tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-621383853922929157.comments2010-02-26T07:43:09.790-08:00The ArtWorld Market ReportMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17847356386230123228noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-621383853922929157.post-26415596975386382302009-06-27T11:13:24.021-07:002009-06-27T11:13:24.021-07:00Great review. Always love your posts. Love all the...Great review. Always love your posts. Love all the art shown here. (I'm the girl behind Feathers Boa BTW LOL). I am very honored to be at the Aho and in such talented company!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-621383853922929157.post-85246206137048932542009-02-14T01:23:00.000-08:002009-02-14T01:23:00.000-08:00Posted by ArtWorld Market at 2:58 AM9 comments:Pro...Posted by ArtWorld Market at 2:58 AM<BR/><BR/>9 comments:<BR/><BR/>Prokofy said...<BR/><BR/> Your article is not clear. Was this installation removed because of some content violation? Or is this just a build loss due to a rolling restart, which happens constantly -- I usually have it happen at least twice a month on my sims.<BR/><BR/> Have you tried doing the normal thing we all have to do and simply file a normal support ticket on the website asking for a rollback and explaining an entire build was lost?<BR/><BR/> If you have a whole item, you're entitle to support service at the Concierge level, and you can even reach them live with this request, but you'll still have to put a ticket into the queue with the sim name. Calling Pathfinder is irrelevant as he is not a Linden responsible for land and technical issues.<BR/><BR/> Or perhaps you'd just prefer to fulminate and make a drama out of all this?<BR/><BR/> July 21, 2008 6:47 AM <BR/><BR/>Garret Bakalava said...<BR/><BR/> I too fail to see an overarching problem. For one thing, what is the "billing error."?<BR/><BR/> Two weeks ago, I was in the red to LL for 2 USD cents without realizing it. I don't know why LL didn't come in and take a couple of my L dollars to cover it but they didn't. Instead they closed my log in. Had I owned land on mainland, they would have seized that too, I reckon.<BR/><BR/> While it was a small hassle for me, not a big deal. How else is LL going to attempt to collect on an account that owes money?<BR/><BR/> I spend a lot of money in SL as I pay a large staff. Did I expect special treatement or for LL to spend time and man hours to look at my account and decide, heck no, let's not suspend Garret Bakalava.... No, I don't. Likewise, I don't expect LL to go to each plot of land they are going to reclaim and look to see what is on that land and decide based on that whether to reclaim it or not.<BR/><BR/> I would take Prok's advice here: File a ticket. See if the sim can be rolled back. This could create problems and an inconvenience for any other land holder on that sim, however, which is why sim restarts need to be asked for immediately.<BR/><BR/> July 21, 2008 7:15 AM <BR/><BR/>ArtWorld Market said...<BR/><BR/> prokofy and garret:<BR/> Thank you for your comments. I will add some content to the article. If you had followed the link there to Sabine's blog then you would have seen why this is an issue. The Lindens were kind and supportive to her, for which she thanks them, but she was told (this from a personal interview as well) that the sim could not be rolled back.<BR/><BR/> July 21, 2008 8:37 AM <BR/><BR/>AldoManutio said...<BR/><BR/> Ooookaaay. How utterly and ironically timely. Welcome to my world and dealing with the ephemera which is the proliferation of digital cultural heritage materials.<BR/><BR/> In one of my SL incarnations, I have been engaged in conversations with Filthy Fluno and DanCoyote Antonelli about the issues of documenting and making backups of the art in SL ... this story needs to be repeated and hammered home to every single artist, gallery owner, archivist, curator or librarian that dabbles in SL.<BR/><BR/> The very idea of trying to create a "market" in an environment that continues to be as intrinsically ephemeral as SL is simply beyond my comprehension.<BR/><BR/> July 22, 2008 11:45 AM <BR/><BR/>ArtWorld Market said...<BR/><BR/> Aldo has a good point, and that is addressed is a new SLART Business Feature on How to Protect Your Investment in Second Life®. Today's article suggests using Rez-Foo or a similar tool to control and save large builds, and also suggests giving copies to another account to avert inventory loss disasters.<BR/><BR/> I received a communication from Pathfinder Linden about this, who could not give details about why the rollback was not possible, but did say<BR/><BR/> "I do know that all the items on the plot were returned to Sabine, so at least nothing should have been lost.<BR/><BR/> I think it's great you're sharing ideas with your readers about how to save positional data for large builds with products like Rez-Foo. Nice work. :)<BR/><BR/> -Pathfinder"<BR/><BR/> As you may know from the article, the issue was not whether the items were lost, but the difficulty in reassembling what became a jigsaw puzzle. Using a large build utility will help solve that problem by enabling you to save a backup copy.<BR/><BR/> Pathfinder also directed me to another Linden for more information. If I learn anything new and useful I will let you know.<BR/><BR/> July 23, 2008 8:28 AM <BR/><BR/>Professor said...<BR/><BR/> Very troubling and thought provoking. A few thoughts and questions:<BR/><BR/> 1) WHAT REALLY HAPPENED? This is still not clear. Can we get the specific details? SLART quotes Sabine saying "a billing error liquidated zero's land." Sabine's blog states "an error in the system caused the land to revert to a for sale state." The cause of the problem is vaguely stated. It is important to know exactly what happened - was this user error or Linden error? Not knowing the exact cause creates further anxiety, as we wonder, "could I be next?"<BR/><BR/> 2) ROLLBACK. Zero Point is a 22K mainland parcel. Was a rollback requested immediately or not - what was the timeline? What was Linden's response to the rollback request? Obviously, rollbacks on mainland parcels are problematic if not executed immediately. As you note in your article "How to Preserve Large Builds", recent changes to neighboring parcels will be affected by a rollback. However, given that Sabine has two years of work on the one hand, and there is possibly a day or two of changes to neighboring parcels on the other hand, maybe there would be consensus among all of the land owners involved that a rollback would be for the common good?