After reading the article I'm questioning
the idea of ownership of art. The original piece is interesting as it sold for almost 700 million dollars for a balloon animal that could have been made by a clown in the town circus. Yet someone paid a hefty sum of money for this.
The gif is doing the same thing. As evident by the article it seems like the gif can be pulled and used elsewhere, so what does it mean to own art, and especially digital art? When everything can be ripped off and moved what does ownership mean? Does it mean that you have ownership of where it is distributed?
This begs the question: how do you protect ownership in a digital age? Watermarks might work but it also tends to obstruct the beauty of the art. From what I can see, despite the original price of the piece this one might never sell for the exact reason that you cannot own a piece of digital art. It's not like a physical thing where you can protect it and identify it as the original, digital art can be processed step by step to make it the exact same.
The idea of the original is a lot murkier in a digital world. Using the articles version alone, one can download it and change it using things like photoshop and the adobe suite to one's own specifications. This is why no matter how much you change the price to try and make it more desirable, the idea is the same, it’s a gif that exists solely in an online world where there is no guarantee that ownership can be declared.
Comentários