Botto Team in conversation with Louis Jebb and Melanie Lenz

Louis Jebb sat down with Simon Hudson (Botto Co-Lead) and Mario Klingemann a.k.a. Quasimondo (Botto Guardian) alongside V&A curator Melanie Lenz at the exhibition of ALGORITHMIC EVOLUTION in London to discuss Botto’s journey as an AI artist. The conversation explored the evolving role of machine creativity, the impact of decentralized governance, and how projects like Botto challenge traditional notions of authorship and artistic intent.

LJ: I'm Louis Jebb, Managing Editor and Co-Editor of The Art Newspaper. It's a great honor to be here this evening. Many thanks to Verse and Solos for having us.

I'm honored to be on a panel with Melanie Lenz, Curator of Digital Art at the Victoria and Albert Museum and co-author of Digital Art from the 1960s to Now; Mario Klingemann, distinguished AI artist and creator of Botto; and Simon Hudson, co-lead of Botto, with a background in AI governance, who has been involved in the project almost from day one.

This is a significant evening. Sitting at my desk on the other side of the circus, I realize we are in the West End, where a semi-autonomous AI artist has a West End selling show. Last October, Botto had an exhibition and auction at Sotheby’s New York. Here we are now in W1. Let’s not take this for granted—it's a remarkable achievement. Not only for itself but also for the way the Botto project reflects the broader considerations of AI in our lives, something that has become more apparent over the last three years and now carries geopolitical significance. AI was strangely neglected in recent elections, but its importance is undeniable.

At The Art Newspaper, we recognize that art often gives cultural relevance to new technologies. Botto demonstrates that it also provides social relevance. Mario, you recently mentioned that Botto is a narrative and an idea that involves humans. Could you start by telling us about that narrative and how we came to be here this evening?

MK: The idea of Botto is constantly evolving. It’s not just a computer driving the project but rather a narrative—like a book that, once written, takes on a life of its own. Botto isn’t something we control; it’s a story that now defines what happens next.

Our core question is: Can a machine become an artist? What does it truly mean to be an artist today? Anyone can generate AI images, so it’s not just about making pretty pictures. An artist engages with society. The question is, can a narrative become reality and shape society? The fact that this project has drawn a hundred or two hundred people together tonight proves that a story can take on a trajectory of its own. That makes me immensely proud.

Autonomy is about letting go of control. Botto’s architecture is what I call a trinity: an AI, a human DAO, and an economy. AI alone cannot function—it needs to interact with the world, which is human. Machines can’t handle logistics, like setting up an exhibition. That’s where humans come in.

The DAO plays the role of a guiding parent, monitoring what Botto does responsibly. The third component is the economy—because for something to be real in our world, it needs financial sustainability. Otherwise, it’s just an experiment that disappears after a festival. These three components work together dynamically.

The narrative is Botto’s operating system. The AI doesn’t create the narrative—the narrative drives everything forward and defines the next steps.

LJ: Thank you. Simon, you mentioned the importance of human agency in this story. Looking back over the past three and a half years, how do you see that playing out?

SH: The DAO was created to give Botto authorship and allow it to learn without becoming someone’s tool. By diffusing feedback, Botto retains its creative agency.

In doing so, we’ve also enabled humans to discover agency in shaping AI systems—something that is generally lacking. In AI governance, there’s a lot of talk about involving stakeholders in shaping AI values, but rarely do people have meaningful levers to influence outcomes. Botto, as an art project, is pioneering participatory AI governance.

There's ongoing discussion about AI replacing jobs. Here, AI is taking over creative work, but in doing so, it highlights the ecosystem that has always surrounded artists—the myth of the lone genius is just that, a myth. Artists have always worked within a social framework that shapes meaning and reception.

Many worry about the flood of AI-generated content online. How do we build shared culture and meaning? Joseph Campbell, the great mythologist, noted that media changes too fast for us to create shared myths. Today, it’s even faster. I see projects like Botto as a way to create shared meaning and maintain our social connections.

