for sale
July 26, 2024 2:27 AM Subscribe
'Philbrick’s story serves as a microcosm of broad social questions of what is real and what is valuable. The structural and symbolic roles of art and money both shape-shift. A traditional artwork such as a painting cannot be divided, as if cut with scissors, and so any fractional ownership disconnects the financial shares from the work itself. Yet in the case of digital works, the artwork retains its aesthetic integrity in many copies while also being synthetically structured as a single unique financial object—' [openscholar, 23-page pdf]
This post was deleted for the following reason: Did you mean to post this in the existing Philbrick thread? -- goodnewsfortheinsane
« Older I wanted to believe him ... then I spoke to the... | Doubling as a delicious maths problem Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments