depending on the project? How much does your technical infrastructure shape what you can express and how should critics evaluate such hybrid practices going forward?

TN: I move fluidly between the computational and the traditional, and I use a mix of approaches when it comes to my tools. Sometimes, I develop custom software on top of available frameworks, while at other times I purposely use mass-produced tools. I’m not a purist about building everything myself. Most of the time, the idea or emotion I want to convey comes first, and then I assemble the technical infrastructure to suit that vision.

EX: I work across custom and existing frameworks. I began in p5.js but, at this point in my practice, I’ve developed my own custom library to better suit my specific techniques and workflows. Some of my pieces are completely algorithmic, while others — including my series of digital collages — blend AI-generated fragments with hand-coded pattern logic. The tools inevitably shape the outcome. I’m currently developing a project that depends on a machine-learning model whose built-in limitations have steered the work in directions I wouldn’t have otherwise taken. I treat those constraints as part of the creative process. Whether a work is written entirely in my own library or stitched together from open-source modules matters less than how convincingly the technical infrastructure and the artistic intent lock together. If the two are in harmony, then a piece will succeed regardless of the specific tools under the hood.

JRL: For me the individual works are expressions of technology. I don’t use software to make art, I make art about software. The physical works I make are very specific and nearly always different in execution, finding the ideal manifestation of a digital phenomenon. 

My hybrid practice can be seen as a dialogue, going back and forth between software and physical, aiming to deepen understanding of the nature of the networked computer.

NB: For “Groundwork” I’m showing a painting based on the physics of quantum entanglement that is subtly interactive with viewers. Quantum entanglement states that there is a relationship between two of the smallest of particles, no matter how far apart they are. For me, it’s a pattern of two particles communicating directly with each other that I represent as sets of eyes. You can use your cell phone to record the work changing color as the painting provides a living example of the quantum world. 

AM: It feels as though Heft is designed as a long-term initiative rather than a typical gallery venture. When you’re thinking 20 years out, what does success look like for you? What is Heft’s core mission and how will you measure its success? 

AHB: We believe that art made using algorithms, artificial intelligence, and other rule-based methods is a native, relevant, and often poignant reflection of today’s systems-driven culture. 

Of course a young gallery’s short-term focus is on staying alive, but we aim to be part of the ecosystem that grows this movement over the next 20 years and beyond. To prepare ourselves for this adventure, we’ve spent three years collaborating with artists to present over 75 art projects online and at art fairs, and have built a brand, space, and team that will take an art and artist-centric program to a new generation of collectors.  

AM: New York’s contemporary art scene is founded on established hierarchies, collector networks, and institutional relationships built over many years. As a new gallery focused on digital artists, how are you approaching these existing power structures? Are you working within them or trying to build alternative pathways? 

AHB: Our approach is to understand and respect existing structures while reconsidering norms, often by inventing new paths all together. We are not doing things differently to build a proprietary approach, but to evolve ways of working that might benefit the contemporary art world in general. Regardless of the fast-paced nature of today’s marketplaces and recent years of Web3 activity, we understand that building processes and relationships can take years, and our plan is to use the head start we have with collector relationships, institutional connections, experience making art, and knowledge of the gallery world to jump start a journey of decades.

AM: Digital art on the blockchain has often sought to defy the traditional gallery model by disintermediating art collection and ensuring resale royalties. How does it feel to be working with a gallery that has evolved out of the Web3 community that is trying to adopt a different approach to marketing digital art? What does the new generation of collectors need to understand about the work you’re making? When someone acquires your pieces, what are they really collecting beyond the physical itself?

EX: It’s less about rejecting the gallery system and more about evolving it. 

Traditional galleries have been the standard for so long for a reason: they provide crucial curatorial context, dialogue, and a tangible encounter with the artwork. Heft keeps those strengths intact while carrying forward the Web3 principles that first energized digital art — that is, community engagement and on-chain provenance.

In practice, that elevates the work. In a thoughtfully designed space, the pieces gain a presence that simply isn’t possible on a screen at home. Scale, texture, and material become an integral part of the conversation. When a collector acquires one of my digitally native physicals, they not only receive the token but also take custody of a narrative and a process. 

NB: The proliferation of NFTs along with AI allows me to go beyond what I’ve been dreaming about for decades, opening a space outside the gallery and museum system which has previously been the only option for sales of my work. I’m not a young artist anymore and I want the legacy of what I’ve accomplished to exist in forms beyond the museums and reputable collections I am in. NFTs are an opportunity to develop an entirely new collector base expanding how many people own my work.

TN: When you collect my pieces, you’re not only buying a physical object or a file on a blockchain, you’re engaging with the entire process and concept behind it. Many of my works have an algorithmic core: the art might be the result of a custom program or a dataset interpreted through code, or a system of rules that I’ve designed. A collector of my work is collecting a moment or manifestation of that system.

