Blockchain Papers

Jean-Noël Colin

No abstract is available for this record.

Olivier Debat, Hervé Manciet

No abstract is available for this record.

Jean-Paul Delahaye

Les cryptomonnaies ne sont plus des jouets pour des informaticiens amoureux du risque et des jeux de hasard. Depuis leur invention et leur développement par Satoshi Nakamoto en 2008, elles ont envahi de nombreux domaines liés aux nouvelles technologies : évidemment, en premier les finances et les transferts d’argent, car elles sont présentées comme la concrétisation du rêve de certains de créer des monnaies ne dépendant ni des banques centrales ni des États, mais aussi l’art contemporain à tr...

Chantal Enguehard

Le concept de blockchain ou chaîne de blocs a été conçu pour créer une crypto-monnaie sans tiers de confiance. Cette nouvelle technologie est fondée sur un réseau pair-à-pair dont les membres détiennent un exemplaire de la même chaîne de blocs et la mettent à jour en effectuant des calculs sophistiqués. La confiance dans les résultats électoraux dépend de la transparence directe, c’est-à-dire de la capacité des électeurs à constater les éventuelles atteintes à la sincérité des élections et à apporter leurs témoignages et constats devant une cour de justice. Or, lorsque le vote est dématérialisé (vote par internet par exemple), la sincérité des élections peut être menacée sans que les électeurs soient en mesure de le constater. L’usage d’une chaîne de blocs au sein d’un système de vote ne permet pas de résoudre ce problème d’opacité. La promesse de vérifiabilité a pour conséquence d’interdire le respect absolu de l’anonymat, c’est-à-dire la rupture de tout lien entre une expression de vote et un électeur. De nombreuses failles, déjà connues, du vote par Internet sont toujours présentes. De plus, la destruction de la mémoire des expressions des votes est complexifiée. Il apparaît que cette nouvelle technologie ne réalise pas le saut technologique indispensable pour réaliser un vote par Internet transparent et anonyme.

Amaury Perrin

L’encadrement juridique de la monnaie virtuelle est indispensable mais difficile. Une régulation se met en place mais elle ne peut être que transitoire. Plus que le Bitcoin, c'est la blockchain qui devrait faire l'objet d'un régime juridique adapté.

Jean-Paul Delahaye

La cryptographie et la puissance des réseaux ont rendu possible l’existence de monnaies purement numériques et dépourvues d’une autorité centrale de contrôle.

Matthieu Montalban

PRODUITS DESTINÉS AU GRAND PUBLIC / Produits de médiation scientifique (Ex : Terra Nova, Blog du CEPII, Econbrowser) / Variances. Le webzine des alumni de l'ENSAE / http://variances.eu/?p=2892

J. Pons

La contractualisation est omniprésente dans les industries culturelles, notamment dans les secteurs du cinéma, de la vidéo et de la musique enregistrée. Cependant, les contrats ne sont pas toujours applicables ou exécutés, qu’il s’agisse des contrats d’auteur, d’édition, de licence ou de distribution. Car, en effet, les minima garantis peuvent conduire à un transfert « excessif » de la valeur vers les producteurs et les éditeurs, et l’absence de métadonnées juridiques peut pénaliser la rémunération des ayants droit (les artistes-interprètes, par exemple). Dans ce contexte, est-il utopique d’imaginer une programmation et une exécution automatiques des contrats, qui conduiraient à un partage « équitable » de la valeur entre créateurs, producteurs, éditeurs, distributeurs, diffuseurs et consommateurs de contenus numériques et à une rémunération des ayants droit reflétant la consommation au téléchargement ou à l’écoute près ? La technologie blockchain répond dans une certaine mesure à cette question.

Thibaud Guillebon

International audience

Gérard Régimbeau

Introduction au numéro de COMMUNICATION & MANAGEMENT faisant suite au colloque de novembre 2013 du Lerass-Ceric, à Montpellier 3, intitulé : « La culture en projets, service et/ou industrie : d’Adorno au Web3 ». Le texte situe la question théorique des industries culturelles et aborde des aspects problématisés des nouvelles conditions de présence et de développement de la création, notamment en arts plastiques, dans une période qui sollicite autrement les acteurs des industries créatives.

Ludovic Desmedt

Masques, Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin

Pascal Ughetto

For almost one century in museums, constant debates have dealt with accessibility of their contents to laymen. Part of these stakes are directly embodied in professional practices and meanings. This has resulted in the conceptualization of museums as organizations, composed of specialized professional groups. These are supposed to cooperate for collective targets and diverse ends but are also supporting rival and conflicting views. In the French institutional arrangements, this is all the more so that professional boundaries are institutionalized a a strict distinction between conservateurs and those, of diverse occupations, who claim to act as médiateurs, specialized on making collections more understandable for non experts. For their British or North American counterparts, institutional definitions conversely encompass various possible modes of acting as a curator, from a dominant scientific activity on collections to mainly devoting oneself to make collections more accessible-what the North American historical path has constructed as an 'interpretation' activity. Common, however, is the historical controversy about what a museum is about and what sort of practices are required. Are museums basically devoted to the conservation of collections and the scholar activity of studying them scientifically, or should museums staff be invited to think of themselves as members of organizations devoted to their publics? In this second case then is the expert activity partly deprived of its legitimacy by the obstacles it creates for profane perfect understanding of collections. Be they members of a same profession of curators or divided between conservateurs and various sorts of médiateurs, professional segments debate of what is fundamentally making museums useful for their publics, what is expected of the institution and of the individuals, what are legitimate activities and ways of practicing them. Fine arts museums are particularly exposed to such controversies, as they historically have been erected as symbols of temples forcing laymen to undisputable respect and celebration, admiration of the grandiose value of works and artists much more than beneficiating from experts' efforts to deliver accessible explanations of their knowledge. The paper will argue that this is less a matter of 'interpreting' versus behaving as a curator badly concerned with non-experts than of what are the intrinsic difficulties of communicating scientific results by and within the technical support of an exhibition. Exhibitions have developed since the 19th century not only as entertaining places for a large audience but also as a means of advancing knowledge on artists and their works. In other words, they are scenes of scientific debate on what scholars know on artists and works; they aim at explaining whom one particular painting has been attributed to and why it now should be attributed to another; they bring proofs about what is the exact value of this painter compared to that when replaced in the historical evolution of the artist or his/her movement, and so on. But at the same time and unlike most classical scientific scenes, a public is there, more or less consciously and competently interpreting the scene as an expert debate. When scientific activity is under sociological scrutiny, it generally is about scientists such as biologists, chemists, and so on. In the paper, the focus will be on curators as involved -entrapped?- in a specific scientific field and its constraints on how we produce knowledge and how we communicate results in such a field. In this perspective, exhibition is a fundamentally contradictory arrangement, compelled to convey conviction of experts and simultaneously to respond to expectations of various non-expert audiences. Scientific activity of fine arts curators is dealing with attributing value to works and artists, defining a scientific value, which contributes to determine commercial value. This is the professional stake of curators, forced to practice within organizational contexts. Analysis will be based on the exhibition 'Raphaël, les dernières années' (Louvre, Paris, 2012-2013), which has given rise to a public controversy about what it tried to show out and its object's relevance: it has been criticized for excessively trying to decide if details in the paintings should really be attributed to Raphael or to which of its students. Scenography, the choice of works and artists exhibited, texts (cards explaining works, catalogue, etc.) will be studied. They are not peripheral but central in the controversy in their various performance in making it clear what was the exhibition scientific major stake, namely dealing with a critique born in the 19th century about the value of Raphael end-life painting.

Lesley H. Walker

Reviewed by: Pour une histoire de l'intime et de ses variations Lesley Walker (bio) Anne Coudreuse et Françoise Simonet-Tenant, eds. Pour une histoire de l'intime et de ses variations. Paris: L'Harmattan, 2009. 196pp. 20€. ISBN 978-2-296-10791-5. We have reached a historical moment when a wealthy young Amer ican can declare that privacy is no longer a "social norm." In an interview with TechCrunch, Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, declared provocatively: "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people" (cited in Huffington Post, 18 March 2010). And thus, in December 2009, Zuckerberg and his programming posse did away with the privacy settings of some 350 million Facebook users! This wunderkind of technological exhibitionism recalls, however unintentionally, the very debates that gave shape to our modern period. That is, the invention of the modern self as a being with an intimate and private subjectivity that somehow requires expression. The collection Pour une histoire de l'intime, edited by Anne Coudreuse and Françoise Simonet-Tenant, charts the historical contours of this evolution in France from the eighteenth century to the present. The editors begin by recognizing that their project reposes on the shoulders of scholars from the 1970s and 1980s such as Michel Foucault, Jürgen Habermas, Michel de Certeau, and Philippe Lejeune, [End Page 551] who inaugurated and gave legitimacy to studies about the non-events of everyday living among mostly ordinary people, including girls. They likewise acknowledge the group of French historians such as Philippe Ariès, Georges Duby, and Arlette Farge who undertook the vast project of writing a history of private life from the Greeks to modern times. With these impressive predecessors in mind, Coudreuse and Simonet-Tenant nonetheless stake out new ground by attempting a diachronic synthesis of the malleable and slippery concept of the "intimate." Here is how they put it: "En quoi l'histoire des formulations de l'intime s'écritelle dans un itinéraire qui nous conduirait de la conquête du droit à l'intime jusqu'à son exhibition en passant par son appropriation progressive et accidentée?" (10). The ten essays in the book also explore how and why the eighteenth century can be said to have invented the intimate; why the nineteenth century made it a central preoccupation; how diaries and personal journals construct a sense of intimacy; and, finally, whether the late twentieth- and early twenty-first-century diktat to express publicly one's most intimate self caused some to lose their souls. The collection begins with two solidly researched articles by Véronique Montémont and Simonet-Tenant that trace the evolution of the term "intimate" from the seventeenth to the twenty-first century. Based on statistical analysis, dictionaries, and the BnF catalogue of titles, the two essays offer quantitative evidence that the term does indeed develop through time. Montémont describes how the notion of the intimate evolves from a relationship of affection with another person in the seventeenth century to the idea of a self with interiority before the Revolution, and, finally by the end of the nineteenth century, the term comes to signify depth and profundity in four separate spheres: physical, moral, relational, and ethical. In Simonet-Tenant's article, we witness a parallel development with the secularization of the confession and its displacement from the confessional to letters and personal journals during the eighteenth century. One would be remiss, however, to assume that confidences and secrets were always shared in letters and diaries. To the contrary, Simonet-Tenant offers persuasive proof of a slow evolution in letter and journal writing towards an emotive self with secrets to tell that becomes a hallmark of nineteenth-century Romanticism but is hardly present earlier. Jean Goldzinck's article on Voltaire provides, fittingly enough, a witty refutation of this fashionable trendiness by the master himself. Goldzinck's Voltaire has nothing to confess: "Indifférence à soi en tant que sujet individualisé, indifférence à toute instance de culpabilisation morale ou religieuse (qu'ai-je fait de ma vie?), indifférence aux tabous (l'homosexualité, l'argent)" (71). Philippe Lejeune's...