Oops! Apologies for posting this twice. I thought the first one hadn't
worked.
On 13/10/17 19:10, Edward Picot wrote:
Can't we do something with this? Couldn't we create a conceptual work
of art that didn't actually exist at all - we could use some ideas
from Curt Cloninger's 'Essay About Nothing' to represent it - and
market shares in it via the Blockchain? Proceeds to Furtherfield,
unless the value went above a trillion dollars, in which case I want a
cut.
Edward
On 11/10/17 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, at 12:58 AM, ruth catlow wrote:
Perfectly put Helen!
Art reframed as a new asset class for fractional ownership ain't my
idea of utopia.
"""Marly studied the quotations. Pollock was down again. This, she
supposed, was the aspect of art that she had the most difficulty
understanding. Picard, if that was the man's name, was speaking with
a broker in New York, arranging the purchase of a certain number of
"points" of the work of a particular artist. A "point" might be
defined in any number of ways, depending on the medium involved, but
it was almost certain that Picard would never see the works he was
purchasing. If the artist enjoyed sufficient status, the originals
were very likely crated away in some vault, where no one saw them at
all. Days or years later, Picard might pick up that same phone and
order the broker to sell. """
- William Gibson, "Count Zero", 1986.
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