JRL: All I make is informed by the condition of the networked computer. In a way, it is one big love song that attempts to capture the essence of this muse. Whichever point you enter my work, you can wander through my contemplations on software that form the narrative of my whole oeuvre.

AM: The Web3 community still drives much of the market for digital art, but it is based on different models of ownership and collection than the legacy art world. How do you help new collectors understand what they’re supporting beyond the work they’re acquiring from Heft? What are your short- and long-term visions for the gallery?

AHB: The Web3 community is a very public and quantifiable participant in the digital art market, but its underlying models and rationale for collecting aren’t all that different from traditional collecting. Collectors of all types are motivated by a sell-out show, as well as by beauty, originality, and poignancy of expression. We hope to present works that are strong enough that they spark a need that drives passionate collectors; and if that level of desire results in rising valuations, then we’re helping to support and grow the generative art space as a whole.

AM: The title of your current show, “Groundwork” suggests that you are laying the foundation for what comes next. With so many participating artists, it feels like you are trying to celebrate as many prominent digital artists as you can at the outset. As you scale your vision for Heft, how will you maintain quality and focus on such a diverse range of practices?

AHB: We want to be clear that this survey, along with our first group show “Truth or,” is a peek and triangulation of the types of exhibitions to be presented at Heft in the future. “Groundwork” is not a completist outline but marks this moment with new and recent works that reflect a culmination of many important aspects of the generative art movement. Many of the artists in this exhibition are scheduled for solo shows in the gallery over the next 18 months. Others are releasing digital series related to their contributions to “Groundwork” under Heft Releases. 

This weekly release program, which opens every Wednesday at noon EST, is our way of working with a broader range of artists than we’d be able to support in the full gallery space. It is also a means of reaching and keeping engaged a global community of collectors and advocates. 

AM: It feels like digital and generative art are at an inflection point, moving from an emergent avant-garde to a new set of canons shaped by museums, galleries, and publications. How does the arc of your career track with the wider recognition of digital art? What are you most excited about in the new future?

JRL: I try not to get carried away. I have witnessed the coming and going of many waves of Internet art, each with their own networks. In contrast to painting, we work in a discipline that moves faster than we can keep up with. One has to keep one’s eye on the ball. Institutional canons are miles behind.

NB: In the mid-1980s, I was known as the pioneer of facial morphing, ironically challenging the notion of photographic truth at the birth of digital manipulation. 

When I first began morphing faces together, I never dreamed that the triangular grid system we used at MIT would still be used in most morphing systems today. Now they’re an integral part of every kind of facial morphing from the most complex AI-driven facial recognition software to Snapchat. 

I’m a science-based person. My mother was a lab technician, and my favorite memories of childhood recall our visits to the bacteriology lab where I would do fake experiments with real blood. When I moved to New York City in 1968, I saw MoMA’s exhibition, “The Machine as Seen at the End of the Mechanical Age” and realized that art could be interactive. I had an idea to create an interactive age machine that would show viewers what they’d look like [if they were] older. Along with my co-inventor, Thomas Schneider, we were awarded what was described as a “pioneering” patent on the “Method and Apparatus for Producing an Image of a Person’s Face at a Different Age” in 1981. That was a decade before Photoshop.

EX: I began experimenting with generative art around 2015 when it was still an exploratory dialogue among a handful of creative coders tinkering after hours. I was driven by curiosity and a love of seeing what my programming skills could unlock from a visual and creative standpoint. Institutions had certainly been exhibiting computer art for decades, but generative art — and especially on-chain generative art — weren’t part of mainstream discussion.

I left my software engineering job in 2022 to pursue art full-time just as institutions were beginning to embrace blockchain-based generative practices. That timing allowed my work to transition from a personal laboratory to the public sphere, and I consider myself fortunate to learn and grow within the field as it gains wider recognition.

TN: The democratization of technology lowers the barriers to entry but heightens the noise. Using AI for image generation and to assist with coding has analogies with DSLR cameras, digital video, and portable music production. Curation and resistance to social media algorithms will keep growing in importance but it’s up to every individual to distinguish the signal from the noise. 

AM: How do you see the New York art scene evolving as a result of Heft’s work? If this model proves successful, what would you want other galleries or institutions to learn from your approach?

AHB: Whether or not the gallery world will change as the result of Heft’s approach, aspects of how we approach the art and business of a contemporary gallery could become effective evolutions for many in the greater art world — especially given the globally connected communities of artists and collectors who increasingly expect fluid interactions, transparent access, and digitally enabled experiences. This could mean new models of artist representation, novel presentations of “traditional art,” online art sales, tokenization of artworks without stigma, iterative and collaborative interactions with artists, cross-gallery partnerships, and more.