Conversation

Replying to
So if I price a tweet at $1, first person pats $1 and gets exclusivity for 1 second, second gets 0.5s exclusivity for 50c, etc. I’ve seen schemes like this discussed in auction literature. You own place-in-queue memorabilia, an autographed ticket stub basically.
1
7
A smooth microstructured progressively accessible distribution kinda like Hollywood movies (theaters —> dvd (?) —> premium streaming —> basic —> free/cheap archival streaming)
1
4
Tbf the art-like market dynamics that prevail now are a turn off for me. I’ve never wanted to make or own original art. Where technical medium constraints (sculpture, oil on canvas for eg) make the original form distinct from digital, and hard to mass produce, I’ll go to museums.
1
12
I’m temperamentally digital native, where there is literally nothing special about the “original” unless you impose specialness. But clever distribution mechanisms that ride various pragmatic tradeoffs? Yes.
1
5
Maybe there can be artistic merit to clever distribution protocols though. A serial time-rights auction where viewers get access in an artistic rather than random (lottery) or utilitarian (highest bidder) order? An essay that’s released in order of Myers-Briggs types?
3
7
That would be fun. An essay of mine that’s released ESFJ to INTP order should behave differently than one released in the reverse order. Or astrological signs. Scorpios first.
2
3
Distributional artistry is rare. Banksy for eg. But in a world of aggregation theory, reach-o-nomics, and distribution being more important, maybe go from dumb to smart to artistic distribution?
2
6
Distribution as performance art is the only way I can think off to make digital art substantively unique, rather than ascriptively unique with bolted on artificial scarcity and vanity markets driving it. You could genuinely reshape how a potentially historic work makes history.
2
15
One reason I’ve kept most of my work free or really cheap is that “people who can pay” is almost never an interesting audience. And the higher the price the less interesting the conversation.
3
34