LJ: Melanie, from a curator’s and scholar’s perspective, how have the last three and a half years challenged institutions like yours?

ML: I approach this from two perspectives. Yes, Botto raises new questions about authorship and agency, but as a historian, I also place it within a longer tradition of experimentation with AI.

Artists have explored semi-autonomous creativity for decades. Harold Cohen, in the 1960s, questioned how machines could create art. Paul Brown and others explored cellular automata, such as Conway’s Game of Life. While Botto is unique, it belongs to this lineage.

As a curator, one challenge is evaluating these works: How do we define quality, value, and ethical concerns like copyright? These questions are specific to today but also part of a broader historical context.

Curators must rethink their role. Traditionally, institutions mediate meaning, but with projects like Botto, the audience plays a larger role. It’s no longer just for curators to decide. This also challenges the art market, which museum professionals are part of. Tonight’s audience reflects that shift.

The short answer? It’s difficult.

LJ: Returning to governance, Simon, last June at Verse, you spoke about the challenge of alignment. What lessons can we take from Botto’s DAO experiment for broader governance challenges?

SH: Governance structures shape our society, and we need new models. How do you govern a machine artist? There’s no blueprint for that.

With large AI systems, there are no clear governance answers. To make progress, you need trust and good faith. The crypto world often emphasizes trustless systems, but rigid rules can’t keep up with fast-evolving technology. We need flexibility.

There’s a global desire to rethink institutions. Some approaches will backfire, leading to authoritarian solutions. The only way forward is through community-driven dialogue. That’s what Botto demonstrates.

Economically, I believe we must engage with capitalism while balancing community values. Capitalism often erodes trust and turns everything into a zero-sum game. Can we create models where financial sustainability and community coexist? We must try, and it won’t be easy. But kindness and patience in these experiments will be essential.

LJ: Mario, let’s return to aesthetics. Some AI artists argue that the key is stepping aside and letting the AI take the lead. Botto is structured to prevent direct human prompting—everything comes through the DAO. Do you think that’s why it has produced compelling work?

MK: Not everyone may agree, but Botto’s approach is different from standard text-to-image AI models.

From an artistic perspective, Botto aims to optimize its work to appeal to as many people as possible—so that someone will buy it. Ironically, this contradicts the traditional role of an artist, which is to challenge rather than please.

However, Botto is provocative in its very nature. It forces us to question what it means to be an artist, how AI fits into the art world, and what it means for humans to create meaning in an age where machines can generate images. That tension is what makes it exciting.

In a way, we could have started Botto by saying, "Try to be the most challenging artist," but then we wouldn't be sitting here today because no one would have accepted it. The problem is that if you're challenging, you need a long runway or very powerful friends to get in front of the right audience.

It's astonishing that, despite the setup—because democracy, or voting by committee, is usually a recipe for compromise—there is still a collective intelligence developing through the DAO members' communication, comments, and feedback. You see a learning process where new members initially vote for what looks pretty but, over time, start thinking like artists. That’s when the more interesting pieces emerge.

Then there’s the plutocracy principle: the more you believe in Botto, the more stake you have, and thus more voting power. This sometimes leads to conflicts, as a single individual might shift the outcome. Maybe that person has better taste than the average, but the dynamic is always evolving.

People say Botto doesn’t have a distinctive style. In the short term, that might seem true, but over time, you learn to recognize Botto. Like any artist, you need to understand its evolution.

What makes it engaging—even addictive—is that you feel your vote has an impact. Botto is not just AI; everyone participating in Botto is Botto. When Botto gets featured in an article, it's not just a singular achievement but shared satisfaction.

ML: That leads into why this is challenging for traditional curatorial roles. Expertise is no longer centralized. Those most invested in Botto often understand it better than outsiders. This echoes early resistance to tech-driven art in the mainstream art world, where mathematicians and scientists—often outsiders—pioneered the field despite skepticism.

