> Or you can sign prints or provide certificates of authenticity - That still goes falls in line with the value being based on scarcity. Each of the digital prints is still as authentic as the one before it.
> You can always do prints with those nicer materials (archival paper/inks > etc.) and charge more for those. That might be way forward and I have no problem with this. > There are several startups that do blockchain-based editions of digital > works. ascribe for example: > > https://www.ascribe.io/ > > (I've met some of the people from ascribe but don't have any involvement > with the project. Other services are available etc.) I spoke with them a few months ago as well. In fact, I recommended that they talk to you ;-) > You could crowdfund the edition and have the prints as backer rewards at > various levels. On a separate level I have some problems with crowdfunding campaigns. When artists are exchanging making unique art for $10 I think it undervalues the artist. (I promise that I don't see problems in everything!!!) > Crowdfunding works best with things that are events with a narrative > people can get involved with, so you'd probably need to do annual or > biannual crowdfunding events for projects or (groups of) editions. > > You could also sell shares in a work/project/edition in return for e.g. > sponsorship mentions at shows (like at the end of a crowdfunded movie or > book). I understand what you mean, and in time I will use crowdfunding as a way to fund my general artistic practice, but in this case I want to be able to sell physical art in exchange for money money money and have the interaction stop there. Antonio On 2 November 2015 at 03:47, Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/11/15 03:23 PM, Antonio Roberts wrote: >> >> My motivation behind this decision was my belief that the value of an >> artwork should not be based on scarcity. > > +1 > >> If I had used expensive >> materials or if making multiples was labour intensive then I could see >> more justification in raising the price and producing less. However, >> in my case they were relatively inexpensive digital prints and so >> making multiples was less of a problem. > > Treat it as tipping or patronage in return for a touch of the artist's aura? > >> This presents a problem if I want to make more money from things like prints. > > You can always do prints with those nicer materials (archival paper/inks > etc.) and charge more for those. > > Or you can sign prints or provide certificates of authenticity - > > https://www.flickr.com/photos/http_gallery/22348355411/ > > There are several startups that do blockchain-based editions of digital > works. ascribe for example: > > https://www.ascribe.io/ > > (I've met some of the people from ascribe but don't have any involvement > with the project. Other services are available etc.) > > that takes the prints out of the equation altogether. :-) > >> Crowdfunding (patreon, kickstarter etc) has been suggested in the past >> but that is more about supporting the artist, not about making money >> directly from the artwork itself. > > You could crowdfund the edition and have the prints as backer rewards at > various levels. > > Crowdfunding works best with things that are events with a narrative > people can get involved with, so you'd probably need to do annual or > biannual crowdfunding events for projects or (groups of) editions. > > You could also sell shares in a work/project/edition in return for e.g. > sponsorship mentions at shows (like at the end of a crowdfunded movie or > book). > > - Rob. > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour -- ============================ [email protected] http://www.hellocatfood.com ============================ _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
