[NetBehaviour] TOKENOMICS Re: comments on blockchain, art, etc., discussion with Ruth

ruth catlow ruth.catlow at furtherfield.org
Sun Nov 5 19:38:34 CET 2017


We can talk about the existence of art on the blockchain as an entry in 
the ledger.
If there is no entry in a blockchain ledger the art probably does not 
exist or impinge on the blockchain- and so what?!

But I love the introduction of Beuys and Guerrilla Girls to the 
conversation because their "work" purports to  take place in humans 
(transforming them all into artists) and the changing behaviour of systems.

But how do we conceive of what we could call the "core" work in relation 
to the economic life of a Beuys object or installation, and the 
documentation of a Guerrilla Girls action?

Here is a "tokenomics" project under development.
Could the artist consortium model explored here 
<https://medium.com/singulardtv/tokenomics-101-the-emerging-field-of-token-economics-e253b9e72ba3> 
work for us?

Bests
Ruth


>> For entities we are claiming exist outside of the blockchain, the 
>> data that
>> claims to register that existence is a proxy for them. We cannot 
>> validate
>> the correctness of that claim using the blockchain's consensus rules 
>> in the
>> same way we can for a simple value transaction if we wish to validate 
>> the
>> fact of the registered object's existence outside of the blockchain.
>> Something about being outside the text. We can only validate that 
>> person X
>> placed a record on the blockchain, and possibly that later they sent 
>> it to
>> person Y.
>
> This does seem to relate to the ontology of capital itself.
>>
>> We use such proxies when buying and selling physical property such as 
>> cars
>> or houses, or more pertinently when buying and selling conceptual art.
>> Certificates of authenticity for conceptual art are even more 
>> material than
>> blockchain records. But I feel they are still proxies for the work 
>> rather
>> than being the work, although this may just be the conceptual art fan 
>> in me
>> speaking.
>
> What I wonder about is in a sense the derailing of conceptual art, 
> which was a reaction at the time, at least among many artists, against 
> the materialism and mercantilism of the gallery/promotion structure. 
> Given that a conceptual work can be incorporated into blockchain, 
> which itself is an abstracting, is it necessary then to go into a 
> discussion of 'buying and selling conceptual art'? Isn't this a leap 
> which many artists, at least at the time, wouldn't make; doesn't it 
> reduce conceptualism to the usual marketplace phenomenology, instead 
> of the radical gesture that, at least for some, it embodied? For some 
> reason Beuys comes to mind - he wasn't a conceptualist, but his 
> teaching and art occupied such a radical position - as does the work 
> of the Guerrilla Girls etc. ..
Hi
>
> - Alan
>
>>
>> - Rob.
>>
>>
>>
>
> New CD:- LIMIT:
> http://www.publiceyesore.com/catalog.php?pg=3&pit=138
> email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
> web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 718-813-3285
> current text http://www.alansondheim.org/uy.txt
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour


-- 
Co-founder Co-director
Furtherfield

www.furtherfield.org

+44 (0) 77370 02879

Bitcoin Address 197BBaXa6M9PtHhhNTQkuHh1pVJA8RrJ2i

Furtherfield is the UK's leading organisation for art shows, labs, & 
debates
around critical questions in art and technology, since 1997

Furtherfield is a Not-for-Profit Company limited by Guarantee
registered in England and Wales under the Company No.7005205.
Registered business address: Ballard Newman, Apex House, Grand Arcade, 
Tally Ho Corner, London N12 0EH.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20171105/87984748/attachment.htm>


More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list