Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Pall Thayer]

A piece about the "runningness" of code art:

http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/stealthiscodeart/index.php?id=13

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:43 PM Anthony Stephenson 
wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nothing
> 
> #nuttin {
> font-family: "Arial Black", Gadget, sans-serif;
> font-size: 150px;
> font-weight: bold;
> color: #333;
> text-decoration: none;
>margin: 0;
> position: absolute;
> top: 50%;
> left: 50%;
> transform: translate(-50%, -50%);
> display: block;
> text-align: center;
> vertical-align: middle;
> background-color: #000;
> width: 100%;
> line-height: 100%;
> }
> body,td,th {
> color: #999;
> }
> body {
> background-color: #000;
> }
> 
> 
>
> 
> nothing
> 
> 
>
> --
>
> - *Anthony Stephenson*
>
> *http://anthonystephenson.org/* 
>
>
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

-- 
P Thayer, Artist
http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Anthony Stephenson]

nothing

#nuttin {
font-family: "Arial Black", Gadget, sans-serif;
font-size: 150px;
font-weight: bold;
color: #333;
text-decoration: none;
   margin: 0;
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
left: 50%;
transform: translate(-50%, -50%);
display: block;
text-align: center;
vertical-align: middle;
background-color: #000;
width: 100%;
line-height: 100%;
}
body,td,th {
color: #999;
}
body {
background-color: #000;
}




nothing



-- 

- *Anthony Stephenson*

*http://anthonystephenson.org/* 
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[AGF poemproducer]

I just read this about women in Blockchain

I get the feeling that simply "blockchain everything" ain't all that… For 
better #inclusion stats, see new @tech_we_trust & @holochain

refering to this article from the spring:
https://insights.dcg.co/women-in-bitcoin-and-blockchain-tech-an-opportunity-f4b2f28cc77a

stay strong y’all
agee


> On 20 Oct 2017, at 13:35, helen varley jamieson  
> wrote:
> 
> i just read hito steyerl's chapter in "artists re:thinking the blockchain", 
> about art as an alternative currency, & the potential & problems therein. i 
> recommend it (it's not long, & it's also funny)
> 
> h : )
> 
> On 19.10.2017 17:51, Edward Picot wrote:
>> Rob,
>> 
>> As far as I'm concerned your help would be greatly appreciated. I've had 
>> several looks at Ethereum, but I don't feel at all confident that I could 
>> actually implement something and make it work. Your coloured art coins look 
>> as if they at least halfway there. Do I gather that you created 13 of each 
>> colour, and offered them for sale?
>> 
>> On the presentational side of this, the art listed on Maecenas, according to 
>> their site, 'will be held in purpose-built art storage facilities that not 
>> only ensure that the artwork is safe but also guarantee that it’s properly 
>> looked after', and the ArtReview article mentions that artworks are 
>> 'increasingly bought to be hidden away in warehouses in the peculiar 
>> nonzones known as freeports - tax- and customs-free spaces where objects 
>> are, legally, indefinitely ‘in transit’ between countries'. So I was 
>> wondering if  our non-existent artwork should have some kind of physical 
>> location. An empty crate housed at the Furtherfield gallery might be nice. 
>> The other option that occurred to me derives from Flann O'Brien's novel The 
>> Third Policeman. One of the policemen in the book (MacCruiskeen) has a hobby 
>> of making tiny boxes, each tinier than the previous one, which he keeps one 
>> inside the other. When he unpacks them the tiniest of the lot is completely 
>> invisible, and in fact there's really no way of telling that it exists at 
>> all.  'The one I am making now,' he says, 'is nearly as small as nothing.' 
>> So another option would be to say that our on-existent artwork was housed 
>> inside MacCruiskeen's tiniest box, and perhaps give a map-reference for it, 
>> whilst warning people that unfortunately it's so small that it can't be seen.
>> 
>> What do other people think?
>> 
>> Edward 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 18/10/17 05:04, Rob Myers wrote:
>>> Yes I can help if anyone is interested.
>>> 
>>> Precedent-wise there's -
>>> 
>>> http://interaccess.org/event/2017/bitcoin-ethereum-and-conceptual-art
>>> 
>>> Or my own -
>>> 
>>> http://robmyers.org/art-coins-coloured/
>>> 
>>> But neither of these are *nothing*. :-)
>>> 
>>> - Rob.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, at 10:36 AM, Edward Picot wrote:
 Great! - I'm not sure where you go with it after that, though.
 
 You could offer something non-existent for sale on OpenBazaar easily 
 enough. That would be one option. What appealed to me, though, was the 
 idea of selling shares in a non-existent work of art, in the hope that the 
 shares would keep changing hands and their value would keep increasing, so 
 that if you retained something like a 25% stake in the work, that stake 
 would keep increasing in value too.
 
 The paradox, of course, would be that by announcing that you were creating 
 a non-existent work of art, and offering shares in it, you would in effect 
 be creating an actual conceptual work of art about the marketing and the 
 market value of art. That's why I thought the images from Curt Cloninger's 
 essay about nothing would be appropriate (for advertising the existence, 
 or rather non-existence, of the work and the availability of shares), 
 because he's investigating the paradox that you can't create a 
 representation of nothing without that representation being a something.
 
 I expect Rob could advise about how to set up the shares thing.
 
 Edward
 
 On 15/10/17 16:22, ruth catlow wrote:
> Not sure this is the best tool
> https://etherpad.net/p/MarlyStudiedTheQuotations
> 
> but a place to start
> 
> On 15/10/17 16:15, ruth catlow wrote:
>> I'd be up for thinking this one through.
>> Let's do it.
>> 
>> On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
>>> 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 

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[helen varley jamieson]

i just read hito steyerl's chapter in "artists re:thinking the
blockchain", about art as an alternative currency, & the potential &
problems therein. i recommend it (it's not long, & it's also funny)

h : )


On 19.10.2017 17:51, Edward Picot wrote:
> Rob,
>
> As far as I'm concerned your help would be greatly appreciated. I've
> had several looks at Ethereum, but I don't feel at all confident that
> I could actually implement something and make it work. Your coloured
> art coins look as if they at least halfway there. Do I gather that you
> created 13 of each colour, and offered them for sale?
>
> On the presentational side of this, the art listed on Maecenas,
> according to their site, 'will be held in purpose-built art storage
> facilities that not only ensure that the artwork is safe but also
> guarantee that it’s properly looked after', and the ArtReview article
> mentions that artworks are 'increasingly bought to be hidden away in
> warehouses in the peculiar nonzones known as freeports - tax- and
> customs-free spaces where objects are, legally, indefinitely ‘in
> transit’ between countries'. So I was wondering if  our non-existent
> artwork should have some kind of physical location. An empty crate
> housed at the Furtherfield gallery might be nice. The other option
> that occurred to me derives from Flann O'Brien's novel The Third
> Policeman. One of the policemen in the book (MacCruiskeen) has a hobby
> of making tiny boxes, each tinier than the previous one, which he
> keeps one inside the other. When he unpacks them the tiniest of the
> lot is completely invisible, and in fact there's really no way of
> telling that it exists at all.  'The one I am making now,' he says,
> 'is nearly as small as nothing.' So another option would be to say
> that our on-existent artwork was housed inside MacCruiskeen's tiniest
> box, and perhaps give a map-reference for it, whilst warning people
> that unfortunately it's so small that it can't be seen.
>
> What do other people think?
>
> Edward
>
>
>
> On 18/10/17 05:04, Rob Myers wrote:
>> Yes I can help if anyone is interested.
>>
>> Precedent-wise there's -
>>
>> http://interaccess.org/event/2017/bitcoin-ethereum-and-conceptual-art
>>
>> Or my own -
>>
>> http://robmyers.org/art-coins-coloured/
>>
>> But neither of these are *nothing*. :-)
>>
>> - Rob.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, at 10:36 AM, Edward Picot wrote:
>>> Great! - I'm not sure where you go with it after that, though.
>>>
>>> You could offer something non-existent for sale on OpenBazaar easily
>>> enough. That would be one option. What appealed to me, though, was
>>> the idea of selling shares in a non-existent work of art, in the
>>> hope that the shares would keep changing hands and their value would
>>> keep increasing, so that if you retained something like a 25% stake
>>> in the work, that stake would keep increasing in value too.
>>>
>>> The paradox, of course, would be that by announcing that you were
>>> creating a non-existent work of art, and offering shares in it, you
>>> would in effect be creating an actual conceptual work of art about
>>> the marketing and the market value of art. That's why I thought the
>>> images from Curt Cloninger's essay about nothing would be
>>> appropriate (for advertising the existence, or rather non-existence,
>>> of the work and the availability of shares), because he's
>>> investigating the paradox that you can't create a representation of
>>> nothing without that representation being a something.
>>>
>>> I expect Rob could advise about how to set up the shares thing.
>>>
>>> Edward
>>>
>>> On 15/10/17 16:22, ruth catlow wrote:
 Not sure this is the best tool
 https://etherpad.net/p/MarlyStudiedTheQuotations

 but a place to start

 On 15/10/17 16:15, ruth catlow wrote:
> I'd be up for thinking this one through.
> Let's do it.
>
> On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
>> 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 

