Auronda Scalera & Alfredo Cramerotti: Is AI Disrupting Art, Or Vice Versa?

by Alexandra Mansilla

Auronda Scalera & Alfredo Cramerotti: Is AI Disrupting Art, Or Vice Versa?

25 Sept 2024

Imagine two creatives coming together to collaborate on something incredible — complete synergy, total understanding, and everything just clicks. No words are needed; each gives the other space, and the process flows effortlessly. We have seen it happen a few times, and one of those magical collaborations is between Auronda Scalera and Alfredo Cramerotti, a curatorial duo. They exemplify what a true partnership looks like when two people work seamlessly together.

This year, Auronda and Alfredo curated Art Dubai Digital 2024. They are also the masterminds behind Web to Verse, an ever-evolving global exhibition project, nominators for the Maxxi-Bvlgari Prize for Digital Art, and the driving force behind Multiplicity-Art in Digital, an online platform dedicated to curating, publishing, and promoting art with a focus on diversity and inclusion. On top of all that, they have also joined the curatorial team for Noor Riyadh this year.

We had the chance to sit down with them for an in-depth conversation (which lasted nearly two hours because we couldn’t stop!) and asked all the burning questions we have always had about digital art.

— First of all, before we talk about the curators’ duo, I would love for each of you to share more about your background.

Auronda Scalera: I started curating digital art during my university years — more than 20 years ago. At that time, there wasn’t really a market for it, and no one was doing it. But somehow, I knew it was the future, even though no one suggested I pursue it. After some time, I co-founded a gallery in Rome, Italy — one of the biggest galleries and art centres, called VISIVA.

Then, I met Alfredo a few years ago. When we started talking about contemporary art and the future of art, we discovered we shared the same interests in digital art, Web3, advanced technologies, and these new movements. That is when we organically came to create this dynamic duo out of shared passions.

Alfredo Cramerotti: That is a very good way to put it. As for my background, I come from design and media. Initially, I pursued an education in design and worked in the commercial design field for many years. Then, I transitioned into media — websites in the '90s, TV, radio, that kind of stuff. But, like Auronda, I eventually built my career in contemporary art after I moved first to the UK and then Germany in the early 2000s.

I started curating when I was in Berlin and later in Sweden. I discovered that I actually enjoyed it more when working independently, and that is how I really got started. Over time, I started working with non-profit galleries, institutions, and museums.

When I met Auronda, we started talking about the intersection of art and technology, and that overlap became a powerful driving force. That is how we began working together.

— Do you remember the exact moment when you first met each other?

Alfredo Cramerotti: It was actually a funny moment because we met at Frieze, the art fair. It was the last hour, maybe the last 30 minutes, and I was about to leave. A common friend spotted us in the corridor — grabbed one of us, then the other — and insisted on one last glass. So, we thought, okay, why not?

He brought a group together, maybe six, seven, eight people. We started talking, and that was the moment when we realised we had a lot in common. It was interesting how it all clicked so naturally.

Auronda Scalera: And that is when we decided to meet the next day to dive deeper into the conversation. From there, we actually started working together almost immediately.

Photo: Cedric Ribeiro

— What was the first project you worked on together?

Alfredo Cramerotti: We started with a platform where we interviewed women artists working in tech because we were discussing the results of our findings at the time. Five or six years ago, women were still significantly underrepresented in the art and tech fields. Even though there were many incredible female artists doing amazing work, they weren’t getting the visibility they deserved. Only a handful of them had any recognition, while the rest didn’t have much of a voice in the digital market.

It reminded us of modern art history in the 60s and 70s in New York, where male artists dominated the scene, and many fantastic female artists were overlooked. It wasn’t until decades later, often after their deaths, that they were finally recognised with solo shows at major institutions like Pompidou, LACMA, or Tate.

That realisation was the key driving force behind our editorial and curatorial work. We interviewed about 100 female artists, built a website, and started publishing their stories. We managed to publish around 15 or 16, but then things picked up quickly. We began getting requests to curate first drops, then exhibitions, podcasts, and news features and participate in conferences. As a result, we ran out of time and never finished the website. But the interviews are still there, and we hope to revisit and complete them at some point.

Auronda Scalera: And we learned so much along the way. That is why we became so passionate about this movement. When you interview an artist, you gain incredible insights — it is almost like attending university, but it is your own personalised version of it. Every conversation teaches you something new, and that is what makes this journey so enriching.

— Okay, so you began exploring how women were represented in the world of digital art. Could you describe how the situation has changed over the past eight years?

Auronda Scalera: Well, at the beginning, the movement really started around 2014 with blockchain. Early on, it was mostly a tech-driven moment, and while there were some women involved, they weren’t particularly visible or recognised. It wasn’t that they weren’t relevant, but their contributions weren’t fully acknowledged. Now, 10 years later, things have changed.

Today, we see more top female artists in the space, like Krista Kim, Sasha Stiles, Operator, Libbie Haney, and Ana Caballero. In the public imagination, this movement is often thought of as a tech-driven, male-dominated space, but there are many incredible female artists as well. Still, compared to men, female artists tend to be less visible, though they are certainly making their mark.

Alfredo Cramerotti: They are still as present physically, but the perception hasn’t changed much. The movement initially started with a lot of guys coming from the tech and finance sectors who moved into the art and tech space. This created a kind of association with it being a male-driven movement, which isn’t necessarily true, but they were the most visible because they made more noise. And when you make noise, people associate it with you.

I want to share a short story on this. A friend of mine attended a Stanford Summer School program on AI and business leadership. It was an executive program, and there were a number of participants. He generously shared his key takeaways from each day in a group chat, which was great. But there was an interesting comment about AI still being very much associated with men. This field, like tech in general, remains male-dominated, and that perception extends beyond just AI to the art world as well.

— AI is associated with men? Why? How can AI be associated with any gender? I can’t understand it.

Alfredo Cramerotti: Me neither! Someone asked, "Why is AI more associated with men?" And the answer from someone else, not him, was, "Well, naturally, men are more attracted to that type of environment." I found that response really unsettling. We are talking about August 2024, and people are still making comments like this in professional groups.

There is no data, no statistics, nothing to suggest that men are inherently more interested in AI than women. It is really about your perspective on life — your background, education, attitude, and personality. It has nothing to do with gender. The way people view these things is still very intrinsic and ingrained. That is why there is still such a long way to go in breaking these stereotypes.

Photo: Cedric Ribeiro

— From my experience working and speaking with curators in the Middle East, I usually encounter individual curators. But you two decided to create a duo, which is something new for me. What inspired that decision?

Auronda Scalera: Yes, it is true that there aren't many, but for us, it is incredibly powerful to come together — whether it is to create exhibitions, share ideas, or collaborate on a text. When we work together, especially as curators, it feels like we can multiply our impact by 100 because we are combining our strengths and ideas.

Alfredo Cramerotti: I think the main reason it works is, well, first of all, it is fun — let's not deny that. We do a lot of bantering and joking and keep things lighthearted, which makes the process enjoyable. The second reason is that we complement each other’s skills really well. What I lack, Auronda has, and vice versa. By combining our strengths, we end up with a very solid and professional approach.

The third reason is that she works at night, and I work during the day, so we complement each other in that way, too!

— What is the most important thing you always keep in mind while working as a duo?

Alfredo Cramerotti: We are actually pretty aligned on what we like and don’t like — not 100%, of course. Sometimes, I like something she doesn’t or the other way around. But I think the key, especially in art or any kind of collective, even in a duo like ours, is the ability to take a step back and let the other person contribute their input.

That is really essential because when you step back, you create space for true collaboration. If you are always pushing forward, you end up closing off that space. That is something I think is really important.

Auronda Scalera: Yeah, exactly. You have to put your ego aside a bit and give space for the other person to contribute. It is all about creating room for collaboration.

— I read an article that said, “The primary fear is that AI could replace artists altogether. Last year, a piece created with Midjourney won a digital art prize at the Colorado State Fair.” As editors, honestly, we are not too concerned that AI will replace us. How about artists? Is there a strong fear of this happening?

Auronda Scalera: I think it depends on how you use it. Some artists are totally scared of being replaced by AI, while others embrace it. For some, AI can actually make them more powerful by combining their creativity with technology. For example, artists like Sougwen Chung use AI to create their own algorithms and make art with robots. It really depends on how you approach it. If you are using AI as your own tool, it can become a very powerful extension of your creativity.

Alfredo Cramerotti: Florencia Brück is another significant example. She trained as a painter and has always produced traditional artwork, but because she is also a coder, she started creating her own database and wrote an AI program that sources visual information from her previous works, generating new digital pieces that are incredible and rooted in her past creations.

AI, in this case, becomes a tool for artists with the capacity to read, learn, and create. It really depends on the type of artist we are talking about. If you look at artists with a very specific and defined style — like illustrators or photographers who are assigned to cover particular subjects — they might feel a bit concerned — though they also learn how to use AI in a productive way. For conceptual or contemporary artists, though, AI is just another tool, like a video camera or any other medium. It is something they can choose to use or not, but it is not conceptually threatening to them. The challenge is more pronounced for those who need to adhere to specific briefs or have a very defined line of work.

There is also PROMPT magazine, which is dedicated entirely to AI-generated art. It is a fantastic publication that covers AI artists and their work, showcasing how AI can be used in both digital and physical outputs. The magazine highlights the potential of generative art, and you can discover incredible artists through it. Those who publish in PROMPT are embracing AI as part of their creative process, so I don’t think these artists are afraid. They have chosen to engage with AI, seeing it as an opportunity rather than a threat.

So, really, it depends on the kind of artist and the industry they are in.

Photo: Cedric Ribeiro

— I have a question that just came to mind. I'm sorry if it is not relevant. During COVID, we launched a media outlet (another one). We felt like we had to work faster because everything shifted to remote work, and a lot of things became digital. Offline transformed into online, and we felt the pressure to keep up. It was quite challenging, like a race, because everything was going digital, and we needed to be the best in that space. Was it similar for digital artists when AI came onto the scene?

Auronda Scalera: I think this created a kind of divide among artists or people in general. Some people were completely scared and refused to use AI, while others started to explore it.

Alfredo Cramerotti: It was the same with Net Art in the '90s. You had artists who were really interested in technology, experimenting with scientific principles to produce their work, but many never actually touched coding or used the web as a primary medium. The internet was more of a platform to showcase their work rather than a tool to create it. Then there were other artists who saw it differently. They thought, "This is cool — underneath this laptop is binary code," and they treated that code as a material, just like paint, canvas, or marble. They found it fascinating that they could produce art that was ephemeral, existing only through a screen yet still conveying something about the state of the world.

So, again, there was this split in approach — a binary division between how artists viewed technology, just like what is happening with AI today.

And speaking of AI, I read an article in TechCrunch about how OpenAI developed internal monitoring software that can detect if text has been generated by AI with 99.9% accuracy. It is not released to the public, but it is fascinating because it shows how, even within AI development, there are ways to detect and track the content it generates. Of course, this is useful for them, but it is interesting how they can analyse the same parameters they program into AI to monitor its output.

It is probably easier to detect AI-generated text than visuals, though, because text has fewer parameters to analyse, while visual content has a lot more complexity. But it is remarkable that for every advance, there is also a countermeasure to manage it.

— Okay, so now about NFTs. I remember that time — I could be mistaken — but to me, it felt like there was a boom in 2020 or 2021. Everyone was talking about NFTs. A friend of mine, who’s an artist, also tried to sell his work as NFTs, but he didn’t succeed. It felt like everyone was jumping on the NFT bandwagon, but a lot of people didn’t really understand what they were — even now. So, I’m curious — what is going on with NFTs now? There was such a big boom back then, but what’s the situation like today?

Alfredo Cramerotti: Yes, it did eventually burst, and in many ways, for good reasons. There was a lot of hype, and as with any hype, you had a flood of speculators entering the space — minting, buying, and selling NFTs just to make a quick buck. And many of them did well for a while, but ultimately, it wasn’t sustainable. The crazy prices weren’t backed by a sound cultural approach. You can be a digital artist for 20 or 30 years and still not see much recognition. So, how likely is it that someone from, say, hedge fund investing, who suddenly starts minting NFTs, would get the long-term validation that an established artist does? This is not very likely because art becomes relevant through a gradual process of validation by society. An artwork’s relevance doesn’t happen overnight. There is a process: an artist creates something, their peers recognise its value, it gets shown in small exhibitions, then gradually moves into bigger galleries, private collections, and eventually public institutions and museums. At each step, there are gatekeepers — the peers, the galleries, the critics, and the collectors — who validate the work along the way.

The idea behind NFTs was to bypass this whole gatekeeping system. Artists could mint their work, distribute it directly, and have their peers (the first collectors) buy it without needing traditional validation. Some people did manage to do this successfully, and it was good for them. However, over time, many of these digital-native or NFT artists realised they still wanted the legitimacy that comes from being part of the traditional art world. They want their work to be shown in institutions and museums and to be contextualised within art history or technological progress. They crave the interpretation and mediation that comes with this recognition. Interestingly, there has been a convergence. Many traditional, contemporary artists who have never touched NFTs or blockchain are now curious. They want to explore what dynamic NFTs, for example, could offer — pieces that change over time, something you can’t achieve with a static sculpture or painting. This mutual curiosity is where we come in as curators.

As a curatorial duo, we are bridging the gap between contemporary and digital art. There is still a lack of scholarship in the digital space. Many digital art curators don’t understand how museums work, how to preserve a piece of art, or how to mediate it for the public. Conversely, many museum curators don’t touch crypto or digital art because their institutions lack the in-house knowledge to handle the technology. So, while these two worlds are still largely separate, there is a gradual merging happening. People like us are working to bring contemporary and digital artists together, organising exhibitions both physically and online, writing curatorial narratives, and making these works accessible to a general audience. This is where we are now — helping these two worlds understand and complement each other.

— Have you ever bought NFT?

Auronda Scalera: Yes, many years ago! I started collecting a bit of information about female artists, like releases from Ana María Caballero and Sasha Stiles. They work on smaller, niche things, but I find their contributions really interesting.

Alfredo Cramerotti: I don't collect. Well, I don't collect digital and contemporary.

Auronda Scalera: It is not true.

Alfredo Cramerotti: Okay, that is not entirely true. I do collect things, but for me, collecting is an ethical decision. Many years ago, when I started working as a curator, I made the decision not to collect contemporary art because I didn't want to get too close to the artwork or the artists. It is important for me to maintain a mental distance so I don’t have anything on my walls.

However, I am very passionate about ancient portraits — small, often anonymous works from the 13th to 17th century. I collect those, but only because I don’t work with them in my professional life.

Auronda Scalera: Because they are dead.

Alfredo Cramerotti: They are dead, first of all. And some of them are just gorgeous. I collect them because I don't work with ancient masterpieces, so there is no conflict. I have a specific interest in close-up portraits, so my collection is very focused. But when it comes to the people I work with, I don’t collect their art.

I only collect old masterpieces, and they all have a story. I love that centuries of patina, war, and changing hands add to their history. It is incredible to think that something has come to me after all this time, as a truly validated product of human culture.

That kind of validation is what was missing at the beginning of the NFT boom. There wasn’t societal validation over time and space, which is why the prices crashed — some dropped by 90%. Now, in the digital art space, you find serious artists and collectors. Those involved now really know what they are doing and take it seriously.

Some of the artists, like Ana María Caballero, are expanding beyond digital. We visited her studio recently, and she is creating installations in the physical realm. Others, like Sarah Mehoyas, combine digital and physical objects. These artists use digital because it fits their vision, not just to chase a trend.

It is the same with collectors. The current market is definitely a buyer's market. We often get approached by collectors asking for advice because they are looking for artists whose work speaks to both the present and the future. They want art that has something serious to say, that uses the medium in a meaningful, original way, and is critically engaged with the times.

Photo: Cedric Ribeiro

— Your curatorial stance suggests that in the intersection of art and technology, we are not just spectators but co-creators, explorers of new dimensions, and architects of a future where art is boundless and enhanced by technology. Could you elaborate on this? Why are we, as viewers of artwork, considered co-creators?

Auronda Scalera: After all these years, Alfredo and I realised that this concept of co-creation really fits well with digital art. As we discussed with artists like Sougwen Chung or Krista Kim, their artwork isn’t complete without the public's interaction. The viewer becomes an essential part of the piece; it is no longer a passive experience like with traditional sculptures. These artworks need to be activated by the audience, making everyone a co-creator. It's a shift where the viewer isn’t just observing but actively participating in the creation process, which is such an important part of modern digital exhibitions and art.

Alfredo Cramerotti: The legacy of participatory art, which dates back to the 1960s, revolves around the idea that the audience is essential for the artwork to come to life. This can be seen in movements like the happenings of the '60s, Marina Abramović's performance art, or pieces by contemporary artists like Jeremy Deller or Marinella Senatore. Their work often involves bringing people together under certain conditions, and the true essence of the work emerges from the audience's participation. In the digital era, artists like Sougwen Chung and Krista Kim have taken this participatory principle and adapted it to the digital field, making it even more impactful. The intimacy of digital technology — whether through phones, touchscreens, or other devices — creates a direct and personal connection between the user and the artwork. This interaction brings the art to life, forming a haptic and sensory environment where the audience becomes co-creators. Without their input, the work wouldn’t fully exist, as it relies on their engagement to become complete.

— You know, there is always that tricky question about what is considered good or bad in art. For example, in almost every big city, you will find a museum that showcases digital art — like moving images projected onto walls and floors. I have this feeling that we are somehow not supposed to view it as serious art, like it is something 'bad.' But why is that?

Alfredo Cramerotti: Yes, we could call them "bad art museums," and that is fine. There is truth in that, but I think art appreciation has layers, much like an onion. At a museum, for example, the interpretation of an artwork is usually layered. The first part of a label might be very general, making the artwork approachable and easy to understand for everyone. The second paragraph provides more insight into the artist’s process — how they arrived at the work. Finally, the third layer might cater to professionals, making connections to art movements or historical references.

Different layers serve different audiences, and that is okay. Not everyone can dive deep into the meaning of an artwork. Some people are just out for the day, enjoying a coffee, and looking for something more casual, like digital art installations that can be fun and visually striking. And that is valid, too. These spaces play a role in society, catering to different types of visitors. Not everything has to be high art. For example, projection mapping or immersive digital experiences can be perfect for engaging people who might not be into reading long labels or visiting research-heavy exhibitions. They are often family-friendly and offer a "wow" factor that still opens the door to appreciating art in new ways.

Then you have collectives like TeamLab or Random Internaitonal, who manage to balance that "wow" factor with something more critical and thoughtful. They bring a deep knowledge of technology and art but also make their work accessible and engaging to the general public. That is what makes them so special — they show that art can be both spectacular and meaningful without sacrificing either.

Auronda Scalera: Yes, exactly! For example, we were recently at the LUMA Foundation, where they had an amazing exhibition about Judy Chicago. It was very intellectual, with strong feminist themes and thought-provoking elements. But then, there was this room full of feathers — a totally immersive experience. We, along with other colleagues, got stuck in that room because it was so engaging. Despite the intellectual weight of the exhibition, so many people were just enjoying the pure sensory experience of being in that space. It is a great reminder that even in deeply intellectual exhibitions, there can be moments of pure joy and interaction that appeal to everyone.

Alfredo Cramerotti: It was like a playroom!

Auronda Scalera, Pablo del Val and Alfredo Cramerotti

— This year, you were the co-curators of Art Dubai Digital. How did that come about?

Auronda Scalera: Some years ago, they decided to open a dedicated digital section, and for us, that was incredibly exciting because Art Dubai is the only art fair in the world with such a section. After two years of running it, Pablo del Val, the artistic director, stopped us in the aisle during the fair and said, "I want to talk to you about next year."

That is how it all started. He knew us as contemporary and digital curators, and we were thrilled to participate. Art Dubai was the perfect platform to showcase and synthesize the entire digital art movement. We had total freedom to present the artists we wanted, and we were able to feature all the key figures in the digital art space, effectively representing the movement. It was a unique opportunity to bring the digital art world to a broader audience through a major international fair.

Alfredo Cramerotti: We came up with a curatorial concept, discussing the best approach to take. One of our primary goals was to demystify digital art, so we decided to move away from the typical "dark cave" environments where digital art is usually displayed. Instead, we opened up the space, letting in natural light, and used light, champagne-coloured walls and dark green floors. This created a completely different vibe.

Another key element was to focus on the phygital — the blending of physical and digital — because many digital artists also produce physical outputs, like sculptures, installations, or 3D-printed objects. It was important to show that digital art is just another expansion of contemporary art, not something separate.

We also wanted to curate the exhibition in a way that didn’t feel like a marketplace. Instead of having booths filled with 50 different artists, we asked galleries and institutions to present solo or duo exhibitions (we like duos!), each tied to a coherent curatorial theme. This approach was very well received, and the galleries responded positively.

The result? The digital pavilion became the most crowded and buzzing part of Art Dubai in 2024. People kept returning because there was always something new and exciting to see. The natural light made the space welcoming, and the fusion of digital and physical art created a unique, enjoyable experience. Both the artists and galleries were thrilled, and the visitors loved it — it was a massive success!

Art Dubai Digital 2024. Photo: Cedric Ribeiro; Spark Media

— What projects are you working on now?

Auronda Scalera: As a duo, Noor Riyadh! We are calling there all the top digital artists of our time, it will be an unbelievable experience.

Alfredo Cramerotti: Yes, this is the biggest project right now. Noor Riyadh is a fascinating project — it is a nighttime media festival, running from 6 pm into the night. It features 60 plus artistic installations spread across three different areas in Riyadh, with 50+ of those in public spaces, which means we have to work with the architecture and urban environment. A few of the installations will be immersive indoor exhibitions.

We are also involved in talks, summits, university courses (IESA in Paris), and other consultancy work, but we can’t share much about that yet.

Also, we have the Web to Verse project as a duo with Valentino Catricala’, which is this evolving exhibition we have been working on. We have been in talks with institutions in Berlin, Shanghai, and Basel. Each iteration of Web to Verse will be different, with varying lists of artists and different collaborators, so there is a lot to organise. We haven’t finalised the timing yet because that’s still up for debate. Additionally, we are planning to do one edition of Web to Verse online on the metaverse, using the Walter’s Cube platform.

The last question — it is a task for your imagination. What do you think digital art will look like in 10 years?

Auronda Scalera: In my opinion, compared to the past, art collections have shifted. Now, your collection is often on your phone rather than on the walls of your home. This is because people are constantly moving between cities and countries, and digital art is far more portable. With the advent of wearable technology, the idea of art is evolving even further. We are not just looking at computers in front of us anymore; we are starting to wear them — whether as bracelets, earrings, or glasses. In the future, art might become even more integrated with our bodies, almost fusing with us through wearable devices. It won’t just be something you hang on a wall; it could be a part of your daily experience, visible through your smart glasses or other wearable tech. Art could essentially live with us, becoming part of who we are.

Alfredo Cramerotti: Exactly! If you think about it, music is already an individualised art form — accessible on your phone, glasses, or other devices. You create your own playlists, exchange music with friends, and shape your own sound environment, whether you are at home, at a concert, or on the go. I believe visual art will move in the same direction. With the rise of wearable technology and spatial computing, art will become even more integrated into our personal lives. In the future, we may have digital art displayed through glasses, contact lenses, or wearable rings, making art much more personalised and portable. It won’t be limited to gallery walls or physical spaces — it will be a dynamic part of your daily experience, tailored to your tastes and moods.

This shift will likely involve more interdisciplinary work, merging art forms like digital visuals, poetry, music, and more. As technology advances, these human cultural artefacts, which were once separated into distinct categories like painting or sculpture, will blend more seamlessly. Digital platforms will become the environment where all of these different forms of expression can coexist and enhance one another, creating a holistic experience that is not just about aesthetics but also about personal well-being and expression.

by Alexandra Mansilla