<BR/><BR/> In my own university research project, I've requested a rollback because of errors made on my side during land parceling. These errors caused some parts of the build to be returned to inventory, prim by prim. In my case, the build is a two island estate, and Linden rolled back the affected island within an hour and all was fine. I recall going back and forth when planning my build between whether to purchase mainland or estate property. From the perspective of rollbacks, owning an estate appears to offer significant advantages.<BR/><BR/> However, for those who own or lease individual mainland or estate parcels, rollbacks will affect more than the individual's parcel. You comment in your "Large Builds" article that "we are not aware of the technical reasons, if any, why the code for a single parcel cannot be copied from the backup and pasted into the current simulation." It would be good to know if this is technically possible. If so, Linden could certainly offer data-recovery services at an hourly rate, even though Linden's TOS offers no guarantees. One would think Linden would be open to new revenue generating opportunities such as data-recovery services. Of course, whether Linden charges to restore a build should really depend upon whether the cause was user or Linden error.<BR/><BR/> 3) LINDEN HELPFULNESS. Your original article says that "Sabine praises the Lindens for their efforts." Perhaps I missed something, but while I do see that Sabine, in her blog, acknowledges the "support from kind folks within Second Life" - I interpreted this as the support of Second Life residents, and not Lindens. What were the efforts of Lindens that she praised?<BR/><BR/> 4) PROTECTING OUR INVESTMENT. I very much appreciated the information on Rez-Foo, and am extremely interested in learning about other approaches SL users can proactively take to back up complex builds. As with so many other things the lesson seems to be "buyer (or builder) beware!"<BR/><BR/> July 23, 2008 10:29 AM <BR/><BR/>AldoManutio said...<BR/><BR/> I call "BS" on the Linden response ... the point is that the context of the work has been destroyed and CANNOT be restored, even if the pieces are there. That's why it's call INSTALLATION art.<BR/><BR/> Rez-Foo and similar tools will atleast allow inworld documentation of a work; what we need now is to be able to access the work when the whole sim goes poof ... in other words, wen we decide to move the assets to an OpenGrid/Open Sim situation.<BR/><BR/> And we need to be thinking, and ACTING, on this NOW.<BR/><BR/> July 23, 2008 6:38 PM <BR/><BR/>Nebulosus Severine / CM Pauluh said...<BR/><BR/> The disappearance of Sabine's Zero Point is definitely a huge loss and will be missed; that goes without saying.<BR/><BR/><BR/> However, in virtual worlds as well as in the "real" world, nothing is ever permanent.<BR/><BR/> [I am in no way making excuses for Linden Labs; they should make every effort to restore what was lost; and to take measures to prevent these sort of things from happening in the first place, of course.]<BR/><BR/> A lot of people have expressed sentiments to the tune of, "Why should I create/buy anything in SL when it could disappear tomorrow because of technical issues?"<BR/><BR/> In that sense, why do anything in RL either? Why paint a picture, or make a sculpture, or build an installation, or knit a sweater, or make a sandcastle, or buy a home, or collect stamps, or do anything? Anything you create or own can be broken, burned down, washed away, torn, used up, worn out, stolen, lost, destroyed...<BR/><BR/> There is ALWAYS the risk. Second Life is no different from First Life in that sense.<BR/><BR/> Take precautions to preserve what's valuable to you, certainly; but NOTHING lasts forever; enjoy it while you can. Part of what makes ANYTHING valuable, in ANY life, is its impermanence.<BR/><BR/> July 24, 2008 12:02 PM <BR/><BR/>Professor said...<BR/><BR/> It is not really a fair comparison to say that since objects can be lost or destroyed in real life, one should expect the same misfortune in Second Life. It is tempting to draw parallels. But in this case drawing parallels between SL and RL diverts attention from the basic fact that Second Life is a Web environment, not the real world. As such, one would expect the standard user-controlled backup and restore procedures that are available in other Web environments.<BR/><BR/> What business would run a Web site if its existence were subject to the same risks of destruction as builds in Second Life?<BR/><BR/> The current lack of user-controlled backup and restore creates serious problems for those using SL for serious academeic research purposes. While I myself have developed two islands for a university research project, I've put my plans for buying and developing two additional islands on hold because of incidents like this. I can't afford to have my own research projects, as well projects of colleagues of mine who I collaborate with, destroyed without recourse or compensation because of billing errors or system glitches.<BR/><BR/> I will continue my research efforts in Second Life because there really is nothing else like it from the perspective of an involved user base and established communities. However, at the same time I am making plans to divert much of the future resources I was originally going to put into Second Life into the OpenSimulator project.<BR/><BR/> August 6, 2008 5:29 PMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17847356386230123228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-621383853922929157.post-62058916088200000042009-02-13T05:17:00.000-08:002009-02-13T05:17:00.000-08:003 comments: Karen Schreiner said... Maybe what is ...3 comments: <BR/><BR/>Karen Schreiner said... <BR/><BR/>Maybe what is "real" is a bit too deep? How about is it "art"? Or is that just as problematic? I guess we could include "art" in whose opinion? The person who created it? The person experiencing it? The "expert" (God help us)? Or, is it not just a matter of subjective opinion, no matter whose? Is it something that can be determined objectively? Say, by checking off items on a check list? Yes, that's definitely art ... 10 out of 10? Hey, do we (the people who create it) really care if someone (anyone) says "yes, well done ... that's art"?<BR/><BR/>March 22, 2007 12:05 AM <BR/><BR/>Just some guy said... <BR/><BR/>Art is not the medium, art is the message. If something establishes a connection between "artist" and "viewer" in a non-literal way, then it is art, no matter whether it be 2D, 3D, scripted, virtual or whatever. So in this context, it makes no sense to say that SL art is not "real".<BR/><BR/>March 22, 2007 10:43 PM <BR/><BR/>DanCoyote said... <BR/><BR/>Nothing is real. For someone to say that something is real requires an objective viewpoint, something not possible for a human being.