Draft talk:Decentralized art
 | Contemporary Art (inactive) | |||
| ||||
Contextual notes for reviewer
Hello, the last reviewer suggested adding my reply to their comment here on the talk page of the draft, for the next reviewer. Please see below.
-----
- Hello @Chaotic Enby thank you for the quick review, and reading through the sources. I was not aware that Medium and Coindesk are not considered reliable. They have both been removed and will submit this revision asap.
- Regarding your note about the "same thing” with NY Magazine , I made an edit that clarifies this as an early notation of street art being a type of decentralized art. I agree, it was not likely that the author intended to equate decentralized art with bitcoin or NFT technology at this time.
- It may be helpful in this respect to clarify decentralized art in context of art history. That is, decentralized art is an art form, not a technology or set of technologies per se. In other words, Bitcoin / NFTs / blockchain technologies are now an inherent part of the art form, but were not deterministic elements informing its early concept and practice, specifically artists operating independently and outside centralized control of the art world, using pre-digital methods and tools.
- Some examples of this: Mail art, exemplified in the work of Ray Johnson and the New York Correspondence School. Graffiti and Street Art. Seth Siegelaub's work with The Artist's Contract. The work and efforts of the Art Workers' Coalition, and more.
- As a parallel, provenance, the tracking of art sales and ownership, is a longstanding practice in the art world, usually handled by art dealers, auction houses, and galleries, using analog technology like paper, snail mail, certification via embossed stamps, and so on.
- Blockchain technology enabled a decentralized, coded, automated, transparent way to track provenance for artwork placed on this type of ledger, but provenance as a practice didn't require blockchain technology to exist.
- I hope this reply is helpful. Maybe it's too much detail and I misunderstand your input about the NY Magazine source and intention. In any case, your comment helped show need for clarity and revisions along these lines, thanks.