Los NFTs (Non Fungible Tokens) son activos digitales que nacieron alrededor del año 2014, gracias a la tecnología de blockchain, y se popularizaron con la plataforma de código abierto Ethereum. Unos años más tarde, con la pandemia del año 2020, encontraron su pico más alto de ventas. En este artículo indagaremos sobre el contrato de lectura de un sitio web de arte digital exclusivo llamado SuperRare, nacido en el año 2018. Haremos un breve recorrido sobrelas regularidades y diferencias en la construcción del enunciador y del enunciatario en el período que abarca del año 2021 al 2024 inclusive. ¿Cuál es su enunciatario? ¿Quiénes pueden consumir arte digital, coleccionarlo o venderlo? ¿Hay, como plantean en los textos de presentación, una descentralización real de la gobernanza en esta “comunidad digital”? El análisis detallado de sus secciones y mutaciones nos permitió problematizar la idea de mercado colaborativo, identificando asimetrías no sólo en la forma de participación, sino también en una jerarquización paulatina del enunciador. Es decir, un sitio que se presenta como comunitario, pero que pareciera ser desmentido en su propio funcionamiento discursivo.
Social sustainability in urban and architectural design depends on inclusive, participatory processes that empower communities to actively engage in shaping their environments. This study investigates how emerging digital platforms, specifically Augmented Reality (AR) and decentralized platforms built on blockchain technology (Web3), can function as instruments for broadening public participation and enhancing perceptual access to urban art proposals. An original algorithm generated nine digital abstract sculptures, each with descriptive attributes forming the basis for qualitative analysis across different visualization modes: traditional renderings, Augmented Reality environments, and NFT-based Web3 representations. Through participant voting, each digital sculpture accumulated a measurable level of preference that served to identify which sculpture was perceived as most successful within each visualization context. Comparative analysis revealed how distinct digital interactions shape perception, engagement, and inclusivity of feedback processes. Regression models further predicted voting outcomes, showing that different sculptural attributes played a dominant role depending on the type of visualization. Findings indicate that platform-specific technological affordances substantially shape participatory outcomes. Consequently, the study argues that careful analysis and selection of the digital platform must precede any participatory process, as platform-specific affordances fundamentally condition the inclusivity, accessibility, and overall effectiveness of public engagement in socially sustainable design.
The Absolute Smart Contract (ASC) presents a universal conceptual framework that unifies the spiritual, natural, and scientific dimensions of existence under one governing intelligence. It views reality — from atomic order to human morality — as operating within intrinsic laws of balance, reciprocity, and consequence. Whether expressed as divine will, natural order, or logical computation, each represents the same intelligent structure sustaining creation. The ASC is not a religion or ideology; it is a neutral interpretive model that reconciles seemingly divided worldviews through recognition of one absolute principle — the self-enforcing intelligence of existence itself.
This article examines blockchain governance as a cultural and algorithmic paradigm, moving beyond code to constitutional logic. It analyzes Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) as a form of programmed democracy, highlighting its tension between efficiency and fairness and its risk of oligarchic drift. The study contrasts algorithmic transparency with centralized control in Web2, framing blockchain as a new public square where trust flows through cryptography rather than ballots. Cryptocurrencies are interpreted as algorithmic artifacts—symbols of a democratized code economy—while cases like Dogecoin reveal how humor and creativity shape value systems in decentralized networks. Ultimately, the paper argues that blockchain governance requires not only technical precision but symbolic legitimacy, balancing innovation with ethical responsibility.
