3 ms·

It isn't, because the seller of the certificate is the moral owner of the work - the artist; this is not the case for stars. The Tate is the owner of the follo

It isn't, because the seller of the certificate is the moral owner of the work - the artist; this is not the case for stars. The Tate is the owner of the following certificate of ownership by Sol Le Witt: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lewitt-a-wall-divided-vertically-into-fifteen-equal-parts-each-with-a-different-line-t01766 https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lewitt-a-wall-divided-v... Are they the victim of a scam?

arcticbull 5y ago
The certificate itself says that it is to accompany the actual work. I suspect the certificate itself, separate from the work, isn't actually worth much.
- miracle2k 5y ago
  That's not correct. These wall drawings are not transferred physically; it would be hard to move a wall. Instead, draughtsmen will simply recreate it according to the instructions of the artist, as given in the diagram, at a new location. See for example https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lewitt-wall-drawing-1136-ar00165 https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lewitt-wall-drawing-113...: "Wall Drawing #1136 can be installed, removed, and then reinstalled in another location, as many times as required for exhibition purposes. As such, there can also be periods of time in which the work does not exist in physical form."
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Cool, sounds like this is in fact the work of art then, not a certificate of authenticity. It's a neat concept!
    - miracle2k 5y ago
      So how is it different than an NFT? For starters, let's take the Autoglyphs (https://www.larvalabs.com/autoglyphs https://www.larvalabs.com/autoglyphs): the smart contract gives a list of instructions for each piece that you can use to draw the final output. Cool concept or scam?
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        In the NFT case you’re buying a URL pointing to the instructions not the instructions haha, and they can disappear or change and also you don’t own them.
        miracle2k 5y ago
        In the case of Autoglyphs there actually is no URL involved. The instructions are stored immutably in the smart contract. However that is besides the point. How is the mode of ownership of this wall drawing different? The physical piece can change or disappear. What matters is who is recognised as the owner of the artwork an immaterial sense, as evidenced by the certificate. The owner cares about the piece of paper but not because the typography is so sweet. The piece of paper is not the artwork. The piece of paper is a token.
      - lottin 5y ago
        This an obvious scam. "A glyph can be created by anyone who is willing to donate the creation fee of 0.20Ξ ($769) to our chosen charity, 350.org." No, the glyph can be created by anyone who runs the code. And the code is publicly available. The "donation" is completely unrelated to the glyph, yet they try to trick you into thinking that both are connected.
        miracle2k 5y ago
        But can't a Sol Le Witt wall drawing not also be created by anyone with a paint brush, by simply following the instructions as given in the diagram (see above)? Which brings us back to the question why the Tate would pay money for the certificate of ownership (and then has to pay people to actually paint the wall!)
        lottin 5y ago
        The wall drawing can be replicated by anyone, but legally only the copyright owner can replicate it (unless it's for private use only). This is why the Tate has to buy a license from the copyright owner that grants them the right to replicate the wall painting. Why do you find this mysterious?
- dropnerd 5y ago
  have you heard of Hirst's "The Currency"? i suspect that most buyers will choose to burn the physical copy. collectible art is moving to the digital era, and certificates are the scarcity mechanism. > The way The Currency works is that collectors will not be buying the physical artwork immediately. Instead, they will pay $2,000 for the NFT and then have a year to decide whether they want the digital or the physical version. Once the collector selects one, the other will be destroyed. https://www.fastcompany.com/90657113/damien-hirsts-the-currency-questions-everything-you-thought-you-knew-about-art-and-money https://www.fastcompany.com/90657113/damien-hirsts-the-curre...

arcticbull 5y ago

The certificate itself says that it is to accompany the actual work. I suspect the certificate itself, separate from the work, isn't actually worth much.

miracle2k 5y ago
That's not correct. These wall drawings are not transferred physically; it would be hard to move a wall. Instead, draughtsmen will simply recreate it according to the instructions of the artist, as given in the diagram, at a new location. See for example https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lewitt-wall-drawing-1136-ar00165 https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lewitt-wall-drawing-113...: "Wall Drawing #1136 can be installed, removed, and then reinstalled in another location, as many times as required for exhibition purposes. As such, there can also be periods of time in which the work does not exist in physical form."
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Cool, sounds like this is in fact the work of art then, not a certificate of authenticity. It's a neat concept!
  - miracle2k 5y ago
    So how is it different than an NFT? For starters, let's take the Autoglyphs (https://www.larvalabs.com/autoglyphs https://www.larvalabs.com/autoglyphs): the smart contract gives a list of instructions for each piece that you can use to draw the final output. Cool concept or scam?
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      In the NFT case you’re buying a URL pointing to the instructions not the instructions haha, and they can disappear or change and also you don’t own them.
      - miracle2k 5y ago
        In the case of Autoglyphs there actually is no URL involved. The instructions are stored immutably in the smart contract. However that is besides the point. How is the mode of ownership of this wall drawing different? The physical piece can change or disappear. What matters is who is recognised as the owner of the artwork an immaterial sense, as evidenced by the certificate. The owner cares about the piece of paper but not because the typography is so sweet. The piece of paper is not the artwork. The piece of paper is a token.
    - lottin 5y ago
      This an obvious scam. "A glyph can be created by anyone who is willing to donate the creation fee of 0.20Ξ ($769) to our chosen charity, 350.org." No, the glyph can be created by anyone who runs the code. And the code is publicly available. The "donation" is completely unrelated to the glyph, yet they try to trick you into thinking that both are connected.
      - miracle2k 5y ago
        But can't a Sol Le Witt wall drawing not also be created by anyone with a paint brush, by simply following the instructions as given in the diagram (see above)? Which brings us back to the question why the Tate would pay money for the certificate of ownership (and then has to pay people to actually paint the wall!)
        lottin 5y ago
        The wall drawing can be replicated by anyone, but legally only the copyright owner can replicate it (unless it's for private use only). This is why the Tate has to buy a license from the copyright owner that grants them the right to replicate the wall painting. Why do you find this mysterious?
dropnerd 5y ago
have you heard of Hirst's "The Currency"? i suspect that most buyers will choose to burn the physical copy. collectible art is moving to the digital era, and certificates are the scarcity mechanism. > The way The Currency works is that collectors will not be buying the physical artwork immediately. Instead, they will pay $2,000 for the NFT and then have a year to decide whether they want the digital or the physical version. Once the collector selects one, the other will be destroyed. https://www.fastcompany.com/90657113/damien-hirsts-the-currency-questions-everything-you-thought-you-knew-about-art-and-money https://www.fastcompany.com/90657113/damien-hirsts-the-curre...