Hi Edward, Would you consider submitting it to http://noemata.net/aphantasia/ ?? I think it would fit the project well - it concerns existence/non-existence as an 'attribute' of an art-object. for example, an art-object may have existence as an attribute but without existing itself. blockchain is used as a form of attribution/verification/documentation technology.
Best, Bjørn On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Edward Picot via NetBehaviour < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > See what you think of the following: > > Works of art offer unparalleled opportunities for investors, both > individual and corporate. They have proved their worth time and again as > hedges against inflation. The only disadvantage is the physical work of art > itself. > > > Valuable art is increasingly bought, not to be displayed, but to be hidden > away in warehouses in ‘freeports’: tax- and customs-free spaces where > objects are, legally, indefinitely ‘in transit’ between countries. > > > Shares in valuable works of art are now being offered for sale online, for > example via Maecenas (https://www.maecenas.co). Investment in art is thus > being spread out from the privileged few to the slightly-less-privileged > not-quite-so-few. If you’re not rich enough to buy an entire work of art, > you can buy a fraction of one instead, without ever seeing or touching the > original. > > > You don’t even have to know what the original work of art was like. All > you have to understand is its market value. > > > The more successful online investments in art become, the more likely it > becomes that the works of art themselves will be permanently hidden from > view. They will cease to have any meaningful existence in terms of physical > form, expressiveness or aesthetic quality. All of this will be dissolved > and sublimated into their market price. > > > The next logical step in this process is for the artwork itself to > disappear completely, and for the market value of the work to be the only > thing that actually exists, right from the outset. > > > Therefore, today, we are offering you a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. > You are invited to buy shares in nothing. > > > Nothing is a completely unique work of art. It’s uniqueness lies in the > fact that it doesn’t exist. It is an absence, wrapped in a negation, buried > in a nullity. > > > Even though it has no physical dimensions, nothing does have a precise > geographical location. For the sake of security, to preserve value and > avoid taxes, it will be held in permanent storage. The location of this > storage may vary from time to time. Nothing is currently stored at > *51.57057,-0.09667** - **the Furtherfield Gallery, Finsbury Park, London. > * > > > *The method of storage is itself unique. In Flann O'Brien's novel **The > Third Policeman,** one of the policemen (MacCruiskeen) has a hobby of > making tiny boxes, each tinier than the previous one. He keeps them one > inside the other. When he unpacks them, the **last five** are completely > invisible, and in fact there's really no way of telling if they exist at > all. 'The one I am making now,' he says, 'is nearly as small as nothing.' * > > > *Nothing is being kept inside MacCruiskeen's tiniest box, and anyone who > would like to visit the Furtherfield Gallery to view it in storage is > welcome to do so, **during normal opening hours**. * > > > *Please be aware, however, **that nothing, and the box in which it is > stored, are both** completely invisible.* > > > *In keeping with Furtherfield’s copyleft philosophy, nothing is being > licensed on a creative commons basis. Anyone is welcome to reproduce and > display nothing, provided they give fair attribution to Furtherfield.* > > > *Also in keeping with Furtherfield’s open and democratic principles, we > are making **one** trillion shares in nothing available, at a price o**f > ************** each.* > > *Questions: Firstly, for Ruth and Mark, would you be happy to have nothing > on display at the Furtherfield Gallery? An empty room, an empty plinth, an > empty box, or even a pin with nothing balanced on its tip?* > > *Secondly, for Rob, is it practical to offer a trillion shares in > something? And what's the smallest cryptocurrency amount that could > practically be charged for each share? In my innocence I was thinking that > you could charge one BitCoin for each share, imagining that a BitCoin was > probably worth about 50p, but when I looked it up on line I see that a > BitCoin is now worth about four and a half thousand pounds. Is it possible > for people to pay for things in fractions of a BitCoin, for example a > thousandth or a ten thousandth of a BitCoin? In order to do so, if they > didn't have any BitCoin already, would they have to buy at least one, ie. > stump up several thousand pounds?* > > *It looks as if the cheapest of the cryptocurrencies is the Doge, which is > about 46p at the moment, and you can get a few of them free as a starter > deal. So I suppose the cost of a share could be one Doge: they're less well > known, but more fun. Is that practical? Could you make a trillion shares > available via the BlockChain and charge one Doge for each of them?* > > *The other alternative would be to make very few shares available, and > charge a lot of money for each of them, which would be more like the proper > elitist art market, and therefore perhaps a bit more satirically pointed... > But probably nobody would buy them. And if anybody did buy them, you might > end up feeling as if you were endorsing the whole art market system.* > > > *Edward * > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > >
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