Introduction: The interplay between digital culture and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) represents a major paradigm shift in the creative industries, especially in the European context. This article examines the relevance of this issue, highlighting the transformative impact of NFTs on artistic practices and the art market in general. The study addresses the dual nature of NFT as a source of opportunities and challenges for artists, including issues of authenticity, intellectual property rights and environmental sustainability. The study aims to understand the implications of NFTs for European artists, focusing on their potential to enhance economic opportunities while recognizing the associated risks. Methodology: A mixed-methods approach is employed, including a comprehensive review of the academic literature, as well as a survey of artists, collectors and entrepreneurs to gather information on their experiences and perceptions of NFTs. Findings: These reveal that while NFTs offer innovative avenues for monetization and audience engagement, they also raise critical concerns about market volatility, regulatory frameworks and ethical implications. As artists grapple with the complexities of market volatility and ethical dilemmas, there is an imperative need for clear regulations and frameworks, as well as fostering knowledge and collaboration. Conclusions and discussion: This article contributes to the discourse on the future of digital culture in Lithuania, suggesting that a balanced approach is essential to harness the benefits of NFT while mitigating its challenges
Jean Baudrillard's (1929–2007) theoretical writings are applied to an examination of today's global virtual economy and society. New advances in virtual culture, which flourished during and after the COVID-19 pandemic—esp., metaverses (immersive virtual worlds), non-fungible tokens, and deepfakes (synthetic media)—are discussed to show the prescience of Baudrillard's theory for how our global consumer society of the image is now defined by the problem of simulation. Baudrillard is shown to have theorized important trends and phenomenon in our contemporary global hyperculture that have hitherto been neglected: non-communication, anti-work, and anti-consumption are, among others, explained as developing phenomena because they are pathologies of a new nihilism, a hatred of capitalism, that is not realized through destruction, but through the simulation and deterrence that now defines contemporary global culture and society.
Protocol art has recently proliferated through blockchain-based smart contracts, building on a century-long lineage of conceptual, participatory, interactive, systematic, algorithmic, and generative art practices. Few studies have examined the characteristics and appreciation of this emerging art form. To address this gap, this paper presents an annotated portfolio analysis of protocol artworks by Pak, a pioneering and influential pseudonymous artist who treats smart contracts as medium and collective participation through protocol as message. Tracing the evolution from early open-edition releases of The Fungible (2021) and the dynamic mechanics of Merge (2021) to the soul-bound messaging of Censored (2022) and the reflective absence of Not Found (2023), we examine how Pak choreographs distributed agency across collectors and autonomous code, demonstrating how programmable protocols become a social fabric in artistic meaning-making. Through thematic analysis of Pak's works, we identify seven core characteristics distinguishing protocol art from other art forms: (1) system-centric rather than object-centric composition, (2) autonomous governance enabling open-ended control, (3) distributed agency and communal authorship, (4) temporal dynamism and lifecycle aesthetics, (5) economy-driven engagement, (6) poetic message embedded in interaction rituals, and (7) interoperability enabling composability for emergent complexity. We then discuss how these features set protocol art apart from adjacent movements such as conceptual, generative, participatory, interactive, and performance art. By analyzing principles grounded in Pak's practice, we contribute to the emerging literature on protocol art (or "protocolism") and offer design implications for future artists exploring this evolving form.
The article explores non-fungible token (NFT) art as the ultimate form of commodification of art, thus positioning it as a potential ideal art form for capitalism. The article synthesizes theories from fields outside of art history, including critical theory, new materialism, and object-oriented ontology, to provide a comprehensive explanation for the rise of NFTs and their impact on the art world. By utilizing critical theory, power dynamics and hierarchies within a given context are analyzed, while new materialism and object-oriented ontology expand the scope of analysis to include non-human entities and their agency. These theoretical frameworks also provide insights into the material and ontological aspects of the NFT art phenomenon. The study's findings reveal the entanglement of digital assets with the social, economic, and technological dimensions of capitalism. This study aims to contribute to the ongoing debates surrounding the intersections of art and capitalism, while providing a theoretical foundation.
This introductory chapter provides an account of the current status and key trends in Web3 and the metaverse. It provides pointers to an increasing number of applications of Web3 and the metaverse in diverse areas. The chapter also looks at the developmental pattern of various metaverses. It provides a brief history and key events that have led to the development of Web3 and the metaverse. This chapter also looks at the debate about whether Web3 and the metaverse are only hype or the future of the digital economy. This chapter also delves into the recent rise and fall of Web3 and the metaverse. It examines the key factors contributing to the decline in Web3 and metaverse-related activities.