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[helen varley jamieson]

how about all the men on this list take it on to tweet/talk about this,
and any other incidents - big or small - that they're aware of? it isn't
only women's responsibility to be constantly trying to draw attention to
the problem, it's also men's responsibility to stop standing by silently
letting this stuff keep happening, as if it's normal.

h : )


On 20.10.2017 07:56, AGF poemproducer wrote:
>> On 20 Oct 2017, at 01:04, marc.garrett  wrote:
>>
>> What a soulless slug this person must be. 
>
> haha - thanks for that
>
> Gretta, if you like we can tweet something humilating via female pressure 
> account, which i am co-running
> i am sick of letting this stuff slip, we can design the tweet together ???
>
> I am pro publicly calling out soulless slugs!
> it is a question of tools
>
> speaking of tools
>
> have you all heard of
> https://pursuanceproject.org/
> @PursuanceProj
>
> i am becoming quite hopeful with this
> it is not an easy way out
>
> but i think it could be something 
>
> peas
> agee
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***sound & curation 
> AGF: twitter @poemproducer 
> www.poemproducer.com
> www.antyegreie.com
>
> DOCUMENTA14 > #DISembTEChyb 
> https://www.mixcloud.com/SAVVY_Funk/playlists/disembtechyb/
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>

-- 
helen varley jamieson
he...@creative-catalyst.com 
http://www.creative-catalyst.com
http://www.upstage.org.nz
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[AGF poemproducer]

> On 20 Oct 2017, at 01:04, marc.garrett  wrote:
> 
> What a soulless slug this person must be. 


haha - thanks for that

Gretta, if you like we can tweet something humilating via female pressure 
account, which i am co-running
i am sick of letting this stuff slip, we can design the tweet together ???

I am pro publicly calling out soulless slugs!
it is a question of tools

speaking of tools

have you all heard of
https://pursuanceproject.org/
@PursuanceProj

i am becoming quite hopeful with this
it is not an easy way out

but i think it could be something 

peas
agee






***sound & curation 
AGF: twitter @poemproducer 
www.poemproducer.com
www.antyegreie.com

DOCUMENTA14 > #DISembTEChyb 
https://www.mixcloud.com/SAVVY_Funk/playlists/disembtechyb/

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Pall Thayer]

Now that I think about it, I could see ownership of ephemeral art becoming
a thing... an investor is at a party and someone says, "We just bought a De
Kooning. It's hanging in our living room." "Well, I just bought 5% in a
Pall Thayer and it doesn't even exist any more." Top that!


On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 6:09 PM marc.garrett <marc.garr...@protonmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Gretta,
>
> What a soulless slug this person must be.
>
> This is what I hate about the art world, and sadly - certain aspects of
> media art culture has shifted towards this direction, more than ever now.
>
> It's a double bind for artists -- to get a show one has to be nice to some
> of these assholes, or end up becoming like them, and this means they can
> get away with a lot nonsense.
>
> Wishing you well.
>
> marc
>
> Marc Garrett
>
> Marc Garrett
>
> Co-Founder, Co-Director and main editor of Furtherfield.
> Art, technology and social change, since 1996
> http://www.furtherfield.org
>
> Furtherfield Gallery & Commons in the park
> Finsbury Park, London N4 2NQ
> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery
> Currently writing a PhD at Birkbeck University, London
> https://birkbeck.academia.edu/MarcGarrett
> Just published: Artists Re:thinking the Blockchain
> Eds, Ruth Catlow, Marc Garrett, Nathan Jones, & Sam Skinner
> Liverpool Press - http://bit.ly/2x8XlMK
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com> Secure Email.
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas
>
> Local Time: 18 October 2017 11:52 AM
> UTC Time: 18 October 2017 10:52
> From: gretta.elise.l...@gmail.com
> To: marc.garrett <marc.garr...@protonmail.com>, NetBehaviour for
> networked distributed creativity <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
>
> Had another frustrating (yet, fundamentally unsurprising) incident since I
> sent that email in which a museum director matter-of-factly told me that
> all of the greatest artists in history were men and after I strenuously
> argued against that, we continued discussing the work we were cooperating
> on… well let’s just say that in the end, a few days later, the museum
> decided that they didn’t have the budget after all to acquire the piece of
> mine that they’d been interested in. I wonder what changed?? ;)
>
>
>
>
> On 18. Oct 2017, at 10:40, marc.garrett <marc.garr...@protonmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Gretta,
>
> I scrolled the page & just saw that it was mainly men, perhaps it's
> synonymous with aspects of Modernism ;-)
>
> wishing you well.
>
> marc
>
> Marc Garrett
>
> Co-Founder, Co-Director and main editor of Furtherfield.
> Art, technology and social change, since 1996
> http://www.furtherfield.org
>
> Furtherfield Gallery & Commons in the park
> Finsbury Park, London N4 2NQ
> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery
> Currently writing a PhD at Birkbeck University, London
> https://birkbeck.academia.edu/MarcGarrett
> Just published: Artists Re:thinking the Blockchain
> Eds, Ruth Catlow, Marc Garrett, Nathan Jones, & Sam Skinner
> Liverpool Press - http://bit.ly/2x8XlMK
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com/> Secure Email.
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas
> Local Time: 16 October 2017 2:11 PM
> UTC Time: 16 October 2017 13:11
> From: sondh...@panix.com
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <
> netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
>
>
> Body Art was both male and female, Gina Pane, Collette, Marina Abramovich,
> etc. but also Vito Acconci, Dennis Oppenheim, Genesis P. Orridge, but also
> Hannah Wilke, etc. A pretty mixed group. Most of the hard-core
> conceptualists were male, but there are also Adrian Piper, the Guerilla
> Girls, Alice Aycock and Nancy Wilson Kitchel, Martha Wilson, etc., who
> spanned conceptualism and physical/person production as well.
>
>- Alan
>
>On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Gretta Louw wrote:
>
> It?s interesting to me that artists working with immaterial / non-existent
> artworks in the past are so overwhelmingly male, but I don?t know yet what
> it
> means?
> http://www.modernedition.com/art-articles/absence-in-art/the-invisible-artw
> ork.html Something perhaps about the other side of the body art coin
> perhaps?
>
>   On 15. Oct 2017, at 17:15, ruth catlow
>   <ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org> wrote:
>
> I'd be up for thinking this one through.
> Let's do it.
> On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
> 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 th

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[marc.garrett]

Hi Gretta,

What a soulless slug this person must be.

This is what I hate about the art world, and sadly - certain aspects of media 
art culture has shifted towards this direction, more than ever now.

It's a double bind for artists -- to get a show one has to be nice to some of 
these assholes, or end up becoming like them, and this means they can get away 
with a lot nonsense.

Wishing you well.

marc

Marc Garrett

Marc Garrett

Co-Founder, Co-Director and main editor of Furtherfield.
Art, technology and social change, since 1996
http://www.furtherfield.org

Furtherfield Gallery & Commons in the park
Finsbury Park, London N4 2NQhttp://www.furtherfield.org/gallery
Currently writing a PhD at Birkbeck University, London
https://birkbeck.academia.edu/MarcGarrett
Just published: Artists Re:thinking the Blockchain
Eds, Ruth Catlow, Marc Garrett, Nathan Jones, & Sam Skinner
Liverpool Press - http://bit.ly/2x8XlMK

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas
> Local Time: 18 October 2017 11:52 AM
> UTC Time: 18 October 2017 10:52
> From: gretta.elise.l...@gmail.com
> To: marc.garrett <marc.garr...@protonmail.com>, NetBehaviour for networked 
> distributed creativity <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
>
> Had another frustrating (yet, fundamentally unsurprising) incident since I 
> sent that email in which a museum director matter-of-factly told me that all 
> of the greatest artists in history were men and after I strenuously argued 
> against that, we continued discussing the work we were cooperating on… well 
> let’s just say that in the end, a few days later, the museum decided that 
> they didn’t have the budget after all to acquire the piece of mine that 
> they’d been interested in. I wonder what changed?? ;)
>
>> On 18. Oct 2017, at 10:40, marc.garrett <marc.garr...@protonmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gretta,
>>
>> I scrolled the page & just saw that it was mainly men, perhaps it's 
>> synonymous with aspects of Modernism ;-)
>>
>> wishing you well.
>>
>> marc
>>
>> Marc Garrett
>>
>> Co-Founder, Co-Director and main editor of Furtherfield.
>> Art, technology and social change, since 1996
>> [http://www.furtherfield.org](http://www.furtherfield.org/)
>>
>> Furtherfield Gallery & Commons in the park
>> Finsbury Park, London N4 2NQhttp://www.furtherfield.org/gallery
>> Currently writing a PhD at Birkbeck University, London
>> https://birkbeck.academia.edu/MarcGarrett
>> Just published: Artists Re:thinking the Blockchain
>> Eds, Ruth Catlow, Marc Garrett, Nathan Jones, & Sam Skinner
>> Liverpool Press - http://bit.ly/2x8XlMK
>>
>> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) Secure Email.
>>
>>>  Original Message 
>>> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas
>>> Local Time: 16 October 2017 2:11 PM
>>> UTC Time: 16 October 2017 13:11
>>> From: sondh...@panix.com
>>> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity 
>>> <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
>>>
>>> Body Art was both male and female, Gina Pane, Collette, Marina Abramovich,
>>> etc. but also Vito Acconci, Dennis Oppenheim, Genesis P. Orridge, but also
>>> Hannah Wilke, etc. A pretty mixed group. Most of the hard-core
>>> conceptualists were male, but there are also Adrian Piper, the Guerilla
>>> Girls, Alice Aycock and Nancy Wilson Kitchel, Martha Wilson, etc., who
>>> spanned conceptualism and physical/person production as well.
>>>
>>> - Alan
>>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Gretta Louw wrote:
>>>
>>>> It?s interesting to me that artists working with immaterial / non-existent
>>>> artworks in the past are so overwhelmingly male, but I don?t know yet what 
>>>> it
>>>> means?http://www.modernedition.com/art-articles/absence-in-art/the-invisible-artw
>>>> ork.html Something perhaps about the other side of the body art coin
>>>> perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> On 15. Oct 2017, at 17:15, ruth catlow
>>>>   <
>>>> ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd be up for thinking this one through.
>>>> Let's do it.
>>>> On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
>>>> 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 w

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Pall Thayer]

The Maecenas thing has nothing to do with making art more accessible. It's
about making investing in art more accessible. It's strictly about art as
commodity rather than artifact.

