We can talk about the existence of art on the blockchain as an entry in
the ledger.
If there is no entry in a blockchain ledger the art probably does not
exist or impinge on the blockchain- and so what?!
But I love the introduction of Beuys and Guerrilla Girls to the
conversation because their "work" purports to take place in humans
(transforming them all into artists) and the changing behaviour of systems.
But how do we conceive of what we could call the "core" work in relation
to the economic life of a Beuys object or installation, and the
documentation of a Guerrilla Girls action?
Here is a "tokenomics" project under development.
Could the artist consortium model explored here
<https://medium.com/singulardtv/tokenomics-101-the-emerging-field-of-token-economics-e253b9e72ba3>
work for us?
Bests
Ruth
For entities we are claiming exist outside of the blockchain, the
data that
claims to register that existence is a proxy for them. We cannot
validate
the correctness of that claim using the blockchain's consensus rules
in the
same way we can for a simple value transaction if we wish to validate
the
fact of the registered object's existence outside of the blockchain.
Something about being outside the text. We can only validate that
person X
placed a record on the blockchain, and possibly that later they sent
it to
person Y.
This does seem to relate to the ontology of capital itself.
We use such proxies when buying and selling physical property such as
cars
or houses, or more pertinently when buying and selling conceptual art.
Certificates of authenticity for conceptual art are even more
material than
blockchain records. But I feel they are still proxies for the work
rather
than being the work, although this may just be the conceptual art fan
in me
speaking.
What I wonder about is in a sense the derailing of conceptual art,
which was a reaction at the time, at least among many artists, against
the materialism and mercantilism of the gallery/promotion structure.
Given that a conceptual work can be incorporated into blockchain,
which itself is an abstracting, is it necessary then to go into a
discussion of 'buying and selling conceptual art'? Isn't this a leap
which many artists, at least at the time, wouldn't make; doesn't it
reduce conceptualism to the usual marketplace phenomenology, instead
of the radical gesture that, at least for some, it embodied? For some
reason Beuys comes to mind - he wasn't a conceptualist, but his
teaching and art occupied such a radical position - as does the work
of the Guerrilla Girls etc. ..
Hi
- Alan
- Rob.
New CD:- LIMIT:
http://www.publiceyesore.com/catalog.php?pg=3&pit=138
email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 718-813-3285
current text http://www.alansondheim.org/uy.txt
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
--
Co-founder Co-director
Furtherfield
www.furtherfield.org
+44 (0) 77370 02879
Bitcoin Address 197BBaXa6M9PtHhhNTQkuHh1pVJA8RrJ2i
Furtherfield is the UK's leading organisation for art shows, labs, &
debates
around critical questions in art and technology, since 1997
Furtherfield is a Not-for-Profit Company limited by Guarantee
registered in England and Wales under the Company No.7005205.
Registered business address: Ballard Newman, Apex House, Grand Arcade,
Tally Ho Corner, London N12 0EH.
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