This chapter critically investigates the concept of data-opolies —a term coined by Maurice Stucke to describe the monopolistic control over data by dominant tech corporations such as Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft (GAFAM). It explores how this concentration of data power threatens democratic resilience, distorts competition, and exacerbates socio-political inequalities. Drawing from Echeverría’s Telepolis , Cancela’s Utopías Digitales , and Lehdonvirta’s Cloud Empires , the chapter unpacks the network effects that entrench data-opolies and their capacity to manipulate user behavior, public opinion, and market dynamics. The chapter contends that these monopolistic structures erode democratic accountability and civic trust by fostering opaque algorithmic governance and undermining citizen agency. In response, it proposes emancipatory datafication strategies , including data cooperatives, algorithmic transparency, and participatory infrastructures, aimed at reclaiming democratic control over digital systems. Special attention is given to the sociopolitical implications of digital nomadism and e-diasporas as new global patterns of democratic interaction. Finally, the chapter offers a visionary assessment of Web3 technologies—blockchain, DAOs, and data cooperatives—as a potential counterweight to data-opolies. By advancing transparency and user agency, Web3 is presented as a foundation for inclusive, decentralized, and empowered digital democracies fit for the algorithmic age.
This article examines the broader societal implications of blockchain technology and crypto-assets, emphasizing their role in the evolution of humanity as a "superorganism" with decentralized, self-regulating systems. Drawing on a process philosophy approach grounded in Stiegler's "general organology" and further informed by related concepts such as Nate Hagens' "superorganism" idea and Francis Heylighen's "global brain" theory, the paper contextualizes blockchain technology within the ongoing evolution of governance systems and global systems such as the financial system. Blockchain's decentralized nature, in conjunction with advancements like artificial intelligence and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), could transform traditional financial, economic, and governance structures by enabling the emergence of collective distributed decision-making and global coordination. In parallel, the article aligns blockchain's impact with developmental theories such as Spiral Dynamics. This framework is used to illustrate heuristically blockchain's potential to foster societal growth beyond hierarchical models, promoting a shift from centralized authority to collaborative and self-governed communities. The analysis, grounded in sense-making through a philosophical and biomimetical approach, and aims at providing a holistic narrative and view of blockchain as more than an economic tool, positioning it as a transductive technological seed for the evolution of society into a mature, interconnected global planetary organism.
This chapter explains how truth must be the central goal of any resistance to corporate totalitarianism. Yuval Harari (2011) claims that humanity has been living in a post-truth world for some time and that creating collective narratives is essential for religion, politics, and nation building. He also claims that truth and power cannot travel on the same road together but must diverge because power is not possible without the creation of fictions. But Yuval is a historian and not a scientist. What is fundamental to human progress, and life without the horrors and uncertainties of hunter-gatherer existence and cave dwelling, is technological progress, which is possible only with scientific method and commitment to truth. The first casualty of war is truth, and so indeed, was the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The challenge for humanity is not to allow truth, and true scientific method, to be dispensed with in the quest for power; otherwise, liberty and comfort will be lost. Developments in distributed ledger technology (DLT) supported by blockchain can be used as a powerful defence of truth and potentially an end to corruption and lies.
Frances Liddell, Ella Tallyn, Evan Morgan, Kar Balan · 10 authors
In this work-in-progress, we present ORAgen, as ‘unfinished software’, materialised through a demonstrative web application that enables participants to engage with a novel approach to media tokenisation – the ORA framework. By presenting ORAgen in ‘think-aloud’ interviews with 17 professionals working in the creative and cultural industries, we explore potential values of media tokenisation in relation to existing challenges they face related to ownership, rights, and attribution. From our initial findings, we reflect specifically on the challenges of attribution and ongoing control of creative media, and examine how media tokenisation, and underpinning distributed ledger technologies can enable new approaches to designing attribution.
