83,371
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Now [[bitcoin]] — say what you like about it, and we have plenty to say [[Bitcoin|elsewhere]] — is “[[blockchain native]]” — it exists in, of and only ''within'' the blockchain. Bitcoins are therefore ''intrinsically, certifiably, unique''. That is about their one true advantage. | Now [[bitcoin]] — say what you like about it, and we have plenty to say [[Bitcoin|elsewhere]] — is “[[blockchain native]]” — it exists in, of and only ''within'' the blockchain. Bitcoins are therefore ''intrinsically, certifiably, unique''. That is about their one true advantage. | ||
Now if you create your artwork | Now if you create your artwork ''on'' the [[blockchain]], you get that same native uniqueness: any facsimiles of the artwork that exist ''off blockchain'' — copies floating around on the internet and so on — are, certifiably, ontologically ''inferior'' to the one on the ledger. That one is the real deal. | ||
But — and maybe walled | But — and maybe walled social media platforms on the internet, structured as [[decentralised autonomous organisation|DAO]]s are different; the JC doesn’t yet really understand them — mostly, a blockchain is a really crappy place to create art - rather like trying to create a word document in excel. Really limiting. Look, it’s one thing for David Hockney to do all his painting on an iPad: quite another to realise your whole ''ouevre'' in an electronic cashbook. Maybe this will change, but the blockchain as it is, is a clunky, slow, costly thing. It has only one advantage: uniqueness. | ||
For anyone making art the old-fashioned way — paint and paper, sand and glue, inverting urinals and signing them — or even more so writing music or literature — whose artwork “natively” lives outside a [[distributed ledger]], or its [[value]] does not subsist in its [[substrate]], but rather in the abstract information the [[substrate]] carries (such as a book or a score) — having your artwork encoded on a [[blockchain]], in a unique substrate doesn’t really help you. | |||
If you import a "canonical" “real world” artwork, then | If you import a "canonical" “real world” artwork, then the ''blockchain representation'' is the one that is certifiably, ontologically ''inferior:'' it is uniquely, definitively ''not'' the original work. | ||
Ironically, putting a real artwork ''on [[blockchain]]'' makes your [[non-fungible token]] ''worse'' than an straight digital copy. | |||
====Is uniqueness really, er, ''special''?==== | ====Is uniqueness really, er, ''special''?==== | ||
The rampant copy-ability of everything in | The rampant copy-ability of anything everything in Web 2.0 no doubt prompted the stampede to non-fungibility. ''Authenticity'' is in deep demand: no-one trusts experts anymore. ''Everything'' is ripped off. ''Everything'' is fake. Indubitability — [[certainty]] — is some kind of holy grail.<ref>But see our essay as to why [[doubt]] is no bad thing.</ref> But is uniqueness, in the abstract, of any value, ''in and of itself''? | ||
We | We say, “no,” all the above [[Notwithstanding anything to the contrary|notwithstanding]]. | ||
The JC has a small commonplace book of poems he composed, as a moleish adolescent.<ref>Adrian Mole-ish, or Wind-in-the-Willows Mole-ish, it doesn’t really make a difference.</ref> | The [[JC]] has a small commonplace book of poems he composed, as a moleish adolescent.<ref>Adrian Mole-ish, or Wind-in-the-Willows Mole-ish, it doesn’t really make a difference.</ref> It exists in single copy, in fountain pen ink on cartridge paper, rendered in his youthful, spidery left-handed scrawl. Make no mistake: these are some of the worst poems composed in the history of civilisation.<ref>They would give Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings a run for her money.</ref> Not one has been committed to any other format and nor, if the JC has any say in the matter, will they ever be. They are, thus, utterly unique. | ||
Do they have an iota of value? Outside their extortion potential, they do not. Does their uniqueness change this? It does not. | Do they have an iota of ''[[value]]''? Outside their extortion potential, they do not. Does their ''uniqueness'' change this? It does not. | ||
Why does he keep them? It is impossible to say. | Why does he keep them? It is impossible to say. |