Hi Rob,
On behalf of Paul Hertz (he does not know this yet ;-) I’m posting his
comments from Facebook about your latest article ‘The ABC of
Accelerationist Blockchain Critique’ -
http://www.furtherfield.org/features/articles/abc-accelerationist-blockchain-critique
- here — cuz why not?
Robert Jackson said “that essay was terrifyingly glorious, or gloriously
terrifying.”
Paul’s response is below…
At first and somewhat hasty read, it strikes me that:
0) An algorithmic futures market in art criticism would be prone to all
the pressures of chaotic emergence—localized hill-climbing, basins of
attraction, non-linearity, deterministic chaos—which a posteriori become
regarded as "predictive" by way of cultural assumptions in the context.
1) There are innumerable archipelagoes of art production, many of which
are not susceptible (for the moment) to market evaluations that depend
on digital technology.
2) I'm happy with a state of affairs where even just one person finds my
art of such value as to live with it—and suspect that that situation may
embody most of the transformative potential I find so lacking in the art
market. But maybe I've misunderstood the nature of markets or of the
proposal.
Wishing you well.
marc
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