<BR/><BR/>Everything, including art is as equally unreal and real according to the viewer. It is a matter of opinion. <BR/><BR/>Second Life is simply another way to mediate you consciousness and like the world we were born into it is a construct of our minds interpreting various wavelengths of vibrations. I challenge anyome to prove difinitively that the physical world is any more real than Second Life. <BR/><BR/>This dilemma existed before Second Life and will contine to be a question long after it. <BR/><BR/>Here's a concept:<BR/><BR/>Imagine if SL were indestinguishable from your physical reality. In a few years with quantum computing we will be able to create such a construct. What would be the difference between the constructs then, when each is equally real to our perceptions?<BR/><BR/>The answer is neither, or whichever one you prefer. <BR/><BR/>Some thinkers posit that when this happens, and we are able to create a world so seamlessly real that we cannot tell the difference, we will also be able to upload our minds into this world and be free of the limitations of the biological avatars we inhabit.<BR/><BR/>When this happens things will really start to get interesting! Our biosphere can support maybe 12 billion people presently? However if our minds are uploaded into non-biological worlds and the inner planets converted into microprocessors fueled by solar power from the sun, our population could be 100 billion and exist anywhere there was sufficient sun to power our present construct.<BR/><BR/>Is this heaven? <BR/><BR/>My point is that dont be so sure that your meat avatar (your body) is any different than your SL avatar in percieving what is real. The future holds many surprises that we can only guess at!<BR/><BR/>DC<BR/><BR/>March 24, 2007 3:37 PMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17847356386230123228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-621383853922929157.post-15845558309537227302009-02-13T05:11:00.000-08:002009-02-13T05:11:00.000-08:009 comments: Sasun Steinbeck said... I've reall...9 comments: <BR/><BR/>Sasun Steinbeck said... <BR/><BR/>I've really got to wonder about this model of gallery owners requiring full-perm copies of everything so that they have complete control over comission splits, etc. This just opens the door for some scary abuse, and I don't see it as absolutely necessary. Let the artists retain ownership of their art. One gallery that hosts my art does this. The artists there are supplied with a commission split script that they are asked to put into their prims for sale and I am not being put into the horribly uncomfortable position of being asked to give full-mod rights to my work to anyone. This is completely and utterly out of the question for me since I have ONE sculpture I sell that is my sole income. The risk is just too great no matter how much I may trust the gallery owner. Nothing personal!<BR/><BR/>I also curate a small gallery and let the artists own their prims for sale. They can come update their art as they see fit within the wall space they are allocated, which is nice (and convenient for me!). Granted this does not let me tweak the positions of the art around as I wish I could do sometimes, but I'm not about to ask them to do something I won't do myself! Like most small galleries, I don't ask for commission so that's not an issue.<BR/><BR/>The decisionto surrender a full-mod copy is indeed with the artists in the end, but I worry that they are implicitly (or even explicitly) being pressured to give up permissions to their work so that they will be in the popular galleries... or be told to go elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>In this particular case I'd be very interested to find out whether any abuse HAS ACTUALLY happened or not. For all we know this gallery manager is honest, deleted all of the former gallery's art from their inventory, and is simply moving on to another gallery to manage. Has there been any actual abuse? Unless proven otherwise IMHO we should give this gallery manager the benefit of the doubt.<BR/><BR/>May 22, 2007 5:45 PM <BR/><BR/>Esch Snoats said... <BR/><BR/>There has only been one case where I handed over my art to a gallery owner to put in vendors for an exhibit, but the advantage I have with selling limited editions is I'm giving him exactly the number of copies I'm selling, and they are all sold original with mod/no copy/trans for perms, so I don't have to worry about any theft.<BR/><BR/>There are no sure fire ways to prevent theft, but handing the work right over into their hands with full perms is just asking for trouble. If I were ever told I had to do that I would walk and never look back because in SL you have to prove you're trustworthy and unfortunately given the nature of the game, it's far too easy to screw someone over if the opportunity presented itself.<BR/><BR/>May 22, 2007 5:50 PM <BR/><BR/>DanCoyote said... <BR/><BR/>Seems there is a need for artists to get more "professional" in terms of paperwork. One might think that galleries would need to do this first, but this is a bad idea because galleries have a built-in conflict of interest. Artists in RL or SL cannot really rely on galleries to "take care of them".<BR/><BR/>Most gallerists have the best of intentions of course, but there are always some people who will game the system to their benefit. In SL, a new form, this has many meanings, none of them good for atists.<BR/><BR/>Here are a few practical steps you, as an artist can take to protect yourself.<BR/><BR/>#1. Insist in dealing with real people with real accountability. (this cuts both ways of course as artists must also have accountable identies).<BR/><BR/>#2. Cover your ass with agreements. Here are some possible ways to do this at: http://www.furyinc.com/sfai_itp (what I do is alter the appropriate contract, make a website of it with password protection and get the gallerist to acknowledge that they read and understood the terms)<BR/><BR/>#3. Install your own art in any gallery and make it for sale so the funds go to the artist. Let the gallery trust you to pay their cut.<BR/><BR/>Small caveat:<BR/><BR/>I am not a lawyer and don't want to be one, the contracts at that URL are passed on as a friendly sharing of artist resources. Use them as you see fit, alter, change, as you see fit at your own risk. <BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>DC Spensley - DanCoyote Antonelli<BR/><BR/>May 22, 2007 6:00 PM <BR/><BR/>Morris said... <BR/><BR/>I agree wholeheartedly with Sasun, who was of immense help in making my place safe for artists to control their works while giving me as a gallery owner the security in knowing that revenues will be shared honestly (and automatically!). This no-nonsense approach, IMHO, builds respect between artist and gallery. No room for hijinks.