4 ms·

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 sm

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?
    - miracle2k 5y ago
      The Tate didn't buy the license. Neither did MASS MoCA, which owns many Wall Paintings. They bought a certificate of ownership. The certificate will still be valuable even if the copyright on the work expires. If the artist would work with say WeWork to reproduce this work across their offices, the certificate still has value. The Tate is still able to resell that certificate. It's actually not clear to me that Sol Le Witts estate could enforce a copyright claim on an "unauthorized reproduction", since describing a drawing in words is not the same thing as actually drawing it. But regardless, the copyright question is entirely incidental. There is a reason why the guy didn't just drew the damn lines himself, and why his such an influential figure in art history. It's precisely because he intended to interrogate some of these ideas. Note that even if we suppose your way of thinking about this, in terms of a license grant that will move over to any would-be buyer of this certificate, is the correct one, that means this certificate shown above either a) grants such a license implicitly, or b) a separate license grant is communicated somehow. In both cases, this is still exactly like an NFT, where artists often communicate licenses to buyers of NFT certificates.
      - lottin 5y ago
        I did some research and you're right they didn't buy a license. According to Lewitt himself, Everyone is allowed create a drawing following the instructions. But they did not a buy a certificate of ownership either. They did buy a certificate of authenticity. This is the certificate in question https://images.ctfassets.net/662nae7q8cm6/38DaHNDnz0epPreBMrZiwn/439eb38e943c1a943db5ebaa2d76d9fb/unnamed.jpeg https://images.ctfassets.net/662nae7q8cm6/38DaHNDnz0epPreBMr... That's a signed statement, from the artist, stating that the drawing in question was created in accordance with the instructions. Does such a certificate have value of its own? It depends on whether somebody is willing to pay for a certificate stating that a particular drawing (which may no longer exist) was created according to the instructions. So, maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know why you think this is important though. Does a certificate of authenticity make sense in the case of a digital image? No, because we can verify the authenticity ourselves by calculating the MD5 sum of the copy and comparing it to the MD5 sum of the original. We don't need to pay a trusted third party to do that for us, we can do it ourselves for free.

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?
  - miracle2k 5y ago
    The Tate didn't buy the license. Neither did MASS MoCA, which owns many Wall Paintings. They bought a certificate of ownership. The certificate will still be valuable even if the copyright on the work expires. If the artist would work with say WeWork to reproduce this work across their offices, the certificate still has value. The Tate is still able to resell that certificate. It's actually not clear to me that Sol Le Witts estate could enforce a copyright claim on an "unauthorized reproduction", since describing a drawing in words is not the same thing as actually drawing it. But regardless, the copyright question is entirely incidental. There is a reason why the guy didn't just drew the damn lines himself, and why his such an influential figure in art history. It's precisely because he intended to interrogate some of these ideas. Note that even if we suppose your way of thinking about this, in terms of a license grant that will move over to any would-be buyer of this certificate, is the correct one, that means this certificate shown above either a) grants such a license implicitly, or b) a separate license grant is communicated somehow. In both cases, this is still exactly like an NFT, where artists often communicate licenses to buyers of NFT certificates.
    - lottin 5y ago
      I did some research and you're right they didn't buy a license. According to Lewitt himself, Everyone is allowed create a drawing following the instructions. But they did not a buy a certificate of ownership either. They did buy a certificate of authenticity. This is the certificate in question https://images.ctfassets.net/662nae7q8cm6/38DaHNDnz0epPreBMrZiwn/439eb38e943c1a943db5ebaa2d76d9fb/unnamed.jpeg https://images.ctfassets.net/662nae7q8cm6/38DaHNDnz0epPreBMr... That's a signed statement, from the artist, stating that the drawing in question was created in accordance with the instructions. Does such a certificate have value of its own? It depends on whether somebody is willing to pay for a certificate stating that a particular drawing (which may no longer exist) was created according to the instructions. So, maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know why you think this is important though. Does a certificate of authenticity make sense in the case of a digital image? No, because we can verify the authenticity ourselves by calculating the MD5 sum of the copy and comparing it to the MD5 sum of the original. We don't need to pay a trusted third party to do that for us, we can do it ourselves for free.