- A crypto artist asks: where were the actual technologists, innovators, and those who should “get it” when digital art was happening?
- Where are the tech gigabrains and visionaries (devs, VCs, etc.), the ones who usually spot and bet on the future?
- Where are the modern patrons of digital art?
- The next master might not be painting ceilings and should their patron be a Silicon Valley VC firm in Palo Alto?
- Why do we still struggle to accept digital art? Is it attachment to the past? Traditional, conservative ideas of art-making and appreciation? Mainstream notions of what “art” is?
- Has art lost its role in modern society? Or do "artists" live in a bubble, foolish to think the mainstream would care, when art barely touches most people’s daily lives?
- Debunk the “right-click and save” argument: they are right the media is fungible, but what matters is the provable artist signature. Even in the traditional art world, that’s what gives value.
- It’s easy to generalize and call everything a scam but by doing so, are we ignoring actual avant-garde, medium-native art? Art built for a worldwide computer (Ethereum) running on a shared global state.
- Finally, what in the reader’s opinion needs to happen for this kind of contemporary art to become more accessible and approachable outside of the crypto bubble?
This actually means nothing in a medium where you can create infinite perfect copies of something. If we had 100,000 identical replicas of Starry Night then there would be no value in a signed original. This is how digital art fundamentally works, your "ownership" persists insofar as people respect the authority of your notary.