You can now own 'original' digital art thanks to blockchain technology

[Robin Smith]

As an image it seems quite acceptably "arty" to me. It resembles something by Francis Bacon. Personally I find it rather too unsettling, whereas a Bacon painting is unsettling but more interesting. The fact that it is a wholly digital creation is however intriguing. It challenges us to decide whether this matters or not, or whether it should. Strictly, aesthetically it shouldn't matter: a good reproduction of an Old Master should produce the same delight as the original. But in reality and in the "art world" in particular people seem to appreciate non-visual factors like "authenticity", age, artist's stature, investmant potential and so on. Time will tell, but if we believe a digital photo taken with a modern camera using AI controlled AF, and significant post processing: all processes the photographer probably does not understand to any real degree is worthy of attention, then so is this.

[samstevens]

a good reproduction of an Old Master should produce the same delight as the original.

It wouldn’t for me. If I learn what I thought was an original Van Gogh is a reproduction, that takes away its direct connection to the living, breathing guy who created the body of work that expresses so much in such a unique way.

 

But that doesn’t mean AI art can’t also be art. With AI art, I go into it knowing a single living being didn’t create it and that’s part of the essence of the art.

 

Part of the essence of a Van Gogh is that Van Gogh’s hand created it and that matters because of all else Van Gogh created alongside it. I might recognize the brilliance of someone who can copy it and even the different type of brilliance the copy itself will have, but the copy won’t be or feel the same, because the original is infused with much more than just its physical and visual traits.

[Moving On]

This comes to mind.

Not a “gotcha”, just a reflection on the previous discussion’s relevance.

“Why not? I'm able to hold more than one response and thought in my head and heart. I can still look at that photo as I did initially even while also able to see it from the perspective the caption gives. For me, one doesn't preclude the other. Rather, having the two perspectives and even more than those two opens up more and more possibilities. There isn't one way I want to see the photo.”

[samstevens]

This comes to mind.

Not a “gotcha”, just a reflection on the previous discussion’s relevance.

You’d have to make clear what you think the relevance is to reflecting on the comment you quoted in light of what I’ve said here. I don’t see the relevance. Make your point if you have one.

[Moving On]

The point is that commentary, facts, truth, influence perception of art.

Once the cat’s out of the bag......

When presented with two identical paintings, nostalgia wins the day.....

What you see means much less compared to what you know.

The old Art by Chimp ploy comes to mind.

I once loved to hear Barbara Streisand sing.

Then I heard her speak........;)

Edited February 21, 2020 by Moving On

[samstevens]

I once loved to hear Barbara Streisand sing.

Then I heard her speak........;)

Not everyone responds to art as I do and I don’t expect everyone to. I appreciate that your appreciation of Streisand’s voice changes when you hear her talk. I hate Jon Voight’s politics as well as a lot of other stuff about him, yet I think he’s a great actor and is brilliant in Ray Donovan and love watching him bring Ray’s whacky dad to life. You and I may be different in our appreciating something in spite of something else. Why shouldn’t we? On the other hand, I can no longer watch Mel Gibson, though in addition to my abhorrence for him as a person, he seems to have squandered his potential as an actor, IMO, as his career took a direction that didn’t challenge or suit me much. I think art appreciation is not a science and not a universally similar experience for all of us. Different things influence us in different circumstances. I can live with whatever inconsistency someone else wants to lay on me for dealing differently with Voight and Gibson.

 

I can look at the same photo of Lange from the standpoint of what a caption offers and from reading other info about it and also be in touch with my original impression of it. That doesn’t contradict the fact that I have different feelings about an original Van Gogh and a copy of it. If I learn what I thought was an original is, in fact, a copy, I will be able still to appreciate their physical and visual qualities and marvel at them while now having the additional sense of the human element missing. Doesn’t mean I can’t recapture my original impression of it. Just means the human element and connection to body of work is important enough to make a difference.

 

I’m not saying that looking at the Lange photo with and without the info isn’t a different experience, I’m saying I can see both pictures of it without one destroying the other. Same with the Van Gogh that I learn is a copy.

[glen_h]

For a somewhat simple explanation of what blockchain does, is to validate that something is what it says it is,

for example that it has some value in Bitcoin, and, just as important, that it hasn't been spent yet.

 

Many items, including photographs, come with a paper certificate of authenticity, which is

only as good as the reliability of the person or group that created it. Also, you need to be

reasonably be sure that it isn't fake. In the case of photographs on paper, one can sign the

back and put a sequence number on, which is supposed to indicate rarity.

 

I am not so sure about the OP mention of AI art, but it should be possible to use blockchain

in the same way to authenticate a digital photograph. That is, to authenticate that someone

is the owner of a specific numbered copy. It also allows one to sell a specific numbered

copy, and for the new owner to authenticate that they are the owner.

 

With paper photographs, and also digital ones, someone can copy one and (try to) sell it.

Does that decrease the value of original copies?