<BR/><BR/>Paperwork and contracts are all fine for those who want to delve into that; me, I just was guided to a great gallery vendor script that splits revenues. (Tremali Lightworker's vendor, in case you're interested. It's sold at Tremali's gallery.) <BR/><BR/>On issues of intellectual property theft..... I'm not in the 2D "flat" art world in SL, but if I was I'd be scared stiff over people taking snaps of pieces, cleaning them up and reselling. It's a little harder to do this with sculpture. <BR/><BR/>Good post, good responses. <BR/><BR/>Morris Vig<BR/>Oyster Bay <BR/>Oyster (40, 169, 82)<BR/><BR/>May 22, 2007 6:14 PM <BR/><BR/>CMP / N. Severine said...<BR/> <BR/>Handing over full-perms ANYTHING, whether it be artwork, scripting, texturing, etc., is INSANITY - it's such a huge risk. Unfortunately, people new to SL will be very vulnerable to exploitation. It sickens me to think that gallery owners would have the NERVE to demand that artists hand over their artwork in the first place. <BR/><BR/>Not only have I been involved in the art world in SL for awhile, I've run a shop and dealt with mall owners who charge rent for vendor space. If any of them told me I had to hand over any of my creations, I'd have laughed in their face.<BR/><BR/>Why don't gallery owners follow the same business model as mall owners? That is to say, charge a per-week or per-month rental fee, invite the artist to a group, and allow the artist to set up his or her own work? <BR/><BR/>I don't know how gallery owners came up with the idea to have the artist hand over their work to begin with. To a fledgling artist trying to get a start in SL, the offers they get might sound like good ones.<BR/><BR/>For what it's worth, I am going to try to get the word out through the Art & Artist Network group. If anyone has any ideas to help further this, please send me an IM in-world. :)<BR/><BR/>--Neb.<BR/><BR/>May 22, 2007 9:11 PM <BR/> <BR/>Esch Snoats said... <BR/><BR/>Yeah there is always that risk of someone taking a snapshot of your work, but there are ways to at least (on the surface) cover your ground and make sure people know your work is genuine.<BR/><BR/>1) Make a texture that has your logo or avatars face or name or whatever, then place that on the back of each piece. If someone comes and takes a snapshot, they won't see the back, so it will be easy to determine if a piece is original or not.<BR/><BR/>2) There's always the easy "look at the creator of the prim" thing to see if it was the artist who created that prim or someone else.<BR/><BR/>3) All of my work so far has been either horizontal or vertical, so I always have 2 sides of dead space that you never see. Here I add my avatar name in big text. You don't see it on the piece, but if I know someone stole my work, I can easily identify that that texture of theirs is a forgery.<BR/><BR/>Granted, none of these will stop them, only digital watermarking will ensure more thorough protection, but you have to pay for that.<BR/><BR/>E<BR/><BR/>May 22, 2007 9:14 PM <BR/><BR/>static. said... <BR/><BR/>Ok so all this talk about "I would NEVER give away full perms copies of my works! That's just INSANE!" really makes me feel a whole lot better about my SL art dealings... Because I have done that on at least 2 separate situations without a second thought. And I feel especially good about myself considering I was one of the artists at that gallery mentioned in the blog and have to live with the thought that somebody out there could still be holding on to full perms versions of several of my artworks, just waiting for an opportunity to plagiarize me for an extra buck. And not only that, but my reputation could be at stake: here I am selling so-called limited editions and there could be somebody else selling the exact same ones for cheaper and in unlimited quantities. I've seen this happen before, where someone's item vendor got leaked to an av who started selling them without permission. In response, the creator had to just start giving away the items and vendors to essentially devalue the item so that at least the perpetrator wasn't profiting from their dishonesty. I would hate for that to happen to me or any other artist. It's not like I can just pump out another equally good set of images.<BR/><BR/>So yes, quite a lovely feeling. I guess some of us have to learn from the school of hard knocks.<BR/><BR/>-Static Schultz<BR/><BR/>May 24, 2007 4:11 PM <BR/><BR/>Marc said... <BR/><BR/>I don't understand why any of these artists need to show their work in a gallery on SL. It seems to be antithetical to the whole project. If an artist can't find any better art to make than just reproducing the flat boring art you see in RL, perhaps they shouldn't be making art in SL at all. Nine times out of ten, galleries in SL are just plain boring. People in SL should be thinking about how they can work past the gallery, perhaps a virtual version of that old "beyond the white cube" saw.<BR/><BR/>July 7, 2007 11:32 AM <BR/><BR/>violetta leshelle said... <BR/><BR/>interesting articles, interesting posts. I opened an SL gallery about tow months ago and had all the questions posed here. I have a 'classic' type of gallery, for now I have only shown photography, oils and drawings and after seeing how some of these works are being exhibited in SL I decided I did not want to simply make it a one prim object. Mainly becuase I think the works are shown in a better way, coming off the wall a little bit and also because this way I could make it an actual object specific for my gallery. The works I sell in my gallery are always sold, either as 'singles' or in a limited edition when it is photography. In order to guarantee my buyers that sales will not go over the set edition I use a script. And so far this seems to work fine. In this article and also in the reactions you speak about people, gallery owners or staff, that are (can be) deceitful towards the artists. I would like to add another perspective :-)Considering I take my work seriously as a gallery owner and my wish is to make a good exhibition, I prefer to install the exhibition myself. So far, that has not caused any problems..the works I have shown in my gallery are works from artists I know in RL, they have sent me their photographs and I have done everything myself. Uploading, making in into the actual SL object and installing the exhibition. And to be honest, I prefer it that way. An exhibition sort of has to grow on you...it is a process...you can choose to hang some works at random, it is just not my choice. Anyway, considering all this, I was all the more surprised by the following: I was contacted in-world by an artist. He wanted to show his work in my gallery. He gave me his website so I could see his work. We agreed we would make an exhibition and I made a selection of his works. He gave me the textures (first with no perms at all, so I could do nothing, later with all perms). However, when I was still preparing his exhibition he sent me an invite to an exhibit of his work in another gallery. I went to check it out and was surprised to see the exact same works, even more so since I agreed with him I would sell his work as 'singles'. So yeah, I take everything serious on the dangers and the risks for the artists...I just wanted to add a little perspective from the side of a serious gallery owner who is not out to make money over someone else's work but whose main goal is to show art she believes in at the best possible SL way, and in fact works for her artists instead of the other way around.