In reponse to Megan Garber's "'The Most Expensive GIF of All Time' Is Being Sold for $5,800", (which can be found here: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/here-is-the-most-expensive-gif-of-all-time/379556/), I want to say a few things about how I look at value in art and what exactly people may be paying for when they buy all different kinds of art objects versus digital 'objects'.
In the article, there doesn't seem to be much discussion over the distinction between ownership of a GIF versus ownership of an art object (versus, even, ownership of a singular art object). So here we go, maybe, in descending order of an object's 'brand value':
1 Art object of a dead brand, 1 in existence
1 Art object of dead/alive brand (∴yet to be besmirched), 20 in existence
1 "Art" object of ? brand, infinitely reproducible
An unbranded and infinitely reproducible object (e.g. a fly)
The point I'm making - facetiously - is that value is a strange beast. In art, it operates alongside various levers of both (perceived) reproducibility and branding, which dynamically cycles back into one another. In order to meet up with the value-system of the art world, the seemingly infinite reproducibility of digital art would have to resort to such brand levers (like ascribing an artist/gallery name to a given piece). Or alternatively, the artist's digital process would have to be perceived as a much more singular, and therefore more unique, affair.
But this is a purely instrumental/value-driven way of looking at art. I don't like it, and as either a false or true master-operator of this mode, I think Jeff Koons is kind of a douche anyways.
In future posts, I hope to continue to talk about a growing practice in digital art - thru AI generators, glitch, and the like - and what all this says about value, time, ownership, and art, too.
For now, you can check out my ongoing works for tracking some of what I see as the great potential of mass-made, AI-generated images via popular terms and values.
コメント