4 ms·

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)?

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.
    - miracle2k 5y ago
      Thanks for doing some research! That's all I'd like to see people do. You misinterpret the practical workings there a little bit. The Tate will not need to buy another certificate if they choose to exhibit the drawing once again, by hiring draughtsman to paint it on a wall once more. It doesn't refer to a specific installation. The number of the wall drawing on the certificate refers to the design, not the physical object. Nevertheless, even with your interpretation, you could ask why a museum would want to pay for an artist to provide this kind of certification. I'm writing this from Frieze Art Fair. There are a number of video pieces here which you can buy. They'll give you a USB drive. They will pinky swear to only sell one of those, to you. And they'll give you a certificate of authenticity. Its supposed to certify that this isn't just a copy of the video that you made. Which isn't to say that you can't make a copy and give it to your friend. She will own the same bits. But only yours is authentic, because you have that certificate. That is what is meant by authenticity. It's a system the art world has experimented with for a while. These kinds of certificate-based works don't sell that easily either. Much easier to sell a painting. But it's the same system as an NFT and not more or less scammy than that.

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.
  - miracle2k 5y ago
    Thanks for doing some research! That's all I'd like to see people do. You misinterpret the practical workings there a little bit. The Tate will not need to buy another certificate if they choose to exhibit the drawing once again, by hiring draughtsman to paint it on a wall once more. It doesn't refer to a specific installation. The number of the wall drawing on the certificate refers to the design, not the physical object. Nevertheless, even with your interpretation, you could ask why a museum would want to pay for an artist to provide this kind of certification. I'm writing this from Frieze Art Fair. There are a number of video pieces here which you can buy. They'll give you a USB drive. They will pinky swear to only sell one of those, to you. And they'll give you a certificate of authenticity. Its supposed to certify that this isn't just a copy of the video that you made. Which isn't to say that you can't make a copy and give it to your friend. She will own the same bits. But only yours is authentic, because you have that certificate. That is what is meant by authenticity. It's a system the art world has experimented with for a while. These kinds of certificate-based works don't sell that easily either. Much easier to sell a painting. But it's the same system as an NFT and not more or less scammy than that.