Speaking of non-existent artwork, the site I posted recently "Steal This
CodeArt" celebrates the notion of ephemerality and volatility. I'll gladly
sell anyone any of those codes but I can't promise that it will be the
same, or even there at all, tomorrow. Maybe I can get some investors on
Maecenas.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:57 AM Edward Picot 
wrote:

> Rob,
>
> As far as I'm concerned your help would be greatly appreciated. I've had
> several looks at Ethereum, but I don't feel at all confident that I could
> actually implement something and make it work. Your coloured art coins look
> as if they at least halfway there. Do I gather that you created 13 of each
> colour, and offered them for sale?
>
> On the presentational side of this, the art listed on Maecenas, according
> to their site, 'will be held in purpose-built art storage facilities that
> not only ensure that the artwork is safe but also guarantee that it’s
> properly looked after', and the ArtReview article mentions that artworks
> are 'increasingly bought to be hidden away in warehouses in the peculiar
> nonzones known as freeports - tax- and customs-free spaces where objects
> are, legally, indefinitely ‘in transit’ between countries'. So I was
> wondering if  our non-existent artwork should have some kind of physical
> location. An empty crate housed at the Furtherfield gallery might be nice.
> The other option that occurred to me derives from Flann O'Brien's novel The
> Third Policeman. One of the policemen in the book (MacCruiskeen) has a
> hobby of making tiny boxes, each tinier than the previous one, which he
> keeps one inside the other. When he unpacks them the tiniest of the lot is
> completely invisible, and in fact there's really no way of telling that it
> exists at all.  'The one I am making now,' he says, 'is nearly as small as
> nothing.' So another option would be to say that our on-existent artwork
> was housed inside MacCruiskeen's tiniest box, and perhaps give a
> map-reference for it, whilst warning people that unfortunately it's so
> small that it can't be seen.
>
> What do other people think?
>
>
> Edward
>
>
>
> On 18/10/17 05:04, Rob Myers wrote:
>
> Yes I can help if anyone is interested.
>
> Precedent-wise there's -
>
> http://interaccess.org/event/2017/bitcoin-ethereum-and-conceptual-art
>
> Or my own -
>
> http://robmyers.org/art-coins-coloured/
>
> But neither of these are *nothing*. :-)
>
> - Rob.
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, at 10:36 AM, Edward Picot wrote:
>
> Great! - I'm not sure where you go with it after that, though.
>
> You could offer something non-existent for sale on OpenBazaar easily
> enough. That would be one option. What appealed to me, though, was the idea
> of selling shares in a non-existent work of art, in the hope that the
> shares would keep changing hands and their value would keep increasing, so
> that if you retained something like a 25% stake in the work, that stake
> would keep increasing in value too.
>
> The paradox, of course, would be that by announcing that you were creating
> a non-existent work of art, and offering shares in it, you would in effect
> be creating an actual conceptual work of art about the marketing and the
> market value of art. That's why I thought the images from Curt Cloninger's
> essay about nothing would be appropriate (for advertising the existence, or
> rather non-existence, of the work and the availability of shares), because
> he's investigating the paradox that you can't create a representation of
> nothing without that representation being a something.
>
> I expect Rob could advise about how to set up the shares thing.
>
> Edward
>
> On 15/10/17 16:22, ruth catlow wrote:
>
> Not sure this is the best tool
> https://etherpad.net/p/MarlyStudiedTheQuotations
>
> but a place to start
>
> On 15/10/17 16:15, ruth catlow wrote:
>
> I'd be up for thinking this one through.
> Let's do it.
>
> On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
>
> 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 

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Edward Picot]

Rob,

As far as I'm concerned your help would be greatly appreciated. I've had 
several looks at Ethereum, but I don't feel at all confident that I 
could actually implement something and make it work. Your coloured art 
coins look as if they at least halfway there. Do I gather that you 
created 13 of each colour, and offered them for sale?


On the presentational side of this, the art listed on Maecenas, 
according to their site, 'will be held in purpose-built art storage 
facilities that not only ensure that the artwork is safe but also 
guarantee that it’s properly looked after', and the ArtReview article 
mentions that artworks are 'increasingly bought to be hidden away in 
warehouses in the peculiar nonzones known as freeports - tax- and 
customs-free spaces where objects are, legally, indefinitely ‘in 
transit’ between countries'. So I was wondering if  our non-existent 
artwork should have some kind of physical location. An empty crate 
housed at the Furtherfield gallery might be nice. The other option that 
occurred to me derives from Flann O'Brien's novel The Third Policeman. 
One of the policemen in the book (MacCruiskeen) has a hobby of making 
tiny boxes, each tinier than the previous one, which he keeps one inside 
the other. When he unpacks them the tiniest of the lot is completely 
invisible, and in fact there's really no way of telling that it exists 
at all.  'The one I am making now,' he says, 'is nearly as small as 
nothing.' So another option would be to say that our on-existent artwork 
was housed inside MacCruiskeen's tiniest box, and perhaps give a 
map-reference for it, whilst warning people that unfortunately it's so 
small that it can't be seen.


What do other people think?

Edward



On 18/10/17 05:04, Rob Myers wrote:

Yes I can help if anyone is interested.

Precedent-wise there's -

http://interaccess.org/event/2017/bitcoin-ethereum-and-conceptual-art

Or my own -

http://robmyers.org/art-coins-coloured/

But neither of these are *nothing*. :-)

- Rob.


On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, at 10:36 AM, Edward Picot wrote:

Great! - I'm not sure where you go with it after that, though.

You could offer something non-existent for sale on OpenBazaar easily 
enough. That would be one option. What appealed to me, though, was 
the idea of selling shares in a non-existent work of art, in the hope 
that the shares would keep changing hands and their value would keep 
increasing, so that if you retained something like a 25% stake in the 
work, that stake would keep increasing in value too.


The paradox, of course, would be that by announcing that you were 
creating a non-existent work of art, and offering shares in it, you 
would in effect be creating an actual conceptual work of art about 
the marketing and the market value of art. That's why I thought the 
images from Curt Cloninger's essay about nothing would be appropriate 
(for advertising the existence, or rather non-existence, of the work 
and the availability of shares), because he's investigating the 
paradox that you can't create a representation of nothing without 
that representation being a something.


I expect Rob could advise about how to set up the shares thing.

Edward

On 15/10/17 16:22, ruth catlow wrote:

Not sure this is the best tool
https://etherpad.net/p/MarlyStudiedTheQuotations

but a place to start

On 15/10/17 16:15, ruth catlow wrote:

I'd be up for thinking this one through.
Let's do it.

On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
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

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[helen varley jamieson]

good on you gretta, for not letting him get away with it (or at least,
not without discussion ...). this kind of casual sexism really needs to
be challenged, as in many ways it's even more insidious than the
outright variety which is easier to call out. it reinforces women's
invisibility & the idea that this state of affairs is somehow natural.

who was the museum director and which museum? so at least those of us on
this list can know who to avoid.

(maybe we need a #metoo campaign for experiencing this kind of put-down
in the arts ... )

h : )


On 18.10.2017 17:52, Alan Sondheim wrote:
>
>
> It's the men who have traditionally gotten the most attention, but
> there have always been many brilliant women; when I did Individuals in
> 1974 for Dutton, the ratio was pretty much even, and when I curated
> later at Nexus in Atlanta, it was the same. This is an issue and
> prejudice on the part of cultural sexism, not on the part of the great
> number of amazing woman artists I've known. The museum director is
> obviously way out of line here and I wonder if he thinks all the men
> he loves are white.
>
> Alan
>
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017, Gretta Louw wrote:
>
>> Had another frustrating (yet, fundamentally unsurprising) incident
>> since I
>> sent that email in which a museum director matter-of-factly told me
>> that all
>> of the greatest artists in history were men and after I strenuously
>> argued
>> against that, we continued discussing the work we were cooperating
>> on? well
>> let?s just say that in the end, a few days later, the museum decided
>> that they
>> didn?t have the budget after all to acquire the piece of mine that
>> they?d been
>> interested in. I wonder what changed?? ;)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   On 18. Oct 2017, at 10:40, marc.garrett
>>   <marc.garr...@protonmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gretta,
>>
>> I scrolled the page & just saw that it was mainly men, perhaps it's
>> synonymous with aspects of Modernism ;-)
>>
>> wishing you well.
>>
>> marc
>>
>> Marc Garrett
>>
>> Co-Founder, Co-Director and main editor of Furtherfield.
>> Art, technology and social change, since 1996
>> http://www.furtherfield.org
>>
>> Furtherfield Gallery & Commons in the park
>> Finsbury Park, London N4 2NQ
>> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery
>> Currently writing a PhD at Birkbeck University, London
>> https://birkbeck.academia.edu/MarcGarrett
>> Just published: Artists Re:thinking the Blockchain
>> Eds, Ruth Catlow, Marc Garrett, Nathan Jones, & Sam Skinner
>> Liverpool Press - http://bit.ly/2x8XlMK
>>
>> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>>
>>    Original Message 
>> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas
>> Local Time: 16 October 2017 2:11 PM
>> UTC Time: 16 October 2017 13:11
>> From: sondh...@panix.com
>> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>> <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
>>
>>
>> Body Art was both male and female, Gina Pane, Collette, Marina
>> Abramovich,
>> etc. but also Vito Acconci, Dennis Oppenheim, Genesis P.
>> Orridge, but also
>> Hannah Wilke, etc. A pretty mixed group. Most of the hard-core
>> conceptualists were male, but there are also Adrian Piper, the
>> Guerilla
>> Girls, Alice Aycock and Nancy Wilson Kitchel, Martha Wilson,
>> etc., who
>> spanned conceptualism and physical/person production as well.
>>  *  Alan
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Gretta Louw wrote:
>>   It?s interesting to me that artists working with
>>   immaterial / non-existent
>> artworks in the past are so overwhelmingly male, but I
>> don?t know yet what it
>> means?http://www.modernedition.com/art-articles/absence-in-art/the-invisibl
>>
>> e-artw
>> ork.html Something perhaps about the other side of the
>> body art coin
>> perhaps?
>>
>>   On 15. Oct 2017, at 17:15, ruth catlow
>>   <ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org> wrote:
>> I'd be up for thinking this one through.
>> Let's do it.
>> On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
>> 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 th

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Rob Myers]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017, at 03:52 AM, Gretta Louw wrote:
> Had another frustrating (yet, fundamentally unsurprising) incident
> since I sent that email in which a museum director matter-of-factly
> told me that all of the greatest artists in history were men
Gn.

> and after I strenuously argued against that, we continued discussing
> the work we were cooperating on… well let’s just say that in the end,
> a few days later, the museum decided that they didn’t have the budget
> after all to acquire the piece of mine that they’d been interested in.
> I wonder what changed?? ;)
No machine learning algorithm could possibly find a correlation... ;-)

- Rob.



___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Alan Sondheim]

It's the men who have traditionally gotten the most attention, but there 
have always been many brilliant women; when I did Individuals in 1974 for 
Dutton, the ratio was pretty much even, and when I curated later at Nexus 
in Atlanta, it was the same. This is an issue and prejudice on the part of 
cultural sexism, not on the part of the great number of amazing woman 
artists I've known. The museum director is obviously way out of line here 
and I wonder if he thinks all the men he loves are white.


Alan

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017, Gretta Louw wrote:


Had another frustrating (yet, fundamentally unsurprising) incident since I
sent that email in which a museum director matter-of-factly told me that all
of the greatest artists in history were men and after I strenuously argued
against that, we continued discussing the work we were cooperating on? well
let?s just say that in the end, a few days later, the museum decided that they
didn?t have the budget after all to acquire the piece of mine that they?d been
interested in. I wonder what changed?? ;)




  On 18. Oct 2017, at 10:40, marc.garrett
  <marc.garr...@protonmail.com> wrote:

Hi Gretta,

I scrolled the page & just saw that it was mainly men, perhaps it's
synonymous with aspects of Modernism ;-)

wishing you well.

marc

Marc Garrett

Co-Founder, Co-Director and main editor of Furtherfield.
Art, technology and social change, since 1996
http://www.furtherfield.org

Furtherfield Gallery & Commons in the park
Finsbury Park, London N4 2NQ
http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery
Currently writing a PhD at Birkbeck University, London
https://birkbeck.academia.edu/MarcGarrett
Just published: Artists Re:thinking the Blockchain
Eds, Ruth Catlow, Marc Garrett, Nathan Jones, & Sam Skinner
Liverpool Press - http://bit.ly/2x8XlMK

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

   Original Message ----
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas
Local Time: 16 October 2017 2:11 PM
UTC Time: 16 October 2017 13:11
From: sondh...@panix.com
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
<netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>


Body Art was both male and female, Gina Pane, Collette, Marina
Abramovich,
etc. but also Vito Acconci, Dennis Oppenheim, Genesis P.
Orridge, but also
Hannah Wilke, etc. A pretty mixed group. Most of the hard-core
conceptualists were male, but there are also Adrian Piper, the
Guerilla
Girls, Alice Aycock and Nancy Wilson Kitchel, Martha Wilson,
etc., who
spanned conceptualism and physical/person production as well.
 *  Alan

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Gretta Louw wrote:
  It?s interesting to me that artists working with
  immaterial / non-existent
artworks in the past are so overwhelmingly male, but I
don?t know yet what it
means?http://www.modernedition.com/art-articles/absence-in-art/the-invisibl
e-artw
ork.html Something perhaps about the other side of the
body art coin
perhaps?

  On 15. Oct 2017, at 17:15, ruth catlow
  <ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org> wrote:
I'd be up for thinking this one through.
Let's do it.
On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
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

_

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Gretta Louw]

Had another frustrating (yet, fundamentally unsurprising) incident since I sent 
that email in which a museum director matter-of-factly told me that all of the 
greatest artists in history were men and after I strenuously argued against 
that, we continued discussing the work we were cooperating on… well let’s just 
say that in the end, a few days later, the museum decided that they didn’t have 
the budget after all to acquire the piece of mine that they’d been interested 
in. I wonder what changed?? ;)




> On 18. Oct 2017, at 10:40, marc.garrett <marc.garr...@protonmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Gretta,
> 
> I scrolled the page & just saw that it was mainly men, perhaps it's 
> synonymous with aspects of Modernism ;-)
> 
> wishing you well.
> 
> marc
> 
> Marc Garrett
> 
> Co-Founder, Co-Director and main editor of Furtherfield.
> Art, technology and social change, since 1996
> http://www.furtherfield.org <http://www.furtherfield.org/>
> 
> Furtherfield Gallery & Commons in the park
> Finsbury Park, London N4 2NQ
> http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery
>  <http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery>
> Currently writing a PhD at Birkbeck University, London
> https://birkbeck.academia.edu/MarcGarrett
>  <https://birkbeck.academia.edu/MarcGarrett>
> Just published: Artists Re:thinking the Blockchain
> Eds, Ruth Catlow, Marc Garrett, Nathan Jones, & Sam Skinner
> Liverpool Press - http://bit.ly/2x8XlMK <http://bit.ly/2x8XlMK>
> 
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com/> Secure Email.
> 
>>  Original Message 
>> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas
>> Local Time: 16 October 2017 2:11 PM
>> UTC Time: 16 October 2017 13:11
>> From: sondh...@panix.com
>> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity 
>> <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
>> 
>> 
>> Body Art was both male and female, Gina Pane, Collette, Marina Abramovich,
>> etc. but also Vito Acconci, Dennis Oppenheim, Genesis P. Orridge, but also
>> Hannah Wilke, etc. A pretty mixed group. Most of the hard-core
>> conceptualists were male, but there are also Adrian Piper, the Guerilla
>> Girls, Alice Aycock and Nancy Wilson Kitchel, Martha Wilson, etc., who
>> spanned conceptualism and physical/person production as well.
>> Alan
>> 
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Gretta Louw wrote:
>> It?s interesting to me that artists working with immaterial / non-existent
>> artworks in the past are so overwhelmingly male, but I don?t know yet what it
>> means?http://www.modernedition.com/art-articles/absence-in-art/the-invisible-artw
>>  
>> <http://www.modernedition.com/art-articles/absence-in-art/the-invisible-artw>
>> ork.html Something perhaps about the other side of the body art coin
>> perhaps?
>>   On 15. Oct 2017, at 17:15, ruth catlow
>>   <ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I'd be up for thinking this one through.
>> Let's do it.
>> On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
>> 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. """
>> Willia

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[marc.garrett]

Hi Gretta,

I scrolled the page & just saw that it was mainly men, perhaps it's synonymous 
with aspects of Modernism ;-)

wishing you well.

marc

Marc Garrett

Co-Founder, Co-Director and main editor of Furtherfield.
Art, technology and social change, since 1996
http://www.furtherfield.org

Furtherfield Gallery & Commons in the park
Finsbury Park, London N4 2NQhttp://www.furtherfield.org/gallery
Currently writing a PhD at Birkbeck University, London
https://birkbeck.academia.edu/MarcGarrett
Just published: Artists Re:thinking the Blockchain
Eds, Ruth Catlow, Marc Garrett, Nathan Jones, & Sam Skinner
Liverpool Press - http://bit.ly/2x8XlMK

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas
> Local Time: 16 October 2017 2:11 PM
> UTC Time: 16 October 2017 13:11
> From: sondh...@panix.com
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity 
> <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
>
> Body Art was both male and female, Gina Pane, Collette, Marina Abramovich,
> etc. but also Vito Acconci, Dennis Oppenheim, Genesis P. Orridge, but also
> Hannah Wilke, etc. A pretty mixed group. Most of the hard-core
> conceptualists were male, but there are also Adrian Piper, the Guerilla
> Girls, Alice Aycock and Nancy Wilson Kitchel, Martha Wilson, etc., who
> spanned conceptualism and physical/person production as well.
>
> - Alan
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Gretta Louw wrote:
>
>> It?s interesting to me that artists working with immaterial / non-existent
>> artworks in the past are so overwhelmingly male, but I don?t know yet what it
>> means?http://www.modernedition.com/art-articles/absence-in-art/the-invisible-artw
>> ork.html Something perhaps about the other side of the body art coin
>> perhaps?
>>
>> On 15. Oct 2017, at 17:15, ruth catlow
>>   <ruth.cat...@furtherfield.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'd be up for thinking this one through.
>> Let's do it.
>> On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
>> 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
>> --
>> 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

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Rob Myers]

Yes I can help if anyone is interested.

Precedent-wise there's -

http://interaccess.org/event/2017/bitcoin-ethereum-and-conceptual-art

Or my own -

http://robmyers.org/art-coins-coloured/

But neither of these are *nothing*. :-)

- Rob.


On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, at 10:36 AM, Edward Picot wrote:
> Great! - I'm not sure where you go with it after that, though.
> 
>  You could offer something non-existent for sale on OpenBazaar easily
>  enough. That would be one option. What appealed to me, though, was
>  the idea of selling shares in a non-existent work of art, in the hope
>  that the shares would keep changing hands and their value would keep
>  increasing, so that if you retained something like a 25% stake in the
>  work, that stake would keep increasing in value too.> 
>  The paradox, of course, would be that by announcing that you were
>  creating a non-existent work of art, and offering shares in it, you
>  would in effect be creating an actual conceptual work of art about
>  the marketing and the market value of art. That's why I thought the
>  images from Curt Cloninger's essay about nothing would be appropriate
>  (for advertising the existence, or rather non-existence, of the work
>  and the availability of shares), because he's investigating the
>  paradox that you can't create a representation of nothing without
>  that representation being a something.> 
>  I expect Rob could advise about how to set up the shares thing.
> 
>  Edward
> 
>  On 15/10/17 16:22, ruth catlow wrote:
>> Not sure this is the best tool
>> https://etherpad.net/p/MarlyStudiedTheQuotations
>> 
>>  but a place to start
>> 
>>  On 15/10/17 16:15, ruth catlow wrote:
>>> I'd be up for thinking this one through.
>>>  Let's do it.
>>> 
>>>  On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
 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>>> 


>>> -- 
>>>  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 NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>>> http://www.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 

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[helen varley jamieson]

it means that immaterial / non-existent artworks by women artists are
doubly invisible, since so much [visible/material] art by women is
anyway invisible in the patriarchal art world ...

h : )

(emerging from an intense 4 days at the faces 20th anniversary in graz,
where invisibility/under-representation of women's art & women artists
was much discussed!)


On 16.10.2017 15:11, Alan Sondheim wrote:
>
> Body Art was both male and female, Gina Pane, Collette, Marina
> Abramovich, etc. but also Vito Acconci, Dennis Oppenheim, Genesis P.
> Orridge, but also Hannah Wilke, etc. A pretty mixed group. Most of the
> hard-core conceptualists were male, but there are also Adrian Piper,
> the Guerilla Girls, Alice Aycock and Nancy Wilson Kitchel, Martha
> Wilson, etc., who spanned conceptualism and physical/person production
> as well.
>
> - Alan
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Gretta Louw wrote:
>
>> It?s interesting to me that artists working with immaterial /
>> non-existent
>> artworks in the past are so overwhelmingly male, but I don?t know yet
>> what it
>> means?http://www.modernedition.com/art-articles/absence-in-art/the-invisible-artw
>>
>> ork.html Something perhaps about the other side of the body art coin
>> perhaps?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   On 15. Oct 2017, at 17:15, ruth catlow
>>    wrote:
>>
>> I'd be up for thinking this one through.
>> Let's do it.
>>
>> On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
>>   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
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> New CD:- LIMIT:
> http://www.publiceyesore.com/catalog.php?pg=3=138
> email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
> web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 718-813-3285
> current text http://www.alansondheim.org/uw.txt
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>

-- 
helen varley jamieson
he...@creative-catalyst.com 
http://www.creative-catalyst.com
http://www.upstage.org.nz
___
NetBehaviour mailing list

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Alan Sondheim]

Body Art was both male and female, Gina Pane, Collette, Marina Abramovich, 
etc. but also Vito Acconci, Dennis Oppenheim, Genesis P. Orridge, but also 
Hannah Wilke, etc. A pretty mixed group. Most of the hard-core 
conceptualists were male, but there are also Adrian Piper, the Guerilla 
Girls, Alice Aycock and Nancy Wilson Kitchel, Martha Wilson, etc., who 
spanned conceptualism and physical/person production as well.


- Alan

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Gretta Louw wrote:


It?s interesting to me that artists working with immaterial / non-existent
artworks in the past are so overwhelmingly male, but I don?t know yet what it
means?http://www.modernedition.com/art-articles/absence-in-art/the-invisible-artw
ork.html Something perhaps about the other side of the body art coin
perhaps?





  On 15. Oct 2017, at 17:15, ruth catlow
   wrote:

I'd be up for thinking this one through.
Let's do it.

On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
  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


--
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
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour






New CD:- LIMIT:
http://www.publiceyesore.com/catalog.php?pg=3=138
email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 718-813-3285
current text http://www.alansondheim.org/uw.txt
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Gretta Louw]

It’s interesting to me that artists working with immaterial / non-existent 
artworks in the past are so overwhelmingly male, but I don’t know yet what it 
means… 
http://www.modernedition.com/art-articles/absence-in-art/the-invisible-artwork.html
 

  Something perhaps about the other side of the body art coin perhaps?





> On 15. Oct 2017, at 17:15, ruth catlow  wrote:
> 
> I'd be up for thinking this one through.
> Let's do it.
> 
> On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
>> 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 
>> 
> -- 
> 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
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Edward Picot]

Great! - I'm not sure where you go with it after that, though.

You could offer something non-existent for sale on OpenBazaar easily 
enough. That would be one option. What appealed to me, though, was the 
idea of selling shares in a non-existent work of art, in the hope that 
the shares would keep changing hands and their value would keep 
increasing, so that if you retained something like a 25% stake in the 
work, that stake would keep increasing in value too.


The paradox, of course, would be that by announcing that you were 
creating a non-existent work of art, and offering shares in it, you 
would in effect be creating an actual conceptual work of art about the 
marketing and the market value of art. That's why I thought the images 
from Curt Cloninger's essay about nothing would be appropriate (for 
advertising the existence, or rather non-existence, of the work and the 
availability of shares), because he's investigating the paradox that you 
can't create a representation of nothing without that representation 
being a something.


I expect Rob could advise about how to set up the shares thing.

Edward

On 15/10/17 16:22, ruth catlow wrote:

Not sure this is the best tool
https://etherpad.net/p/MarlyStudiedTheQuotations

but a place to start

On 15/10/17 16:15, ruth catlow wrote:

I'd be up for thinking this one through.
Let's do it.

On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
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



--
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
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.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
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour



___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[ruth catlow]

Not sure this is the best tool
https://etherpad.net/p/MarlyStudiedTheQuotations

but a place to start

On 15/10/17 16:15, ruth catlow wrote:

I'd be up for thinking this one through.
Let's do it.

On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
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



--
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
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.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
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[ruth catlow]

I'd be up for thinking this one through.
Let's do it.

On 13/10/17 20:34, Edward Picot wrote:
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



--
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
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Edward Picot]

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

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Julian Le Saux]

Can't we do something with this? Couldn't we create a conceptual work of 
art that didn't actually exist at all - perhaps we could use some ideas 
from Curt Cloninger's 'Essay About Nothing' to represent it - and market 
fractions of 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

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Edward Picot]

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

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Rob Myers]

Administration tokens sound like a good way of funding art then. ;-)

- Rob.


On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, at 07:10 AM, Anthony Stephenson wrote:
> Everyone knows the real money is in administration ;-)
> 
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:00 AM,  requ...@netbehaviour.org> wrote:>> 
>> >>>
>>  >>> I have a question brewing - that I want to run by everyone -
>>  >>> about>>  >>> the value of art and artists now and in the future.
>>  >>>
> 
> -- 
> - *Anthony Stephenson*


> *http://anthonystephenson.org/*


>  


> 


> _
> 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

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Anthony Stephenson]

Everyone knows the real money is in administration ;-)

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:00 AM, 
wrote:

>
> >>>
> >>> I have a question brewing - that I want to run by everyone - about
> >>> the value of art and artists now and in the future.
> >>>
>

-- 

- *Anthony Stephenson*

*http://anthonystephenson.org/* 
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Gretta Louw]

Hi Annie, yes, I am but the problem is that these factors lead to who can make 
what work, massively impacting the landscape of art that’s available to be 
seen, made, experienced etc. 