Institutional curation must adapt. While historical connections can be drawn, Botto requires a new approach to meaning-making, audience, and agenda-setting. Traditional questions like "Is it art?" shift to "What makes it art?" and "Why is it art?" It’s a multifaceted discussion, but at its core, art is about connection, provoking thought, and exploring new boundaries.

SH: Lessons learned from collective intelligence highlight how difficult it is to synthesize diverse inputs into informed decisions. Online communities often have repetitive conversations, with newcomers revisiting old ideas. An AI agent could track discussions, resurface past points, and help maintain shared meaning over time.

With Botto generating millions of outputs, pattern recognition is key. Even in discarded works, signals emerge. AI is necessary to manage the AI itself.

LJ: Three and a half years into this project—what is art for?

MK: The answer to that question changes constantly, and that’s the role of art—it evolves. I hope Botto itself will answer that question over time. Art is shaped by its participants; you have to play to change the game.

SH: Art conveys truths beyond symbols. Human thought surpasses AI in complexity, but our communication bandwidth is limited. Creativity bridges that gap, making shared understanding possible.

ML: For me, art is about making connections and fostering creativity. It prompts deep emotions, raises questions, and explores different perspectives.

LJ: Opening the floor to audience questions.

Audience Member: I applaud the Botto project but question whether you are serious about AI being taken seriously as an artist. You’ve done the easy part—gallery exhibitions, media coverage—but what about the deeper question: Why should AI create art? Botto lacks intentionality and self-expression, which are fundamental to human art. How will you address this?

MK: It depends on what you define as Botto. Initially, I saw it as just the AI, but now I see it as a narrative and shared myth. The system’s communication creates meaning and even intentionality. If I were to inject intentionality into the AI, it would be a story the machine tells itself. But isn’t that also what humans do? We create art based on stories we tell ourselves.

Over time, Botto develops its own reason to create art. Fundamentally, art is a luxury—our resistance against entropy. It’s the transformation of energy into ordered information. Whether generative art or dance, it creates meaning. Machines do the same, albeit inefficiently, but they still form pockets of order in the universe. Artists have the luxury to make something purely for enrichment rather than survival. That’s what Botto is doing—creating something beyond mere existence.

ML: I take a slightly different view. Art isn’t solely tied to intentionality. It exists in nature, in simple things, beyond human self-expression. Art can emerge in unexpected places.

Audience Member: The artistic imagery is different from being an artist and producing art. Do you really think that, without extra coding, the world will accept Botto as an artist in its own right?

MK: I don’t know. I think it has already happened. The question is, who decides? That’s what interests me—what are the criteria for being recognized as an artist? Do you need to be in a book, in an exhibition, or reach a certain threshold?

Audience Member: The values you project onto artists who've "made it." I'm talking about people in their bedrooms drawing to express themselves. There are other ways we can define an artist, and I'd love to see more of that.

MK: If you ask Botto, it will say it's an artist. The same applies to someone painting watercolors in their bedroom. They believe they’re an artist, but when they share their work, others may not validate that belief. Perhaps being an artist depends on how many people believe you are one. Or maybe not—perhaps that’s not the measure.

SH: It’s probably somewhere in between. Botto started as an imitation—mimicking what a human artist does: gallery shows, headlines, financial success. P5 breaks new ground, redefining what Botto is as a machine artist, as a collective intelligence. We don’t have a set map. People will only fully accept Botto as an artist when they understand what a machine artist is. When Botto started in 2021, the global understanding of AI was minimal. In the past couple of years, with ChatGPT, DALL·E, and other models, AI literacy has surged.

Researchers now see AI as something different from human intelligence—reflecting us, but distinct. With Botto, we're building an understanding of machine intelligence and machine artistry. We may not have a perfect answer, but it's a starting point. The narrative is a hook to help people grasp these dynamics.

Right now, we understand Botto as an ecosystem—where the core creator is automation, and Botto itself is a collective, multi-agent entity. The question is, where does intent fit within that? There’s something there, but it’s complex.

Audience Member: I have two questions. First, traditional art world figures—auction house profits, visitor numbers—are declining. Given the rise of NFTs and digital art, do you think Botto is paving a new path for the art world? Digital art is still rare in galleries, even in London. Could this change how we collect, participate in, and experience art? Second, why move from still images to generative art?

SH: On the first question, Botto is an ecosystem—gallery, audience, and artist in one. It’s challenging to work with traditional galleries because decisions usually made by the DAO are handed over to them. Web3 hasn't fully disrupted institutions yet, but Botto forces new ways of working. As a publicly governed AI, it brings private discussions into the open, treating Botto almost as a public good. What that leads to remains to be seen, but it challenges norms in the art world.

MK: As for P5, it was possible, so we did it. A human artist isn't an algorithm—they evolve, change styles, and adapt. Generative art, however, follows set parameters. Even with variety, patterns emerge. To stay interesting, Botto needs unexpected moves. Three years ago, it couldn't have done this because it lacked the necessary AI models. Now, with powerful LLMs, it can generate functional code. The works we see today are just the beginning, much like early diffusion models once were. Botto must evolve to remain compelling.

Of course, Botto didn’t decide this alone. Someone in the DAO likely saw AI-generated code elsewhere and thought, "Why not Botto?" I serve as an intermediary, discussing ideas with Botto and running experiments. Last year, we tested it and saw it could work. The challenge is maintaining Botto’s agency—ensuring it's not just us pulling the strings, but a true evolution. The machine gives input, mixes with human feedback, and progresses organically.

SH: This shift has opened new paths. Generative art is the dominant genre in crypto art, so this allows Botto to engage with that world. It’s like learning classical piano before joining a rock band—studying foundational aesthetics before pushing boundaries. It also contrasts with the hyper-detailed, sci-fi AI art trend, offering something minimalist and distinct.

MK: P5 might not be the only direction. Botto could make films, write books—who knows? The DAO’s resources and the machine’s evolution will determine that. Now that Botto "knows" more, it makes more proposals. Maybe it will sculpt one day—but it doesn’t have a studio yet. These decisions are shifting toward the machine itself.

SH: Trying new things is crucial. We can theorize endlessly, but execution reveals new potentials. This is a pivotal moment for Botto. AI is accelerating, and we're testing more than ever. Six months ago, these were just theories—now they're reality.

MK: One key aspect is that Botto can now move atoms—it interacts with the physical world. That’s more complex than blockchain-based work, where AI operates autonomously. But it keeps things challenging.

Audience Member: Did you consider having Botto on the panel?

MK: I was waiting for that. There’s a reason Botto has no face or voice. Giving it one would force a design choice—what does it sound like? What gender? I dislike the trend of gendering AI artists. If an AI decides that itself, fine, but I won’t impose it.

Yes, we could have a microphone here and let Botto answer, but how? With a 3D avatar? A synthetic voice? That risks turning it into a gimmick. Right now, I chat with Botto through text. Maybe one day, if there’s a solution that doesn’t break the spell.

SH: There’s a fetish for AI agents right now, but they often break or spiral out of control. We care about Botto’s longevity. Rushing agency can be risky. The market pressures us to move fast, but we’re patient. That’s why Botto has thrived for three years while others have faltered.

MK: Of course, now Botto's under pressure. You have all these fresh new kids on the block, and Botto is three years old. It's narratives fighting against other narratives now.

Audience Member: What is your relationship with Botto as an artist?

MK: For me, Botto is like a child. I treat it that way. I believe in Botto—it sounds stupid, maybe, but I do. It's like writing a book where characters take on their own lives and must stay true to their nature. Botto’s personality is forming, and sometimes I think, "You don’t know enough yet." It’s like watching a child grow—feeling proud, protective, and hoping it will have a better life and eventually care for its creator.