<BR/><BR/>July 12, 2007 9:26 AMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17847356386230123228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-621383853922929157.post-66393027054672565742009-02-13T05:00:00.000-08:002009-02-13T05:00:00.000-08:00DanCoyote said... Both! More later.....March 19, 2...DanCoyote said... <BR/>Both! More later.....<BR/><BR/>March 19, 2007 7:03 AM <BR/><BR/>Esch Snoats said... <BR/>You have to love a guy who answers but doesn't answer all at the same time. :D<BR/><BR/>March 19, 2007 6:03 PM <BR/> <BR/>DanCoyote said... <BR/>This post has been removed by the author. <BR/>March 26, 2007 12:01 AM <BR/>DanCoyote said... <BR/>---Reposted from March 26 after spelling and syntax changes.---<BR/><BR/>Hyperformalism is a neologism that names something, distinguishes some observable social and cultural phenomenon. The term suggests a use for the word to describe formalist abstraction created in a hyper medium such as abstract 3D digital space or pure mathematical space. <BR/><BR/>Postmodern wisdom would have it that culture has fractured irreparably into a multiplicity of niches and that the metanarrative is passé. While I believe the former, the latter is still not true. The metanarrative is immortal, vulnerable only to another more contemporary story. Even the most pernicious and despicable narratives suffer memetic bit rot in deep historical time.<BR/><BR/>It could be said that all art movements are neologisms naming something perceived by a writer/theorist unraveling the meaning of a cultural production phenomenon. Something becomes clear and they just make up a good word for it.<BR/><BR/>Hyperformalism is part marketing message and part signifier of a broad based cultural phenomenon, both jargon, artwork and critical construct describing a certain relevant set of qualities that differentiate a spontaneous response to new creative and technical possibilities available to a critical mass of people.<BR/><BR/>Digital imaging software is all about depth. The goal has always been to immerse the viewer and create a plausible construct to train pilots, visualize architecture and model the environment. The deliberate act of using these 3 axis visualization tools for pure spatial aesthetics is widespread. When people get a tool they tend to noodle around. A powerful modeling, lighting and rendering tool in the hands of an eager and uninhibited enthusiast can sometimes result in stunning spatial experiences that transcend politics, ideology and anthropocentric concerns. Hyperformalism in the larger sense is the result of the joy of creative exuberance, form without concept or overt message.<BR/><BR/>This does not make it void of sentiment in net effect. Artfully conceived spatial form without overt ideology opens up the chance to induce a deeper wonder similar to the witnessing of a profound sight in the natural world like puddle ripples, ocean waves or the Grand Canyon. Each of these phenomena might be distilled into a special algorithm that describes its spatial and rhythmic dimensions. Some algorithms will be more regular and some more chaotic, some more overtly symmetrical and some more arbitrary and arcane.<BR/><BR/>That's all for now!<BR/><BR/>DC<BR/><BR/>March 26, 2007 12:01 AMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17847356386230123228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-621383853922929157.post-56521728892314899762009-02-13T04:50:00.000-08:002009-02-13T04:50:00.000-08:003 comments: ArtWorld Market said... Sunday, March ...3 comments: <BR/><BR/>ArtWorld Market said... <BR/>Sunday, March 11, 2007<BR/>No More Phony Limited Editions!<BR/><BR/>If there's a good reason to limit an edition other than phony scarcity to drive up prices, then that reason should be stated up front, otherwise, let it go. There are enough REAL reasons that editions are limited in Second Life. Take the Starax Wand as an example: They were sold straightforwardly for a modest price, considering what it does. It was a no transfer item--everyone was an end user. Now the supply has stopped.<BR/><BR/>Posted by ArtWorld Market at 5:55 PM <BR/><BR/>14 comments:<BR/><BR/>Esch Snoats said...<BR/><BR/>Well, as a person who sells limited edition artwork inside SL, I think you may be a little too harsh with your opinion of them. I would love to hear what events lead up to your current opinion of LEs because I think that will dictate more than anything how this thread will go as we all talk about it here.<BR/><BR/>Let me throw this out there just to get the ball rolling. I sell only 5 copies of each of my pieces, generally between L$2000-3000 a piece. Yes, in a way the price is dictated by how few I sell, but also there is indeed the element of , "If people like my work, they will buy it at that price." If my work wasn't good, no one is going to buy it regardless of what price it is. This is the gamble with selling LEs because art is subjective, and what I may think is great, someone else will think it's crap.<BR/><BR/>People are no different in RL from VL. They want status symbols. They want stuff that no one has, that way they can point to it and say "Hey, that's a LE, only 4 others have it in SL and I have #1 in the series!" People get hard core into that stuff.<BR/><BR/>I sell my LEs as /no copy/mod/trans/, that way not only can they resize the piece to get it to fit within their space, but they have the option of selling it off later if they don't want it.<BR/><BR/>This is a perfect selling point for them because they can tell the next buyer that the art only had 5 copies in game. The buyer of my art benefits from this scarcity just as much as I do.<BR/>March 11, 2007 6:57 PM <BR/>snaper Strong said...<BR/><BR/>I don't know if this is phony, but i do limited editions my work. Each is an edition of 6; 5 to sell, and 1 saved as an archive copy. My prices are very low in the current market.<BR/>To help make art available to everybody, at my gallery we photograph each show and produce a book. The book is available for free.<BR/>Intellectual property is a big problem here in Second Life, and the debate will likely go on forever.<BR/>I didn't come here to make money, so that greatly colours my thinking on this, but in some realities, this is all phony.