> On 11. Oct 2017, at 23:01, Annie Abrahams  wrote:
> 
> value of art now and in the future . ?
> 
> @ Ruth, as soon as art becomes something else than a very personal quest, it 
> becomes something else, an economical, political, social, family asset and 
> then it's interest can only be discussed in that particular frame
> 
> @Gretta in my opinion you talk about social and finally financial value 
> created by likes = manipulated humans and machines
> 
> @ Helen maybe not archiving itself is important nowadays, but the production 
> of an image, its proliferation, multiplication and the possibilities this 
> creates
> 
> my two cents
> Annie
> 
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:45 PM, ruth catlow  > wrote:
> Ha hah!
>> what do you mean by "value", ruth? value to whom? monetary value, cultural 
>> value, nostalgic value, personal value ... ??
>> 
> value to anyone with a stake in the question
> 
> and all of the above kinds of value and more (please proliferate)
> 
>> & then, what do you mean by "art" and "artists" ... 
> every possible definition of art as defined by art lovers, critics, 
> historians, machines
> and artists as defined by themselves and others
>> 
>> h ;)
> But I'm not sure that is the question I was looking for!
> 
> Ruth
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11.10.2017 10:51, Gretta Louw wrote:
>>> I’ve been spending a lot of time puzzling over social media lately and 
>>> think (horrifyingly) that the value of the latter is increasingly measured 
>>> in instagram followers - we’re not yet at the point of openly sponsored 
>>> posts, but indirectly I think it’s already happening… 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On 11. Oct 2017, at 09:58, ruth catlow > wrote:
 
 Perfectly put Helen!
 Art reframed as a new asset class for fractional ownership ain't my idea 
 of utopia.
 
 I have a question brewing - that I want to run by everyone - about the 
 value of art and artists now and in the future.
 
 If anyone can tell me what that question is I'd be very interested to hear 
 what it is;)
 
 Otherwise...soon...
 :! 
 
 On 09/10/17 09:22, helen varley jamieson wrote:
> agree. thank goodness my art is mostly ephemeral & can't be stuck with a 
> financial pin like a dead butterfly ...
> 
> On 07.10.2017 02:29, Alan Sondheim wrote:
>> 
>> I noticed this - 
>> 
>> "Maecenas touts itself as a blockchain platform that, according to its 
>> creators, will democratise access to fine art. For the first time, the 
>> Maecenas website enthuses, technology will allow investors, collectors 
>> and owners to exchange shares in paintings and sculptures instantly, 
>> akin to the way stocks of a company are traded today." 
>> 
>> This does NOT democratise access to art; it's nothing more than a secure 
>> way to protect and exchange's one investment - which plays into the 
>> notion of enclaving described in Mike Davis' City of Quartz (think it 
>> was written in the 80s). Art has to RESIST enclaving, unless one accepts 
>> useless decoration and connoisseurship as the only form of art worth 
>> considering. 
>> 
>> One of the amazing things about Furtherfield is, at least as far as I 
>> can tell, it itself is a form of resistance! I'd thank God for this, but 
>> given the state of things on the planet, I wouldn't want to burden Her 
>> with more communication. 
>> 
>> - Alan 
>> ___ 
>> NetBehaviour mailing list 
>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org  
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour 
>>  
>> 
> 
> -- 
> helen varley jamieson
> he...@creative-catalyst.com 
> http://www.creative-catalyst.com 
> http://www.upstage.org.nz 
> 
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org 
> http://www.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 
 

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[bjørn magnhildøen]

archiving has become an art, i think, blockchain is also an archive,
artists can very well (continue) focusing on experimenting with archiving
vs ephemerality, loss and chaos will continue. collecting art might also
have become an art for that matter, building on loss and chaos..

i think art and artists definitely should resist definition, or make that
definition part of the art, ie. have it for breakfast. don't rely on the
future, let it function freely without abiding anywhere or in anything.
dematerialization is in the eye of the beholder.

--
bjørn

http://noemata.net
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Annie Abrahams  wrote:

> value of art now and in the future . ?
>
> @ Ruth, as soon as art becomes something else than a very personal quest,
> it becomes something else, an economical, political, social, family asset
> and then it's interest can only be discussed in that particular frame
>
> @Gretta in my opinion you talk about social and finally financial value
> created by likes = manipulated humans and machines
>
> @ Helen maybe not archiving itself is important nowadays, but the
> production of an image, its proliferation, multiplication and the
> possibilities this creates
>
> my two cents
> Annie
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:45 PM, ruth catlow  > wrote:
>
>> Ha hah!
>>
>> what do you mean by "value", ruth? value to whom? monetary value,
>> cultural value, nostalgic value, personal value ... ??
>>
>> value to anyone with a stake in the question
>>
>> and all of the above kinds of value and more (please proliferate)
>>
>> & then, what do you mean by "art" and "artists" ...
>>
>> every possible definition of art as defined by art lovers, critics,
>> historians, machines
>> and artists as defined by themselves and others
>>
>> h ;)
>>
>> But I'm not sure that is the question I was looking for!
>>
>> Ruth
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11.10.2017 10:51, Gretta Louw wrote:
>>
>> I’ve been spending a lot of time puzzling over social media lately and
>> think (horrifyingly) that the value of the latter is increasingly measured
>> in instagram followers - we’re not yet at the point of openly sponsored
>> posts, but indirectly I think it’s already happening…
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11. Oct 2017, at 09:58, ruth catlow 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Perfectly put Helen!
>> Art reframed as a new asset class for fractional ownership ain't my idea
>> of utopia.
>>
>> I have a question brewing - that I want to run by everyone - about the
>> value of art and artists now and in the future.
>>
>> If anyone can tell me what that question is I'd be very interested to
>> hear what it is;)
>>
>> Otherwise...soon...
>> :!
>>
>> On 09/10/17 09:22, helen varley jamieson wrote:
>>
>> agree. thank goodness my art is mostly ephemeral & can't be stuck with a
>> financial pin like a dead butterfly ...
>>
>> On 07.10.2017 02:29, Alan Sondheim wrote:
>>
>>
>> I noticed this -
>>
>> "Maecenas touts itself as a blockchain platform that, according to its
>> creators, will democratise access to fine art. For the first time, the
>> Maecenas website enthuses, technology will allow investors, collectors and
>> owners to exchange shares in paintings and sculptures instantly, akin to
>> the way stocks of a company are traded today."
>>
>> This does NOT democratise access to art; it's nothing more than a secure
>> way to protect and exchange's one investment - which plays into the notion
>> of enclaving described in Mike Davis' City of Quartz (think it was written
>> in the 80s). Art has to RESIST enclaving, unless one accepts useless
>> decoration and connoisseurship as the only form of art worth considering.
>>
>> One of the amazing things about Furtherfield is, at least as far as I can
>> tell, it itself is a form of resistance! I'd thank God for this, but given
>> the state of things on the planet, I wouldn't want to burden Her with more
>> communication.
>>
>> - Alan
>> ___
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
>>
>> --
>> helen varley jamieson
>> he...@creative-catalyst.com
>> http://www.creative-catalyst.com
>> http://www.upstage.org.nz
>>
>>
>> ___
>> NetBehaviour mailing 
>> listNetBehaviour@netbehaviour.orghttp://www.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 

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Annie Abrahams]

value of art now and in the future . ?

@ Ruth, as soon as art becomes something else than a very personal quest,
it becomes something else, an economical, political, social, family asset
and then it's interest can only be discussed in that particular frame

@Gretta in my opinion you talk about social and finally financial value
created by likes = manipulated humans and machines

@ Helen maybe not archiving itself is important nowadays, but the
production of an image, its proliferation, multiplication and the
possibilities this creates

my two cents
Annie

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:45 PM, ruth catlow 
wrote:

