Spam. "Blockchain is our mesh-odology"? "fine art is now fin-art" This guy deserves to be pinned to a wall and framed.

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:05 PM Kenneth Fields via NetBehaviour <> wrote:
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 ( 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:

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.

Central Conservatory of Music,
Beijing, China


Message: 6
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 18:38:34 +0000
From: ruth catlow <>
Subject: [NetBehaviour] TOKENOMICS Re:  comments on blockchain, art,
etc., discussion with Ruth
Message-ID: <>
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
work for us?


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
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
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
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
than being the work, although this may just be the conceptual art fan
in me

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. ..

- Alan

- Rob.

email archive
web / cell 718-813-3285
current text
NetBehaviour mailing list

Co-founder Co-director

+44 (0) 77370 02879

Bitcoin Address 197BBaXa6M9PtHhhNTQkuHh1pVJA8RrJ2i

Furtherfield is the UK's leading organisation for art shows, labs, &
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: <>


Subject: Digest Footer

NetBehaviour mailing list


End of NetBehaviour Digest, Vol 17, Issue 1

NetBehaviour mailing list
P Thayer, Artist