Strange Rules: Hans Ulrich Obrist on Art Beyond the Object

Opening during the 61st Venice Biennale, “Strange Rules” at Palazzo Diedo proposes a new way of understanding contemporary art—one that shifts attention away from the finished object and toward the systems that produce it. Conceived by Hans Ulrich Obrist in close collaboration with artists Holly Herndon and Mat Dryhurst, and co-curated with Adriana Rispoli, the exhibition introduces the concept of “protocol art,” where rules, algorithms, and infrastructures become both medium and subject.

Bringing together an interdisciplinary group of artists, scientists, and thinkers, the project unfolds as a living environment rather than a fixed display. Visitors are invited to participate directly in works that evolve over time, contributing to collective systems, engaging with AI-driven processes, and encountering artworks that are continuously shaped by interaction. From large-scale software-based installations to speculative experiments in biology, sound, and computation, “Strange Rules” reveals the often invisible architectures that underpin contemporary culture.

For Obrist, the exhibition builds on decades of curatorial work at the intersection of art, technology, and knowledge production. Here, in Venice, that inquiry expands into something more fluid and participatory, an exhibition that doesn’t just present ideas, but actively generates them.

Hans Ulrich Obrist on “Strange Rules” at Palazzo Diedo

WHITEWALLER: What was the starting point for “Strange Rules.” How did you work with Mat Dryhurst, Holly Herndon, and Adriana Rispoli to create this project?

HANS ULRICH OBRIST: The starting point goes back about two years, when we began a project at Palazzo Diedo with the Berggruen Institute, which I curated with Lorenzo Marsili. It was a conference on universalism—really asking how, in a fragmented, multipolar world, we might rethink shared frameworks beyond a Eurocentric perspective.

We brought together thinkers from different continents, inspired in part by Souleymane Bachir Diagne’s ideas on how we might imagine a new philosophical basis for a post-globalization world. It was very much about asking: how can we define a common horizon in a time when everything feels increasingly polarized?

At the same time, I’ve been in conversation with Holly Herndon and Mat Dryhurst for many years, across a range of projects. The first encounter was 8 years ago when Ben Vickers and I interviewed Mat for Wired Magazine on the topic of Algoraves. At the Serpentine, we launched a long-term program on art and technology, which has since evolved into a full department dedicated to producing works with technology. Holly and Mat have been key collaborators within that context.

In 2025, our CEO Bettina Korek and the teams and I worked together on “The Call,” an exhibition curated by Eva Jäger that explored AI and collective voice through musical ensembles across the UK. What was important there was making invisible processes visible, the creation of datasets, the training of AI models, the entire genesis of the work. These are usually opaque systems, but in that project, the process itself became the artwork.

And across all these exchanges, whether through exhibitions, earlier research into rave culture and crypto for The Wire, or conversations that go back nearly a decade, Holly and Mat kept returning to one idea: protocol. For years, they’ve spoken about “protocol art,” the idea that underlying systems, rules, and infrastructures shape how culture is produced and experienced.

That stayed with me. So when Nicolas Berggruen and Mario Codognato invited us to curate this exhibition, it felt like the right moment to explore that idea more deeply—to ask what protocol art might be, and whether a wider group of artists is working in this way.

WW: So is this project a culmination of those past conversations, or part of an ongoing process?

HUO: It’s actually a completely new project. While it grows out of long-standing conversations, it’s distinct from what came before. “The Call” focused on datasets and collective voice; the Universalism conference was more philosophical.

What connects them is the sustained dialogue with Holly and Mat. Over many years, they’ve consistently returned to this idea of protocol. So I became very curious, what is protocol art? Is it something that already exists across different practices?

We began researching this question, conducting more than one hundred studio visits over the past eighteen months, gathering very regularly. Through that process, we realized that a number of artists are working with similar concerns—focusing on systems, rules, instructions, and processes rather than fixed objects.

What is Protocol Art?

WW: With protocol art shifting from final object to system, and from single author to collaboration, how does “Strange Rules” present this to the public?

HUO: The exhibition introduces protocol art as a practice that engages with the underlying rules shaping how culture is produced, distributed, and perceived in the digital age. These rules can take many forms, such as algorithms, AI models, computer protocols, platforms, and infrastructures.

What’s important is that protocol art does not simply use these tools; it exposes them, analyzes them, and transforms them into artistic material. The artists are not just working with technology; they are making the systems themselves visible.

Through our research, we saw that these practices share a fundamental shift: the artwork is not merely a final object, but a process governed by instructions. In a way, it’s a décalage, a shift, from object to system.

And this connects back to something we’ve explored before, this idea that art can make the invisible visible. Even though this project is very different, there is a continuity in that ambition, to reveal the hidden architectures that underpin contemporary life and aesthetic experience.

WW: And how does that change the visitor experience within an exhibition?

HUO: The exhibition begins with a large new installation by Holly Herndon and Mat Dryhurst, which occupies the first floor. It’s very much at the center of the exhibition.

In this work, you have agents writing software toward a collective goal, deliberating together with a cumulative memory. What’s interesting is that this system is not closed, it invites participation.

Visitors can sit down, engage with the system, and contribute to that cumulative memory. What they add becomes part of the work, augmenting the mission or context the artists have set. So the artwork evolves through interaction.

The software itself will also be made accessible. So the exhibition doesn’t just present work, it produces it. It’s about coordinating groups of people to contribute to a shared system.

