How is the QQL collection shaping up, as a whole?

[indigo]

A little while ago, MULTI asked the following question in Tyler’s Discord:

I’d love to know, as we’ve passed the 300 mark waiting for 302…. About 1/3 done here… we’re starting to see how it’s shaping up as a packaged collection. How would you describe the spectrum of works or collection thus far?

@heeey and I both gave detailed answers (and I’m hoping he will share his answer here too). For my part, I want to share my answer here, lightly edited mostly to include some more images.

---

Hi! It’s been a few days now since MULTI asked how folks would describe the collection thus far, now that it’s about 1/3rd minted. Now that I’ve had a few days to sit with it, I want to share my thoughts. Replying to @heeey’s answer since I think it’s quite thoughtful too.

So, I’ll first really agree with heeey’s pithy one word reply, “eclectic”. QQL has a really wide range - some might say it’s too wide - and it’s easy to find sets of QQLs that feel like they’re from completely different algorithms. As heeey and MULTI said, it’s kind of like QQL actually contains a few different “families” of related but pretty distinct categories of outputs that folks are choosing between.

(Pictured: Three adjacent mints with three rather different vibes.)

It’s a big contrast to other well-regarded generative art projects, which tend to have a lot more consistency across the collection. I think Archetype is a really good example of this, where you can take pretty much any few Archetypes and immediately “feel” that they’re part of the same thing.

The variability and range with QQL were intentional, and was part of us leaning into exploring the “minters are co-creators” concept. If Tyler and I had been doing a traditional minting approach, we would have focused a lot more on improving the quality and consistency of the “floor” mints, which would have had the effect of tightening the output range. We went in the opposite direction, and built a certain wildness into the algorithm (including the literal Wild trait ), trusting minters to explore the range and find pieces that speak to them.

Looking back, I think this had a bigger impact on the feel and cohesiveness of the collection than I expected. I’ve come to see art as embedding the “vibe” of the artist(s), and it’s that vibe-embedding that makes the art compelling. In trad long-form generative art, the randomness is still effectively a tool of the artist, so there’s only one vibe permeating the collection. However, in this case the minters/parametric artists really are co-creating, and adding their own vibes. Which kind of shifts QQL away from being a single generative art project, towards being a micro-artistic-medium which happens to be organized around a single algorithm.

(For a really interesting view on this “vibe of the artist as present in the works”: try going to qql.art and filtering to just a specific parametric artist, and the groupings tend to feel way more coherent. For a nice example, check out pstl.eth’s minted pieces:

As for how I feel about the collection as a whole. I think initially I was a little bit put off by the range of minted QQLs, and the ways that they didn’t always match my sense of what is a “good” QQL. That happened within the first day, even from the set of competition finalists there were some I didn’t like . However, as time goes on I’ve come to accept the release of control, and to accept and appreciate the whole collection, including its eccentric bits and even the mints I don’t like.

Partly it’s that for every mint I’m kind of “meh” on, there are unexpected gems I truly love and would never have expected to see. And the gems reward me more than the middling outputs disappoint. But moreso, I love what QQL has actually proven to be - an open ended community art project that has room for a lot of different tastes, values, and perspectives.

Also, I really like how the quality of mints has been shaping up as the project matures. I feel like now that the novelty has worn off, there’s actually more care, awareness, and subtlety in the mints that are getting chosen. I see the second anniversary as a bit of a turning point, starting somewhere around the 250s I feel like the average quality has been really high.

Finally, I want to say congrats @pastel and @西瓜瓜
for #303! It’s a really lovely mint and definitely a great example both of an unexpected gem, and of the recent mint quality being really high.

[heeey]

First of all, thanks @indigo ndigo for tagging me to post my thoughts on the matter!

For one, I think it’s really hard to see the cohesion of the collection as a whole. As it’s been created little by little by 100s? of individual PAs the only element that connects all mints is the limits established by the artists themselves. And that is so diverse that it’s almost as giving a blank canvas to work with. I wonder if Tyler & Indigo see all potential outputs that can occur as part of their creation or if they feel distant to mints they are not attracted to.

If we look at any 5 consecutive mints (that are not part of a group mint) we’ll immediately be able to see this variety.

To me, this means that there are (and there will be) all these groups/sub-groups of QQLs that will be seen as a semi-separate unit of their own. It’s been one of my obsessions to try to find sub-collections within the main collection. I partially see it as a tree where one mint can start the connection to 1 or a few new mints, even in different directions.

After Machi minted one of my seeds (QQL #268, 2nd from the left), I dedicated some time to find potential companions to that mint.

There are also standalone mints that don’t have a replica and kind of fly solo.

There are mints that have provenance because of when they where minted or who they were discovered by. An example would be the 10 Seoul mints that Dmitri Cherniak selected the seeds for.

There are (sadly) also mints that were probably a “mistake” and that may be forgotten among the full collection. QQLs that are meaningless or a lost opportunity. #152 I’m looking at you.

There are also luckily, so, so many mints that have a special meaning to those that discovered/minted them. For instance, “Coven2610” minted in a short period of time 7 QQLs all in Fidenza and with relatively similar aesthetics.

And, most important of all, there are so many gorgeous QQLs that stand out and showcase a bit of the possibilities that the algorithm provides.

Let’s not forget the co-creation side of things. Dozens of us who have spent 1000s of hours to generate 100s of milions of seeds that will for the most part never be seen by anyone other than ourselves. To me, this is probably the most remarkable aspect of QQL, that separates it from other artworks from this time and that gives it a spot in future art history books.

(To add to the thoughts from the original text) On Tuesday April 2nd, Tyler was on a panel with Bernar Venet, Snowfro & Grant Yun where he shared an interesting thought: "The average Fidenza is “better” than the average QQL, but the “best” QQLs have potential for being “better” than the “best” Fidenza