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

Kenneth Fields kfields at ucalgary.ca
Tue Nov 7 03:04:31 CET 2017


Hi,
My interest in blockchain is something of an attention filter.
It’s like moving house; you have to go through all your stuff
and box up only the things you NEED to bring with you; facebook,
youtube, twitter - get rid of it.

We can simply move completely over to the next web, and as a 
consequence reclaim some of the old passion of the early internet. 
Time to build again; scout ahead.

Artsmesh (http://artsmesh.com) was always meant to be decentralized,
and we achieved that goal partially - embedding gnuSocial as a repository,
but for the most part keep it focused on LIVE. With blockchain, it’s now “Buy Live.”

So Artsmesh is ‘banking' on the fact that the 'live event horizon' (NOW) will become a site of value.
In other words, the closer you are to live/now, the more valuable and trusted will be the ‘signal.’ 
Live media acts as another filter, because it's a more skill-intensive space to command. 
With live presence, we share a more direct signal path; there is a relationship of veridicality, where 
no mediating entity can insinuate their non-contractual influence between our two negotiated presences.

So those are two filters acting on my psyche, blockchain and live. But yet another filter
seems to be emerging, a strange movement of cutting edge research from academia
to finance! Who would of thunk it? The white papers are exciting and ground
breaking, unlike the quicksand of much of the recent academic discourse in the arts and tech.

So Artsmesh is currently on the DApp/move:
https://www.stateofthedapps.com/dapps/artsmesh <https://www.stateofthedapps.com/dapps/artsmesh>

We’ll blockchain our mesh-odology (currently server based), and track peers as bitcoin/ethereum does,
issue shared IP contracts between musicians and audience at the point of hitting the broadcast button,
and gradually move to decentralized storage, live CDN carrier, governance of the Mesh community
and federated intermeshes (because as easily as you can mint your own token, you will be able to mint your own 
blockchain off the Ethereum blockchain) - and as a side effect, we’ll be able to financially support and credential 
expertise outside of the old rusty vessels/institutions.

And what about the new language of fine art - its now finArt!

See you on the mesh.
Ken

Syneme 
Central Conservatory of Music,
Beijing, China





> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 18:38:34 +0000
> From: ruth catlow <ruth.catlow at furtherfield.org>
> To: netbehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org
> Subject: [NetBehaviour] TOKENOMICS Re:  comments on blockchain, art,
> 	etc., discussion with Ruth
> Message-ID: <63c23aa6-8f02-d691-ca33-f552529bba76 at furtherfield.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
> 
> 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-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of NetBehaviour Digest, Vol 17, Issue 1
> *******************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20171107/1dba4adf/attachment.htm>


More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list