3 ms·
If the certificate does not refer to a specific installation it cannot perform its function as a certificate, which is to provide some sort of a proof that a pa
by lottin 5y ago
If the certificate does not refer to a specific installation it cannot perform its function as a certificate, which is to provide some sort of a proof that a particular installation is authentic. If the artist is indeed issuing and profiting from these certificates it could be considered fraud.
A certificate of authenticity does make absolute sense in the case of physical art (provided that it actually certifies the authenticity of the work, of course), because physical copies are all slightly different. Therefore people may want to tell those that are original, i.e. made by the artist or under their supervision, apart from those that are not. By contrast, there is no such thing as an original copy of some digital information, because a piece of digital information isn't put together by any individual that could claim to be the author of the copy. Even if they could (which they definitely cannot), all copies are identical and impossible to tell apart one from another. Then, what would a certificate of authenticity be certifying exactly? Nothing. It's just a ploy.
- miracle2k 5y agoYes, it's a ploy, to create a mechanism to sell digital conceptual and otherwise intangible art that cannot be owned in a physical way. A ploy that all actors willingly are signing on to - artists, galleries, and collectors. No one is misunderstanding what is going on. People are selling the certificate on the artificial assumption that it represents the art somehow, but you are buying the piece of paper. W
- lottin 5y agoIt's a ploy to trick unsophisticated investors into believing something infinitely abundant is actually scarce, through false advertising, deception and lies. The NFT industry must be called out for what it is—a rent-extracting industry that preys on the intellectually-challenged. Everybody would be better off if it went away.