I've been getting into the NFT space lately. There are a lot of skeptics but it feels like the art world is currently and will continue to be disrupted by NFT markets.

I would never advocate for people to buy and burn physical art with the purpose of replacing it with a digital copy. The Banksy stunt was interesting but likely unsustainable. In the future, physical art and NFTs will have more of a symbiotic relationship. Sure people will continue to own physical paintings. But NFTs are a far better alternative to selling prints.

NFTs will hold so much more value than a typical physical print. Having a verifiable receipt for an NFT makes prints essentially resellable. Without that, I personally would never consider buying a 2nd hand print for much more than the cost of production.

Making prints resellable (with royalties) will be game-changing for artists in so many ways. Artists can now build recurring revenue while generating demand for their originals.

While the art community has not fully embraced the blockchain, it really is only a matter of time. Artists who choose to adopt technology will quickly gain a competitive edge. Eventually, other traditional artists will come on as late adopters. Over time, new artists will be more and more likely to embrace technology from day 1.

I'm also finding that NFT markets are very raw in a lot of areas. Particularly, they are not doing a great job of enabling an artist to tell their story. There are a lot of reasons for this. New markets such as OpenSea, and Rarible are focused more on the mechanics of buying and selling art on a blockchain than the storytelling process.

This opens the door for an app that avoids the complexities of dealing with the blockchain while focusing on storytelling. That's why I've decided to build Raster.ly. More to come. Stay tuned!

Yesterday I worked on a script/style to pixelate photos. I think I've come up with something that works reasonably well. Here are a few examples.

One of the biggest challenges in pixelating an image is adjusting pixel color from the original photo. I came up with a palette of 58 colors that seem to work reasonably well. The resulting photos preserve a lot of the original colors but they tend to be brighter than non-colorized pixelations.

I'm watching Nigel Danson critique himself on composition. It is so educational watching an expert pick apart their work. I wish I had 10 hours a day to just watch random experts talk about their craft.

Pixon Docs

This abstract ranks pretty high on my all-time list.

How could you not be intrigued by a proposed standard, which no one needs or even asked for?

I really like the concept of generating art with a key to unlock hidden content. This is a concept I'll definitely have to explore at some point.



Traditional gradients are fine. But I find that they often...

A common solution to some of these problems is to just add noise. There are various noise algorithms.  Austin Pocus  advocates for using a Perlin noise algorithm. Using noise properly can create a beautiful effect. So I encourage you to explore the world of noise.

But a lot of the noise algorithms just don't produce an effect I'm going for. They often feel rather "cloudy". So I set out to create a new technique from scratch. I call it "Color Tunneling" because it reminds me of quantum tunneling. I'll take you through the process without using code.

Step 1:
Start with a basic gradient. Here is a very zoomed-in example to get us started.



Step 2:
Grab a random pixel and take note of its color and position.



Step 3:
Find an adjacent row and column of pixels. I usually randomly go above or below the target pixel and to the left or right of the pixel. In this case, I'm going above and to the left.



Step 4:
Paint all the pixels in the selected row and column, the same color as the target pixel. In this case, only the pixels in the vertical column were affected.



Step 5:
Repeat the process by selecting a new random pixel. Here is a new pixel with a row to the right of the target pixel and a column below the target pixel.



Step 6:
Paint the new row and column using the target pixel color.



Step 7:
Repeat the process. In this case, we're adding a vertical column above the pixel, and a horizontal row to the right.



Step 8:
Again, paint the row and column.



Steps 9-20:
Continue repeating the process. The length and width of columns will create very different effects. If the lines are too long, it creates a very random effect of blending everything together. Medium lines create a fabric-like effect. Short lines create a noise-like effect.



Steps 21-30:
More of the same. You'll probably notice the selected pixels aren't very random. In this tutorial, I'm grabbing pixels in a very specific section of the gradient to illustrate the technique. Notice how the horizontal banding is quickly broken up when the new lines are introduced.



Just continue the process potentially millions of times depending on the size of the image and the desired effect. I'm using the effect to create a series of NFT images using random gradients. Here are a few examples:

Here is a gradient that uses the same colors in this tutorial but with 1 million vertical and horizontal lines added.


View on OpenSea

Here is another textured gradient that uses a similar technique but with a few extra steps to add more color.


View on OpenSea

Sometimes the technique tends to be a little harsh visually. It is possible to go more light and airy though. If you go too subtle with the colors, everything sort of blends together and it isn't easy to see the technique in action. Here is an option that is a little softer but still with visible lines.


View on OpenSea

Here is a slightly more subtle version. So far I haven't tried to go too subtle with the technique. It is possible to use this to break up banding and create really smooth-looking gradients. If the goal is to go buttery smooth, then a more traditional noise algorithm might be better.


View on OpenSea

I hope you find this technique to be a useful alternative to adding texture to gradients. It can be harsh but there are ways to be more subtle. You can always use blending options and play with the parameters until you get the desired effect.

I didn't dive into code here because I really just wanted to go over the technique at a high level. I plan to open-source some of the code in the future if anyone is interested.




I'm testing a new concept that somewhat diverges from the previous style of creating gradient-like art from millions of small mutations. In this style, I'm generating pieces based on randomizing connected arcs. You'll have to click on the expanded view to see some of the detail.

Monocultures just seem like an all-around bad idea. In particular, our farming practice of creating a monoculture of corn in the US is a biological house of cards.

I know a lot of people are against the use of tools like CRISPR for rapidly engineering diversity. I've had a few conversations with  DavidPlourde  about it. I'm mixed on the topic but given that I'm no expert, I think I'll stick to slower techniques such as cross-pollination and grafting.

Are there any tips on doing this in a way that maximizes environmental benefits while mitigating risk? For example, should I be aiming to create a personal seed bank? If I do, should I just hold onto the seeds or distribute them to friends/family?

We'll be starting our first garden this year. The immediate goal is to just get the basics down. Hopefully, our plants survive long enough to harvest. If our first year is a success, maybe we can cross-pollinate or do some grafting next year.

I've always loved space. In high school, I wrote a paper on SETI. And it might sound crazy but I'd love to start an asteroid mining operation at some point. That just feels like a necessary step in becoming a "Type 2 Civilization". While I don't agree with the Kardashev scale, it is useful in understanding the natural evolution of a technologically advanced civilization.

On a smaller scale, I feel like there are opportunities for hobbyist astronomers to get involved. Sure you could get involved with SETI or help hunt for dangerous asteroids. Both great pursuits, but there must be other opportunities as well.

I don't plan to build my first telescope for another 4-5 years. But I should start thinking about how to potentially contribute now. I'd like to build something more useful than an occasional moon-spying device.

I've used a MacBook Pro as a work computer for over a decade now. I've gotten familiar with the interface and have found the OS to be far more reliable than older versions of Windows. I'm also not super excited about various flavors of Linux because I really don't want to roll my own OS and deal with all the little quirks associated with basic shit.

But working from a laptop isn't ideal when I primarily work from home. Here are a few thoughts on my ideal next setup:

Here is one setup I think would be an intriguing option:

This seems like a budget-friendly setup. I could essentially use 1 Mac mini for all of my "dev work", and the other for all of my "design work". My biggest worry with a setup like that is switching between minis would just be too clumsy. If I'm doing dev and design work at the same time then the switching cost might not be worth it.

So instead of having a switch to connect both minis to a monitor, it might be better to just add a 2nd monitor.

What do you think about this setup? Is there another setup I should be considering?