> Ha hah!
>
> what do you mean by "value", ruth? value to whom? monetary value, cultural
> value, nostalgic value, personal value ... ??
>
> value to anyone with a stake in the question
>
> and all of the above kinds of value and more (please proliferate)
>
> & then, what do you mean by "art" and "artists" ...
>
> every possible definition of art as defined by art lovers, critics,
> historians, machines
> and artists as defined by themselves and others
>
> h ;)
>
> But I'm not sure that is the question I was looking for!
>
> Ruth
>
>
>
> On 11.10.2017 10:51, Gretta Louw wrote:
>
> I’ve been spending a lot of time puzzling over social media lately and
> think (horrifyingly) that the value of the latter is increasingly measured
> in instagram followers - we’re not yet at the point of openly sponsored
> posts, but indirectly I think it’s already happening…
>
>
>
>
> On 11. Oct 2017, at 09:58, ruth catlow 
> wrote:
>
> Perfectly put Helen!
> Art reframed as a new asset class for fractional ownership ain't my idea
> of utopia.
>
> I have a question brewing - that I want to run by everyone - about the
> value of art and artists now and in the future.
>
> If anyone can tell me what that question is I'd be very interested to hear
> what it is;)
>
> Otherwise...soon...
> :!
>
> On 09/10/17 09:22, helen varley jamieson wrote:
>
> agree. thank goodness my art is mostly ephemeral & can't be stuck with a
> financial pin like a dead butterfly ...
>
> On 07.10.2017 02:29, Alan Sondheim wrote:
>
>
> I noticed this -
>
> "Maecenas touts itself as a blockchain platform that, according to its
> creators, will democratise access to fine art. For the first time, the
> Maecenas website enthuses, technology will allow investors, collectors and
> owners to exchange shares in paintings and sculptures instantly, akin to
> the way stocks of a company are traded today."
>
> This does NOT democratise access to art; it's nothing more than a secure
> way to protect and exchange's one investment - which plays into the notion
> of enclaving described in Mike Davis' City of Quartz (think it was written
> in the 80s). Art has to RESIST enclaving, unless one accepts useless
> decoration and connoisseurship as the only form of art worth considering.
>
> One of the amazing things about Furtherfield is, at least as far as I can
> tell, it itself is a form of resistance! I'd thank God for this, but given
> the state of things on the planet, I wouldn't want to burden Her with more
> communication.
>
> - Alan
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
> --
> helen varley jamieson
> he...@creative-catalyst.com
> http://www.creative-catalyst.com
> http://www.upstage.org.nz
>
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing 
> listNetBehaviour@netbehaviour.orghttp://www.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
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
>
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing 
> listNetBehaviour@netbehaviour.orghttp://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
> --
> helen varley jamieson
> he...@creative-catalyst.com
> http://www.creative-catalyst.com
> http://www.upstage.org.nz
>
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing 
> listNetBehaviour@netbehaviour.orghttp://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
> --
> Co-founder Co-director
> Furtherfield
>
> www.furtherfield.org
>
> +44 (0) 77370 02879
>
> Bitcoin Address 197BBaXa6M9PtHhhNTQkuHh1pVJA8RrJ2i
>
> 

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[ruth catlow]

Ha hah!


what do you mean by "value", ruth? value to whom? monetary value, 
cultural value, nostalgic value, personal value ... ??



value to anyone with a stake in the question

and all of the above kinds of value and more (please proliferate)


& then, what do you mean by "art" and "artists" ...

every possible definition of art as defined by art lovers, critics, 
historians, machines

and artists as defined by themselves and others


h ;)


But I'm not sure that is the question I was looking for!

Ruth



On 11.10.2017 10:51, Gretta Louw wrote:
I’ve been spending a lot of time puzzling over social media lately 
and think (horrifyingly) that the value of the latter is increasingly 
measured in instagram followers - we’re not yet at the point of 
openly sponsored posts, but indirectly I think it’s already happening…





On 11. Oct 2017, at 09:58, ruth catlow > wrote:


Perfectly put Helen!
Art reframed as a new asset class for fractional ownership ain't my 
idea of utopia.


I have a question brewing - that I want to run by everyone - about 
the value of art and artists now and in the future.


If anyone can tell me what that question is I'd be very interested 
to hear what it is;)


Otherwise...soon...
:!

On 09/10/17 09:22, helen varley jamieson wrote:


agree. thank goodness my art is mostly ephemeral & can't be stuck 
with a financial pin like a dead butterfly ...



On 07.10.2017 02:29, Alan Sondheim wrote:


I noticed this -

"Maecenas touts itself as a blockchain platform that, according to 
its creators, will democratise access to fine art. For the first 
time, the Maecenas website enthuses, technology will allow 
investors, collectors and owners to exchange shares in paintings 
and sculptures instantly, akin to the way stocks of a company are 
traded today."


This does NOT democratise access to art; it's nothing more than a 
secure way to protect and exchange's one investment - which plays 
into the notion of enclaving described in Mike Davis' City of 
Quartz (think it was written in the 80s). Art has to RESIST 
enclaving, unless one accepts useless decoration and 
connoisseurship as the only form of art worth considering.


One of the amazing things about Furtherfield is, at least as far 
as I can tell, it itself is a form of resistance! I'd thank God 
for this, but given the state of things on the planet, I wouldn't 
want to burden Her with more communication.


- Alan
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour



--
helen varley jamieson
he...@creative-catalyst.com 
http://www.creative-catalyst.com 
http://www.upstage.org.nz 


___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.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
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org 
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour




___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour


--
helen varley jamieson
he...@creative-catalyst.com 
http://www.creative-catalyst.com
http://www.upstage.org.nz


___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.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
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Rob Myers]

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

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[helen varley jamieson]

it is all ephemeral, but/and archiving (something, somehow) is still
important. but only in moderate proportions.


On 11.10.2017 04:42, Rob Myers wrote:
> "Look upon my [net]works, ye mighty..."
>
> Here's a list of dead blockchains.
>
> >From 2014.
>
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=588413.0
>
> The list has only grown since then.
>
> I was recently asked to exhibit a project from two years ago that I
> couldn't because the service it relied on was no longer operational.
>
> Ken Wark is bearish on "digital collectibles" -
>
> http://www.e-flux.com/journal/85/156418/my-collectible-ass/
>
> But I find the illusion of permanence that millions of dollars of
> security a day can give is irresistible. ;-)
>
> - Rob.
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, at 08:54 PM, John Hopkins wrote:
>> On 09/Oct/17 02:22, helen varley jamieson wrote:
>>> agree. thank goodness my art is mostly ephemeral & can't be stuck with a
>>> financial pin like a dead butterfly ...
>> Hah, thanks for that little reminder! Let's hear it for ephemeral
>> networked art 
>> ("you had to be there" was the best reply I ever came up with when folks
>> used to 
>> ask "what was that work about?"). OTOH, as a confirmed archivist, I try
>> to 
>> capture some of those butterflies and stick pins through them -- but that
>> effort 
>> is absolutely an impossible fight against entropy these days. The archive
>> is too 
>> large, and formats for presentation are changing so fast. I am teetering
>> on the 
>> edge of giving up -- right now I'd have to re-code all video works, and 
>> completely reformat a 7500-entry blog to 'work' properly with the newest 
>> iteration of WordPress. I refuse to go to corporate social media formats
>> of 
>> distribution. And the 'punishment' of maintaining "a self-maintained
>> island of 
>> personal research and expression in a sea of corporately hosted and
>> filtered 
>> content" is getting to be too much. The full-time job has wrung all the 
>> resistent mojo outta this former-networker.
>>
>> 
>>
>> Hard to remember that it is *all* ephemeral. Even the highest wall, the
>> biggest 
>> museum, and grandest civilization...
>>
>> so it goes.
>>
>> jh
>>
>> -- 
>> ++
>> Dr. John Hopkins, BSc, MFA, PhD
>> hanging on to the Laramide Orogeny
>> twitter: @neoscenes
>> http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/
>> ++
>> ___
>> 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
>

-- 
helen varley jamieson
he...@creative-catalyst.com 
http://www.creative-catalyst.com
http://www.upstage.org.nz
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[helen varley jamieson]

what do you mean by "value", ruth? value to whom? monetary value,
cultural value, nostalgic value, personal value ... ??

& then, what do you mean by "art" and "artists" ...

h ;)


On 11.10.2017 10:51, Gretta Louw wrote:
> I’ve been spending a lot of time puzzling over social media lately and
> think (horrifyingly) that the value of the latter is increasingly
> measured in instagram followers - we’re not yet at the point of openly
> sponsored posts, but indirectly I think it’s already happening… 
>
>
>
>
>> On 11. Oct 2017, at 09:58, ruth catlow > > wrote:
>>
>> Perfectly put Helen!
>> Art reframed as a new asset class for fractional ownership ain't my
>> idea of utopia.
>>
>> I have a question brewing - that I want to run by everyone - about
>> the value of art and artists now and in the future.
>>
>> If anyone can tell me what that question is I'd be very interested to
>> hear what it is;)
>>
>> Otherwise...soon...
>> :!
>>
>> On 09/10/17 09:22, helen varley jamieson wrote:
>>>
>>> agree. thank goodness my art is mostly ephemeral & can't be stuck
>>> with a financial pin like a dead butterfly ...
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07.10.2017 02:29, Alan Sondheim wrote:

 I noticed this -

 "Maecenas touts itself as a blockchain platform that, according to
 its creators, will democratise access to fine art. For the first
 time, the Maecenas website enthuses, technology will allow
 investors, collectors and owners to exchange shares in paintings
 and sculptures instantly, akin to the way stocks of a company are
 traded today."

 This does NOT democratise access to art; it's nothing more than a
 secure way to protect and exchange's one investment - which plays
 into the notion of enclaving described in Mike Davis' City of
 Quartz (think it was written in the 80s). Art has to RESIST
 enclaving, unless one accepts useless decoration and
 connoisseurship as the only form of art worth considering.

 One of the amazing things about Furtherfield is, at least as far as
 I can tell, it itself is a form of resistance! I'd thank God for
 this, but given the state of things on the planet, I wouldn't want
 to burden Her with more communication.

 - Alan
 ___
 NetBehaviour mailing list
 NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
 http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

>>>
>>> -- 
>>> helen varley jamieson
>>> he...@creative-catalyst.com 
>>> http://www.creative-catalyst.com 
>>> http://www.upstage.org.nz 
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>>> http://www.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
>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org 
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

-- 
helen varley jamieson
he...@creative-catalyst.com 
http://www.creative-catalyst.com
http://www.upstage.org.nz
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Gretta Louw]

I’ve been spending a lot of time puzzling over social media lately and think 
(horrifyingly) that the value of the latter is increasingly measured in 
instagram followers - we’re not yet at the point of openly sponsored posts, but 
indirectly I think it’s already happening… 




> On 11. Oct 2017, at 09:58, ruth catlow  wrote:
> 
> Perfectly put Helen!
> Art reframed as a new asset class for fractional ownership ain't my idea of 
> utopia.
> 
> I have a question brewing - that I want to run by everyone - about the value 
> of art and artists now and in the future.
> 
> If anyone can tell me what that question is I'd be very interested to hear 
> what it is;)
> 
> Otherwise...soon...
> :! 
> 
> On 09/10/17 09:22, helen varley jamieson wrote:
>> agree. thank goodness my art is mostly ephemeral & can't be stuck with a 
>> financial pin like a dead butterfly ...
>> 
>> On 07.10.2017 02:29, Alan Sondheim wrote:
>>> 
>>> I noticed this - 
>>> 
>>> "Maecenas touts itself as a blockchain platform that, according to its 
>>> creators, will democratise access to fine art. For the first time, the 
>>> Maecenas website enthuses, technology will allow investors, collectors and 
>>> owners to exchange shares in paintings and sculptures instantly, akin to 
>>> the way stocks of a company are traded today." 
>>> 
>>> This does NOT democratise access to art; it's nothing more than a secure 
>>> way to protect and exchange's one investment - which plays into the notion 
>>> of enclaving described in Mike Davis' City of Quartz (think it was written 
>>> in the 80s). Art has to RESIST enclaving, unless one accepts useless 
>>> decoration and connoisseurship as the only form of art worth considering. 
>>> 
>>> One of the amazing things about Furtherfield is, at least as far as I can 
>>> tell, it itself is a form of resistance! I'd thank God for this, but given 
>>> the state of things on the planet, I wouldn't want to burden Her with more 
>>> communication. 
>>> 
>>> - Alan 
>>> ___ 
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list 
>>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org  
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour 
>>>  
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> helen varley jamieson
>> he...@creative-catalyst.com 
>> http://www.creative-catalyst.com 
>> http://www.upstage.org.nz 
>> 
>> ___
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org 
>> http://www.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
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[ruth catlow]

Perfectly put Helen!
Art reframed as a new asset class for fractional ownership ain't my idea 
of utopia.


I have a question brewing - that I want to run by everyone - about the 
value of art and artists now and in the future.


If anyone can tell me what that question is I'd be very interested to 
hear what it is;)


Otherwise...soon...
:!

On 09/10/17 09:22, helen varley jamieson wrote:


agree. thank goodness my art is mostly ephemeral & can't be stuck with 
a financial pin like a dead butterfly ...



On 07.10.2017 02:29, Alan Sondheim wrote:


I noticed this -

"Maecenas touts itself as a blockchain platform that, according to 
its creators, will democratise access to fine art. For the first 
time, the Maecenas website enthuses, technology will allow investors, 
collectors and owners to exchange shares in paintings and sculptures 
instantly, akin to the way stocks of a company are traded today."


This does NOT democratise access to art; it's nothing more than a 
secure way to protect and exchange's one investment - which plays 
into the notion of enclaving described in Mike Davis' City of Quartz 
(think it was written in the 80s). Art has to RESIST enclaving, 
unless one accepts useless decoration and connoisseurship as the only 
form of art worth considering.


One of the amazing things about Furtherfield is, at least as far as I 
can tell, it itself is a form of resistance! I'd thank God for this, 
but given the state of things on the planet, I wouldn't want to 
burden Her with more communication.


- Alan
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour



--
helen varley jamieson
he...@creative-catalyst.com 
http://www.creative-catalyst.com
http://www.upstage.org.nz


___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.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
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Rob Myers]

"Look upon my [net]works, ye mighty..."

Here's a list of dead blockchains.

>From 2014.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=588413.0

The list has only grown since then.

I was recently asked to exhibit a project from two years ago that I
couldn't because the service it relied on was no longer operational.

Ken Wark is bearish on "digital collectibles" -

http://www.e-flux.com/journal/85/156418/my-collectible-ass/

But I find the illusion of permanence that millions of dollars of
security a day can give is irresistible. ;-)

- Rob.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, at 08:54 PM, John Hopkins wrote:
> On 09/Oct/17 02:22, helen varley jamieson wrote:
> > agree. thank goodness my art is mostly ephemeral & can't be stuck with a
> > financial pin like a dead butterfly ...
> 
> Hah, thanks for that little reminder! Let's hear it for ephemeral
> networked art 
> ("you had to be there" was the best reply I ever came up with when folks
> used to 
> ask "what was that work about?"). OTOH, as a confirmed archivist, I try
> to 
> capture some of those butterflies and stick pins through them -- but that
> effort 
> is absolutely an impossible fight against entropy these days. The archive
> is too 
> large, and formats for presentation are changing so fast. I am teetering
> on the 
> edge of giving up -- right now I'd have to re-code all video works, and 
> completely reformat a 7500-entry blog to 'work' properly with the newest 
> iteration of WordPress. I refuse to go to corporate social media formats
> of 
> distribution. And the 'punishment' of maintaining "a self-maintained
> island of 
> personal research and expression in a sea of corporately hosted and
> filtered 
> content" is getting to be too much. The full-time job has wrung all the 
> resistent mojo outta this former-networker.
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to remember that it is *all* ephemeral. Even the highest wall, the
> biggest 
> museum, and grandest civilization...
> 
> so it goes.
> 
> jh
> 
> -- 
> ++
> Dr. John Hopkins, BSc, MFA, PhD
> hanging on to the Laramide Orogeny
> twitter: @neoscenes
> http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/
> ++
> ___
> 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

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[John Hopkins]

On 09/Oct/17 02:22, helen varley jamieson wrote:

agree. thank goodness my art is mostly ephemeral & can't be stuck with a
financial pin like a dead butterfly ...


Hah, thanks for that little reminder! Let's hear it for ephemeral networked art 
("you had to be there" was the best reply I ever came up with when folks used to 
ask "what was that work about?"). OTOH, as a confirmed archivist, I try to 
capture some of those butterflies and stick pins through them -- but that effort 
is absolutely an impossible fight against entropy these days. The archive is too 
large, and formats for presentation are changing so fast. I am teetering on the 
edge of giving up -- right now I'd have to re-code all video works, and 
completely reformat a 7500-entry blog to 'work' properly with the newest 
iteration of WordPress. I refuse to go to corporate social media formats of 
distribution. And the 'punishment' of maintaining "a self-maintained island of 
personal research and expression in a sea of corporately hosted and filtered 
content" is getting to be too much. The full-time job has wrung all the 
resistent mojo outta this former-networker.




Hard to remember that it is *all* ephemeral. Even the highest wall, the biggest 
museum, and grandest civilization...


so it goes.

jh

--
++
Dr. John Hopkins, BSc, MFA, PhD
hanging on to the Laramide Orogeny
twitter: @neoscenes
http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/
++
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[helen varley jamieson]

agree. thank goodness my art is mostly ephemeral & can't be stuck with a
financial pin like a dead butterfly ...


On 07.10.2017 02:29, Alan Sondheim wrote:
>
> I noticed this -
>
> "Maecenas touts itself as a blockchain platform that, according to its
> creators, will democratise access to fine art. For the first time, the
> Maecenas website enthuses, technology will allow investors, collectors
> and owners to exchange shares in paintings and sculptures instantly,
> akin to the way stocks of a company are traded today."
>
> This does NOT democratise access to art; it's nothing more than a
> secure way to protect and exchange's one investment - which plays into
> the notion of enclaving described in Mike Davis' City of Quartz (think
> it was written in the 80s). Art has to RESIST enclaving, unless one
> accepts useless decoration and connoisseurship as the only form of art
> worth considering.
>
> One of the amazing things about Furtherfield is, at least as far as I
> can tell, it itself is a form of resistance! I'd thank God for this,
> but given the state of things on the planet, I wouldn't want to burden
> Her with more communication.
>
> - Alan
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>

-- 
helen varley jamieson
he...@creative-catalyst.com 
http://www.creative-catalyst.com
http://www.upstage.org.nz
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Maecenas

[Alan Sondheim]

I noticed this -

"Maecenas touts itself as a blockchain platform that, according to its 
creators, will democratise access to fine art. For the first time, the 
Maecenas website enthuses, technology will allow investors, collectors and 
owners to exchange shares in paintings and sculptures instantly, akin to 
the way stocks of a company are traded today."


This does NOT democratise access to art; it's nothing more than a secure 
way to protect and exchange's one investment - which plays into the notion 
of enclaving described in Mike Davis' City of Quartz (think it was written 
in the 80s). Art has to RESIST enclaving, unless one accepts useless 
decoration and connoisseurship as the only form of art worth considering.


One of the amazing things about Furtherfield is, at least as far as I can 
tell, it itself is a form of resistance! I'd thank God for this, but given 
the state of things on the planet, I wouldn't want to burden Her with more 
communication.


- Alan
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour