H

left.gallery (2015–)

left.gallery sells files. Not video documentation of works, not JPEGs standing in for something else — the file is the object, in whatever format the work happens to be: .app, .exe, .saver, .html, .gif, .mp4, .epub, .mobi, .txt, .rtf, .m3u. The gallery's own phrase for what it produces and sells is downloadable objects, and Paloma Rodríguez Carrington is explicit that the noun is meant literally:

We don't perceive these works as purely digital or virtual; they are actual objects, hence "downloadable objects."

It was founded in 2015 in Berlin by van den Dorpel with Rodríguez Carrington, an anthropologist and his partner, and the interface was designed with Beautiful Company. Danni Shen's Rhizome profile from January 2018 describes it as "the first to directly employ Bitcoin and blockchain technology," with a UI that reads like "an app store that meets contemporary art gallery."

The occasion

The founding event is specific and datable. In 2015 van den Dorpel was invited by Cointemporary to an event at the MAK — the Austrian Museum of Applied and Contemporary Arts — in Vienna. The museum bought Event Listeners, paying in Bitcoin. That was the first recorded purchase of an artwork by an institution using cryptocurrency, and all one hundred editions of the work eventually sold. left.gallery was built directly out of that.

The problem it was built against is older, and van den Dorpel dates it to his own student years — studying artificial intelligence at the Vrije Universiteit and then time-based arts at the Gerrit Rietveld Academie (→ 935). Shen's account: he "first noticed the art world's lack of affinity for and indifference towards the curation and preservation of immaterial media."

What it actually does differently

Three things, and they are all about who holds what.

Editions are large and cheap. Usually one hundred. The model is aimed at "a generation acclimated to buying smartphone apps, icon packs, and subscriptions to software and streaming services" — graphic designers, startup offices, tech collectors — rather than at the small pool of people who buy single editions at gallery prices.

Ownership is registered outside the gallery. Editions were registered through ascribe.io, which writes the certificate of authenticity and its timestamp onto a blockchain. The point is not the blockchain as such but the independence: if ascribe or left.gallery stop existing, the record survives, because ascribe only supplies the interface that places the work on the chain. The practical consequence matters most — a collector can resell an edition without going through the gallery's platform at all, which is the opposite of the vendor lock-in that other digital-edition sites rely on.

It routes around the app stores. Getting software onto a phone means an account with Apple or Google, a 20% cut, and a category system with no entry for art. left.gallery distributes apps that those stores would not carry. Van den Dorpel frames this as the reason for the name:

left gallery offers software so that the art can be interactive and generative. Not only using decentralized technology for ownership but also for payment, and calling it left gallery, is a political conviction. We have very limited means of opposition or rebellion, but generally, art has a very small but direct force.

Obsolescence, handled by hand

A gallery that sells executables inherits the problem of executables. left.gallery's stated position is pragmatic rather than doctrinal: strategies are chosen per project, in conversation with the artist. When macOS stops supporting a screensaver format, the software is recompiled with the artist. Packaging works as standalone files sidesteps some of what breaks in browser- and network-dependent work, but it does not solve it, and the gallery does not claim it does.

This is the same problem Club Internet failed at, in the other direction: Club Internet's works were links to artists' own servers, and when the servers went, the shows went with them. Roughly half the works in its programme are now unreachable. left.gallery's answer is to hold the file rather than the link.

The blockchain soul, and losing it

The Rhizome profile is from 2018, and the story does not stay that clean. During the 2020 rebuild, transaction costs on Ethereum had risen until minting and transfer "exceeded the sales price of the actual artworks by orders of magnitude," and the integration was dropped; ownership moved into an ordinary database. Van den Dorpel's own account, in the 2021 essay Tokenising Sustainability:

I was proud of what we had achieved with the left gallery relaunch, and I was amazed by all the works that artists offered on it, but also it hurt, because left gallery had lost some of its "blockchain soul."

The full reading of that phrase, and of the related ascribe.io case — records that stay permanently on the Bitcoin chain while the interface for reading them is discontinued — is at Tokenising Sustainability (2021) and Protocol, Taste, and Systems. The short version is that the gallery's founding principle turned out to be economically contingent, and that van den Dorpel recorded its loss as loss rather than as a change of strategy.

The line from the surf clubs

Van den Dorpel has said that his involvement with surf clubs and the founding of Club Internet prepared the ground for left.gallery, and the specific continuity is a question rather than an influence.

The surf clubs answered where does this work live with nowhere in particular, and for free — a work should be stumbled upon, and it belongs to everyone the moment it is online (→ Surf Clubs). Club Internet answered a curated online show, with a run date and a copyright line, and put a gallery apparatus around the same population of artists. left.gallery answers a file you own, in an edition of a hundred, with a certificate that does not depend on us.

Each answer keeps something from the one before. Club Internet kept the surf clubs' insistence that the work belongs on a screen rather than transposed to a projector. left.gallery kept Club Internet's commissioning role and its roster — Damon Zucconi, among others, shows in both — and kept the surf clubs' refusal of scarcity by pricing for abundance rather than rarity. What it added is the thing the surf clubs explicitly rejected: a way for the work to be owned. Dullaart's remark about the surf-club ethos being "almost the opposite of the current attitude towards the commodification of digital files as NFTs" names the distance travelled, and van den Dorpel travelled it in public.

That trajectory — network, then curated space, then market, then museum — is also the trajectory of the label attached to the people in it: surf club, then post-internet, then crypto art. Van den Dorpel's practice went through all three phases before arriving at institutional recognition, and left.gallery is the hinge between the second and the third.

Connections