<BR/>March 11, 2007 7:19 PM <BR/>DanCoyote said...<BR/><BR/>Any copies of an artwork are absolutely identical in SL so the old RL concept of a limited edition is at best a misnomer and highly suspect. Each copy made of an artwork reduces the collector's market value of the work by a factor equal to the number of the artifacts divided by some nebulous overall valuation of a theoretically original artwork.<BR/><BR/>Uniqueness (what has been called phony scarcity in this blog) is an important element in determining the market value of an artwork in RL and SL. Let's face it SL is a capital construct, an unregulated free market economy where scarcity is a factor in the creation of value. The question is what kind of value do you want to create in SL with your art? How much do you believe in yourself?<BR/><BR/>Do you want to make mass consumer goods that anyone can have, that constantly lose value and compete at the broad base of the pyramid? or do you want to make unique objects that have the potential to increase in value with the integrity of the artist that creates and protects that uniqueness?<BR/><BR/>Other kinds of value, like "use value", (the practical value of an object as a tool or useful object) do not apply comfortably to objects of art whose use value is subjective, aesthetic and difficult to determine. To disallow artists to acknowledge uniqueness as a factor in valuation of their work, denies that their art has value beyond wallpaper for a SL shoe store, or as free game development for Linden Labs (bless their capitalist hearts).<BR/><BR/>Artists, like the plumber deserve to garner compensation for their contribution to the world. Anybody who doubts the value of a plumbers might be well to take note their scarcity at 2AM. Valuable indeed, and more so when they are scarce. The same goes for the work of artists, who should be compensated for their contribution to the world.<BR/><BR/>Because in the end, if part of the value of something to a collector it's uniqueness, that value is very literally created by the artist in their decision not cheapen a collector's investment by mass production. This pledge of integrity of the artist is a real way of creating value, value that can increase considerably when multiplied by demand for the other qualities found in, or substantiating the artwork.<BR/><BR/>I am convinced that there are different modes of value in SL commerce. Shoes for instance are not of transferrable value outside of SL. Buy them in SL, enjoy them in SL. Art and Music are of real transferrable value in both worlds, in fact I believe that Art and Music are the only things that transfer value well between both continuums.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps more distressing to the artist are very real, insidious institutional errosions of IP rights contained in the SL Terms of Service, sections 3.2 and 3.3 that impinge on the ironclad rights of artist to control their own creations.<BR/><BR/>As SL matures and grows, these terms of service increasingly become more like doctrine imposed from afar by a colonial power, on a culture that has grown apart from the mother country. This colonial scenario has played out over and over in RL nearly the same way. How do you think it might play out in SL?<BR/><BR/>But, this is yet another conversation...<BR/><BR/>ciao<BR/><BR/>DanCoyote Antonelli in SL<BR/>March 11, 2007 10:31 PM <BR/>bathsheba said...<BR/><BR/>Meh -- limiting editions is a valid sales model, whether it's done to create scarcity or for any other reason.<BR/><BR/>Whether to do it is a matter of taste. For my part I don't do it: I think my work has greater cultural impact and higher aggregate value without limits. As an RL artist, I've bet my income and reputation on that opinion.<BR/><BR/>But provided it's done with full disclosure, I don't see any argument to make against the practice: other artists should do whatever they want. (It's lucky I think that, because they're quite likely to anyway.)<BR/>March 11, 2007 11:26 PM <BR/>filthyfluno said...<BR/><BR/>It is important for me to create limited edition artwork if the artist's intentions are to create something rare and special. This is enough reason for me to do this despite the RL limitations of artists throughout history. Even site specific mega-prim sculptures don't have to be limited. It's a choice by the artist any way you slice it.<BR/><BR/>Nearly anything of value in Second Life is artificially scarce. Obtaining a rare object in Second Life or in other virtual reality similutors and being able to afford it once you find it is an accomplishment that many people like to celebrate.<BR/><BR/>At the end of the day, the market will sort out the value of SL art. I know artists who sell unlimited versions of their amazing artwork for $200L and they don't sell anything cause they got no exposure. I also know artists who do "one of a kinds" for $15,000L. Again, what's most important is that the artist has integrity and stays true to their word if they choose to make "limited edition" art. More to come...<BR/>March 12, 2007 3:14 PM <BR/>ArtWorld Market said...<BR/><BR/>Yes, I sell limited editions. I also buy them. As an art dealer in SL I preferred them, because they were more likely to increase in value as the population of SL grew. But I have discovered I can sell unlimited editions for high prices just as easily as limited editions. I used to think it was the best way to produce art in SL, as it's the model I have been using for years as an artist on Terra.<BR/><BR/>But recently I've had to answer a lot of questions in interviews by RL media about the SL art world, and it got me making comparisons. The reasons for editions being limited in RL are substantial--the cost of paper and printing, the time to make each copy of an edition, etc. Editions needed to be limited to prevent investing in production and storage of inventory that might never sell.<BR/><BR/>But those factors do not apply to Second Life. I understand only too well the point that Esch and Dancoyote make about scarcity and status. Having a Starax Wand is a status symbol among Slart collectors. It's scarce. But it wasn't a limited edition. It was expensive. That did not stop people from buying it. It's scarce now because there have been no new ones issued for some time.<BR/><BR/>You can have a scarcity model without "limiting" the edition. For example, in RL I raise the price of my editions every year or so, reducing the number of people who will order them. I do demand publishing--making the works as they are ordered. But it's boring making the same old works when I'd rather be making new ones. It has to be financially interesting to motivate me to make another copy of an old work.<BR/><BR/>In SL I don't have to do anything but press a button to make another copy. And the buyer can press the button. There is no ethical reason to create scarcity by artificially limiting the edition size. It’s pandering to an old economic model, and encouraging Veblenesque behavior (cf. Thorstein Veblen The Theory of the Leisure Class.<BR/><BR/>It's fallacious to argue that having more copies of a work diminishes the importance of the artist. There are millions of copies of Picassos, Kandinskys, etc. That just increases the demand for the originals. Perhaps if 2000 people in SL had your art on their SL wall it would increase your exposure and create more demand for your RL artworks.<BR/><BR/>If the Slartworks are SL originals, rather than copies of 2D Terran art pasted on a prim, then price them accordingly as original works. The high price alone will limit sales of the edition and make it exclusive. Why stop 100 people who want to give you $L15,000 a pop from doing so?<BR/>March 13, 2007 8:25 AM <BR/>CMP / N. Severine said...<BR/><BR/>At my first SL exhibition (July 2005), I sold prints of my stuff for around L$300 a pop. That was also before I made an SL "day job" for myself, selling skins, eyes, and other random creations.<BR/><BR/>Since then, I've felt rather uncomfortable about putting a price tag on my art at all. To me, the artistic process is not commerce -- it's a higher plane of consciousness. It no longer feels right to me to charge money for something so personal. As of today, all my pieces will be sold for no more than L$1.<BR/><BR/>-Neb.<BR/>March 13, 2007 6:26 PM <BR/>Karen Schreiner said...<BR/><BR/>All my art is digital, in RL and SL. I create with PSP etc. Even though I've started to print my images to canvas and exhibit and sell them in RL, the concept of "an original" doesn't really apply. There are no originals. So, what I do in SL and RL are pretty much the same. In both worlds I can, of course, offer limited editions and, if I do, the reason will be same in both cases ... to increase demand by reducing supply. I don't really see a problem there. Neb raises a more interesting issue, for me anyway. I'm really not at all interested in business and marketing. I'd like to believe I'm an artist and I create art, not products. So, should I sell at all? And if I do, am I somehow devaluing my art? In the end the thing simply boils down to pragmatics. It's cost me a far bit of real money to set up to exhibit my works in SL. And, in RL I love creating so much I really would love to be able to do just that and only that. So, in the end, if I want to continue to display my work in SL and have any hope of becoming a professional artist in RL I will need to sell my work and not just create and show it. I wish it weren't so, but it is. Ultimately, if selling my work allows me to continue creating new pieces and offering them for other people to possibly enjoy then I'm prepared to pay that price.<BR/>March 14, 2007 1:29 AM <BR/>Just some guy said...<BR/><BR/>Art should never, ever, be reduced to a status symbol. People are talking about scarcity enhancing value. The value of art lies not in its scarcity or uniqueness, but in the connection that it forms between artist and owner. The value of a piece of art increases directly with the number of people who can enjoy that art, and the number of lives it touches.<BR/>March 14, 2007 4:14 PM <BR/>DanCoyote said...<BR/><BR/>Starax Wand is irrlevant. Yes that's right I'm not a fan of Starax. This is because of the retrogerssive nature of the work (who needs silly sculptuers of RL objexts in SL, and yes I know he's popular) and the lack of commitment of the artist to continue to make work in SL.<BR/><BR/>This person VERY much decided to play a market of scarcity card by simply losing faith in the new medium and bailing out when the going got tough. The wand was a good idea and is certainly a rare thing now since the artist has committed suicide (another unforgivable sin in my eyes).<BR/><BR/>I prefer not to encourage such shallow and superficial behavior and stand by my original unique editions with integrity.<BR/><BR/>The conversation is NOT about Starax anymore, if it ever was. Starax made work that was oldfashioned even by RL art stadards. Why does this matter? It matters because we're not in Kansas anymore Toto. For me art is about discovery, it is about pushing forward and encouraging growth and reminding people of their own dormant sense of wonder.<BR/><BR/>I also disagree with Artworld here about the "new econonimic model". Bah! This is not the new economic model at all. The reality is that Second Life as created by Linden Labs is a VERY retrogressive capital economy. Tell me something. What do you call a country where business takes over goverment, even worse IS the government.<BR/><BR/>Fascism is what is called. In my opinion the NEW economic model is P2P, the elimination of currency and the fair and equitable distribution that has been possible since the 1980s, but not socially possible because of the greed inherant in the capital system. Second Life is actually even less of the new model than RL in many ways since TOS 3.2 and 3.3 give LL rights to your IP that they NEVER would have in RL, ever.<BR/><BR/>So go ahead. SEll tons of copies of your work in SL and test your theory. I tend to be somewhat in agreement with the "just some guy" poster in many ways about the TRUE value of art. Even though this person is naieve about the realities of economics he does state the spirit of the situation. But he obviously doesn't believe that he should be compensated for his art (this tells me he is a hobbiest). That is his choice. But I believe very strongly that artists SHOULD GET PAID.<BR/><BR/>Also just so you don't think I am being hypocritical I would like to state that just because I play the scarcity game in SL doesnt mean I wouldn't prefer another system. Until this happens we all need to participate in the same dilapidated market economy as RL, in fact they are the same life.<BR/><BR/>For more information on the so called "new economy"<BR/><BR/>http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499<BR/><BR/>http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue5/<BR/><BR/>Just for starters!<BR/><BR/>Much love to Artworld, FF, Neb, esch and all the artists in SL with the guts to stick it out through thick and thin.<BR/><BR/>Cheers!!!<BR/><BR/>DC<BR/>March 16, 2007 10:56 AM <BR/>rl_artist said...<BR/><BR/>real artists make real art for real people in the real world. you so called "digital artists" just push buttons and click on your mouse and let the software do all the work. why on earth do you take yourselves so seriously.<BR/><BR/>a serious artist engages in the creative process and doesn't let a machine figure out all the stuff that they are just too lazy to do in the real world.<BR/><BR/>how can you call yourself an artist if you are making digital pictures as a cartoon character in a make pretend world? artists are artists because what they do is unique, important, creative, and challenging. otherwise, anyone could just say that they were an artist!<BR/><BR/>i'm sorry, but I also am a whiz at most of the adobe softwares and just because I can push the right buttons doesn't make me an artist! one could argue that a camera is also a tool that you just push a button not unlike a computer. but you still have to go into the real world and engage a subject, person, or space! you just don't sit in front of a computer and click click click and say you are an artist, regardless of how cool the pictures look on the screen!<BR/><BR/>you can song and dance and talk about economics, marketing, or limited editions all you want, but if you make images just by using a computer, you are not an artist, you are creative software user.<BR/><BR/>artworld market talks about how real life limitations like storage, cost of materials, and time contribute to distinguishing authenticity. well i say that making art on a computer is just another way to navigate around these same issues. real artists are scarce, digital artists are a dime a dozen!<BR/>March 17, 2007 12:41 AM <BR/>Karen Schreiner said...<BR/><BR/>The really sad thing about ignorant people is that they will never understand their ignorance.<BR/>March 17, 2007 5:28 AM <BR/>DanCoyote said...<BR/><BR/>Agreed Karen.<BR/><BR/>This so called real life artist is nothing of the kind. This person is a fool (probably a bored, spoiled dull witted teen) sniping at other people from the safety of an anonymous position and is not worth substantive response.<BR/><BR/>Rock on Goober!<BR/>March 17, 2007 12:03 PM <BR/>CMP / N. Severine said...<BR/><BR/>I'd like to respond to "RL Artist". I hate to break it to you, but "RL" artists are a dime a dozen, too.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, there are a great deal of mediocre digital artists out there -- but the same can be said of oil painters, sculptors, illustrators, & so on & so forth. Perhaps it's true that anyone can click a mouse, but anyone can pick up a paintbrush or a piece of charcoal, too. Working with digital vs. concrete media can be just as challenging, or just as simple. It's not the medium, it's what the artist puts into it.<BR/><BR/>Second Life artists are breaking new ground. If you believe it's all that simple -- and that no blood, sweat, or tears are poured into working in this medium -- I challenge you to rise to the occasion.<BR/><BR/>Go ahead and scoff at our work if you like. The same thing happened to Impressionism, Dada, Pop Art, etc. Every new art movement gets a fair amount of derision at first - "That's not art!!" We'll see who has the last laugh once the rest of the Art world starts catching on.<BR/><BR/>For the record, many (if not all) of us are "RL" artists, too. Digital art is an additional medium which artists are only beginning to explore. It's a shame that you are too close-minded to give it a chance.<BR/>March 18, 2007 7:27 AM<BR/><BR/>March 19, 2007 2:39 AM <BR/>Esch Snoats said... <BR/>What I love most about the "RL Artist" guy is that he makes blanket assumptions that digital artists don't know what they're doing without actually even looking at the work first to determine if that's true or not.<BR/><BR/>Just because it's digital doesn't mean that we don't follow the same principles of shape, line, color, and composition that you would with traditional mediums. Did you walk in off the street or do you actually play SL and know what we're talking about?<BR/><BR/>March 19, 2007 6:02 PM <BR/>Kenneth said... <BR/>What a varied bunch of topics - this has apparently touched off many nerves. My wife is an "Abstract Photographer" in RL www.christinagattorno.com and is often given grief by "photographers" because they think the work is "digital". It all begins as a RL photograph and then may be slightly manipulated and/or juxtaposed with other photographs to create a more complex image. Just because it was modified digitally does not invalidate the photograph. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, the work can only be "produced" on a digital printer, so early on there was quite a bit of deliberation as to how to produce "originals" and limited editions and how many of each would satisfy that designation in the RL art market. Extensive research revealed that you can produce up to 10 unique copies which can be priced quite high, and hundreds of "limited editions" but less than 1,000. The "scarcity" and "demand" tends to guide pricing.<BR/><BR/>The problem is this is such a new segment of the art market that there is much RL controversy. It really comes down to how much the consumer is willing to pay, which leads to the other part of this discussion - quantity and pricing of "limited editions" in SL. <BR/><BR/>It's a very individual decision on how one treats their work in SL. Some people create work they feel strongly about and feel it must be limited. Some feel they they should share it with as many people as possible. And apparently from earlier comments, some artists feel this way in RL. It comes down to what you are trying to accomplish and every reason is valid for that person. However, if you talk to a RL gallery owner, you sure better understand that art IS a business selling a product and the way the product is "marketed" influences the perception by others of the artist.<BR/><BR/>We are in SL to broaden awareness of my wife's RL art so we aren't limiting editions and will price works however the individual gallery prefers.<BR/><BR/>And SL has brought about a whole new category of art, that produced within the world itself - is this necessarily a less valid medium than any other? If someone "paints" an image within a computer, is it less "artistic" than oil on canvas? I don't think so. <BR/><BR/>I know this is going to get some upset but - IMHO there are so many "painters" with no spark of originality, there is little value to their work. Art is about creativity - Marcel Duchamp is criticized for his "Readymades" (remember the urinal as art?) - but he is fully accepted as a major figure in the art world for it because of the orginality of the concept. SL creativity, digital artist's creativity, is as valid as any painter's or photographer's...<BR/><BR/>I won't even touch the points on the validity of the free market system vs. the failure of socialism, artists are the epitomy of distance from reality on this subject. Google Friedrich Hayek and study the subject for a few years before pontificating on it.<BR/><BR/>April 1, 2007 6:26 AMMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17847356386230123228noreply@blogger.com