Well-known member
With something like the Cryptokitty, I think you have this new kind of crypto-wealthy community, people have loads of crypto-wealth, so buying something like a Cryptokitty can earn you a kind of bragging right. In a way you’re buying into your own reputation, you’re buying the right to brag that you own this thing. And then of course people buy them to invest in speculation, as well.
... it seems like, more and more, you’re seeing a shift from art as sort of a commodity, or art as a craft item, toward art as a derivative, which is a kind of financial instrument, and where what’s most significant, actually, is the information or the hype that circulates around it. To me art on the blockchain is a really good example of this. Maybe since the financial crash, we’ve seen the rise of art as an asset class, and the rise of funds that specifically buy art, to hedge against volatility in other markets, and of people using art as security on loans, and generally investing in the idea that ownership of art might make you money in various different ways in the future.


Well-known member
This bit from the piece I posted's alarming,
There was a famous book published at that time by a critic named Lucy Lippard, called The Dematerialization of the Art Object. It presents this idea that art would no longer have a physical form or be a physical thing, but would just become a concept, like conceptual art. And they saw this as being a way as well of defining the relationship between art and the market, because you know, if there wasn’t a thing or a commodity, the market should fall. But what we’ve seen is that actually this de-commodification of art doesn’t actually really perturb or disturb the market the way you would expect it to.


Well-known member
Fucking hell. This stuff about free ports... No wonder the Tories are so keen on them post-Brexit...
If you buy a really expensive work of art at auction, and you ship it to your home country, you’re going to pay a lot of taxes. So by shipping to a free port, you don’t have to pay tax associated with the work to move it from one place to the other. The idea was that things were only supposed to be stored there temporarily, but people exploit that loophole to store high-net-worth assets, like cars, and art, and fine wine, and gold bullion as well. And they get stored there indefinitely.
There’s some really depressing statistics about how much art is stored in some of these free ports. The Geneva free port, I think, is supposed to have more contemporary art than MoMA. Millions and millions of dollars worth of art.


Can turn naughty
There's a bit later on where she says art now has to sort of reject the market in order to be valued by it.

Rebellion was co-opted long ago. Marketing became more and more psychologically refined. The transition from corporations as companys to corporations as personal entities who understand you, communicate directly to you speaking your language. That was the point of no return. It trivialises everything that held meaning. Our sense of self is being sold to us. We try to adhere. Our instincts and emotions are pushed and pulled at daily. We willingly participate and submit more and more info for it to understand us better.

I believe there's a direct connection between this and why the arts today are how they are, and why we feel the way we feel.

Trace back to the time before it felt like this. Do you remember?

Whats the difference?

- Goldie


Well-known member
Would guess NFT's go the way Crypto has ...
Another piece of decentralization.

The other week there was an art world stir ( btw *uck the art world ' as it stands )
about ' Metro Pictures closing after 40 years '.
What Gallery, scene, culture lasts 40 years - these days ?
The 50 %'s ( usual Gallery take for your work ) who own it claimed basically they had done their thing and the art world was changing.

Haha - yes, and in exactly a way to buck up you 50 %er's !





Active member
what is kind of shocking in my opinion is that NFT has just sucked the hole beauty of digital art.
Digital art was the form of art where profit didnt matter, viewers didnt matter and where everyone had the same relation to an artwork without an original without aura( as walter Benjamin would say). In conclusion an artwork for everyone with the same point of view to everyone.
What came out was a sucking dumb art of beeple with many trumps and smileys and an unique object bought by some rich collectors for the reason of selling it higher.


Still not really seeing sonic NFTs - only (2D) visual art ??
It's nice to see how this new tech has unlocked some enormous fount of creativity - the gibberish gifs that seem to the main medium for NFTs are ... fantastic


dj panic attack
Still not really seeing sonic NFTs - only (2D) visual art ??
It's nice to see how this new tech has unlocked some enormous fount of creativity - the gibberish gifs that seem to the main medium for NFTs are ... fantastic

the discord for that catalog site that I mentioned seems to be poppin off at this point, although I cba to actually read it and work out if everyone is just minting "music NFTs" that aren't getting bought or whether people are actually making money.

People have been selling NFTs that supposedly come with rights to earn royalties from the streaming of the track, or to determine its future release date, or have a say in the artwork. But I don't think this is actually inherent to the NFT, you could do the same thing by just sending a legally binding email/contract. You couldn't actually rely on ownership of an NFT to legally prove you have those rights. Maybe doing this stuff with an NFT is signalling that you believe NFTs/blockchain tech will be legally binding at some point... or hurrying that point along?
I’m pretty sure it’d be straightforward to write a smart contract that “listens for events” like whenever funds are sent to a certain address, such as the address of a given miner, and to automatically kick some of that to whatever address a given NFT is in.