The visitor experience, therefore, is not only about understanding how it works, but also about participating in it, becoming part of the process.

WW: And how does Venice, during the Biennale, shape that experience?

HUO: What’s exciting is that Venice hosts multiple Biennales. There is the Film Mostra, the Music Biennale, and others. Because this project is interdisciplinary, we are looking at how it can connect across these contexts, how AI intersects with cinema, with music, with performance. For example, there are conversations with filmmakers and production companies working with AI, and there are musical components that can unfold during the Music Biennale. So the project expands over time, through different formats and contributions. Toward the end of the year, we will also publish a book on protocol art. That’s an important aspect of the project.

Protocol art is not a manifesto-driven movement, but a loose constellation of practices. The book will be a way of bringing these ideas together and giving them a form.

“Protocol art is not a manifesto-driven movement, but a loose constellation of practices,”

—Hans Ulrich Obrist

WW: How does this project connect to your broader curatorial practice?

HUO: My work has always been about interdisciplinarity, about breaking down silos between different fields. I’ve always believed that innovation happens when people from different disciplines communicate and collaborate.

This goes back for example to projects like “Laboratorium” in 1999, which I curated with Barbara Vanderlinden and Bruno Latour. There, we brought together scientists and artists, looking at the laboratory and the studio as parallel spaces of experimentation.

Or “Utopia Station” at the Venice Biennale in 2003, which I curated with Rirkrit Tiravanija and Molly Nesbit. We invited practitioners from different fields to imagine alternative models of the future. What was interesting there was bringing in people who had never participated in an exhibition before.

I remember inviting Agnès Varda, she arrived by gondola in the Giardini and installed her work Patatutopia, with potatoes and films. She later said it was one of the most exciting experiences of her life, because it allowed her to work outside her field.

That idea—of creating unexpected connections, of inviting practitioners from other disciplines—is something we continue in this exhibition. Here, we bring together artists, scientists, technologists, and thinkers. There are visual artists working with AI, but also figures from science and technology who are contributing in new ways.

Who Are the Artists in Strange Rules?

WW: Can you expand on some of the artists and works included?

HUO: There is a wide range of participants. Artists like Trevor Paglen are presenting new installations, while Fabien Giraud is working on an AI-driven film. Ho Rui An is weaving narratives that connect history and technology, particularly in an Asian context. Ayoung Kim is also exploring these systems through speculative narratives.

Stephanie Dinkins is presenting a multi-generational memoir of her family through AI systems, which raises important questions about memory, identity, and technology. At the same time, we are including scientists like Michael Levin, whose research into cellular communication looks at how organisms coordinate and regenerate. His experiments with planaria—these worms that can regenerate—explore how cellular “conversations” determine structure. It’s fascinating because it has implications not only for biology, but also for how we think about systems and coordination.

We also have Ken Stanley, who has developed platforms like PicBreeder, where users collaborate with AI to evolve images over time. It’s a participatory system that reflects many of the ideas we’re exploring. And there are thinkers like Venkatesh Rao, who examines how emerging technologies shape social and cultural structures. His work connects to questions of protocol, governance, and coordination.

What’s important is that all these contributions—whether artistic, scientific, or theoretical—engage with the idea of systems and rules as creative material.

New Commissions at Palazzo Diedo

WW: And there are also a number of new commissions?

HUO: Yes, several. Philippe Parreno is creating a moving marquee that responds to feedback loops within the space, following a specific protocol. It’s a work that will continue to evolve. Lorenzo Senni is presenting a new sound commission, exploring the relationship between music, technology, and systems. There are also living works throughout the exhibition. Primavera De Filippi’s plantoids—digital plant sculptures—can be “pollinated” by visitors, allowing them to grow and change over time. These works extend into different parts of the building, including the café and bookshop, so the exhibition expands beyond traditional boundaries.

Agnieszka Kurant is presenting a new work connected to neuroscience and telepathic communication, where visitors participate in generating the experience. It’s not only something you see, but something you experience. There are also works by Avery Singer, Lawrence Abu Hamdan, and others, each engaging with protocol in different ways.

Importantly, the exhibition is deeply collaborative. It is co-curated with Holly Herndon and Adriana Rispoli, in close dialogue with Mario Codognato and the Palazzo Diedo team, who have a long history of commissioning site-specific works in the building.

WW: It sounds like the exhibition itself is constantly changing.

HUO: Yes, that’s essential. Many of the works are not static—they are living systems. They evolve over time, through interaction, through participation, through different contexts. The exhibition itself is not fixed. It changes as new contributions emerge, as visitors engage with it, as it connects to other events in Venice.

That’s very much at the heart of protocol art—the idea that the artwork is not a finished object, but an ongoing process shaped by rules, systems, and participation.

“The exhibition itself is not fixed. It changes as new contributions emerge, as visitors engage with it, as it connects to other events in Venice,”

—Hans Ulrich Obrist

WW: And finally, how do you see this project within your ongoing practice? What excites you most about this framework?

HUO: What excites me is that it continues this idea of building bridges between disciplines. I’ve always felt that there is a divide between the humanities and science, between art and technology, and that it is important to bring these fields together.

Increasingly, we see artists who are working across these boundaries—who don’t want to separate disciplines, but to connect them. Protocol art reflects that. It’s about systems, collaboration, and shared processes.

It’s also about understanding how things are made—how culture is produced, how systems operate—and creating the possibility for participation within those systems.