Abstract Drawing on anthropological perspectives, this paper argues that the fungibility of objects and the ability to exchange them for money is a defining characteristic of capitalist markets. In contrast, other systems of reckoning value emphasize the unique relationships within which objects are embedded and their inability to stand for just any other thing. This paper further highlights the role of slavery in the origins and continued dominance of capitalism and the existence of alternative systems such as cooperativism and sharing that are often overlooked. This paper then examines the Saussurean and Peircean semiotics underlying the concept of money as an abstract sign and argues that non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in blockchain technology contradict these theories by emphasizing pure uniqueness and rendering objects non-transformable or inconvertible. This paper concludes by warning against the dangers of a future where fungibility is absent, as it is necessary for life and the generation of new and different possibilities.
Chris Elsden, Evan Morgan, Ella Tallyn, Suzanne Black · 8 authors
This paper presents the design, deployment and qualitative study of a large-scale, public, generative art exhibition, through which passers-by could create artworks, and mint a non-fungible-token (NFT). Following the month-long exhibition, during which 229 anonymous participants produced artworks, 69 non-transferable NFTs were minted, we surveyed (33) and interviewed (14) expert and novice participants about their experiences. We explored contemporary challenges of owning digital things, and the extent to which NFTs, and 'Web3' technologies offer meaningful forms of ownership. Our findings describe how the inability to trade this NFT, and its unique circumstances of acquisition, made it meaningful in ways that extended beyond its immediate (limited) utility and offered participants something through which to construct identity. Reflecting on the aspirations, contradictions, and misconceptions of forms of ownership enabled by NFTs, we conclude with proposals for renewed attention in HCI to the nature of digital possessions, and the potential for 'ownership design'.
In this article, Erik Bordeleau presents, as a form of anarchic resistance to the capitalist logic, The Sphere project in which he is involved. For the author, The Sphere can be understood as a virtual space for exchanges between artistic processes and financing practices, whose root comes from a need to give new understanding to the meaning and use of digital media. He also states that the project is specifically interested in promoting the integration of creators, producers and the public, enabling an ecosystem that facilitates the alignment between interests and purposes through a spirit of speculative generosity. Therefore, the author uses reflections from renowned figures in the intellectual world, such as, for example, Deleuze and Guattari, Hito Steyerl, Jean-Luc Nancy, Jacques Rancière and Yuk Hui fundamentally to propose the defense of the need for a new look at crypto and blockchain technology, considering the decentralization provided by DAOs and Web3. Generating new forms of rhizomatic organization, instead of nostalgic notions of mass organization, ends up producing the possibility of codifying relations of equity through vectors of mutual participation.
Kobe De Keere, Martin Broholt Trans, Stefanía Milan
In less than two decades, cryptocurrency has transformed from being an object of interest for an obscure online community to becoming a globally desired digital asset. By acknowledging the importance of fictional expectations in the creation of economic value, this study delves into the various imaginative values that are being attributed to cryptocurrency. Through quantitative-qualitative coding of YouTube video transcripts (N: 1929), combined with Exploratory Factor Analysis, this article maps out which imaginaries on crypto are being disseminated by the YouTube algorithm. The latter is conceived not as a passive source of information but as a performative market device, steering consumer behavior. This study identifies four distinct imaginaries to which cryptocurrency consumers are exposed: investment, utility, digital metallism, and infrastructural mutualism imaginary. These shed light on the potential value consumers attribute to cryptocurrencies while opening new research avenues towards a better understanding of the different positions within the market.
Metaverse, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and cryptocurrencies highlight their relevance in the rapidly evolving technological landscape. Web 3.0, a concept associated with the metaverse, focuses on greater user control, enhanced 3D graphical experiences, and the semantic web, which involves a shift from HTML-based page construction to an underlying database structure. The chapter emphasizes the importance of artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing in enabling intelligent human–machine dialogue and the emergence of avatars as innovative virtual figures within the metaverse. The challenges and opportunities of the metaverse are explored, including concerns about privacy, hardware accessibility, and large companies’ management of virtual worlds. The characteristics of the metaverse, such as immersion, interactivity, personalization, content creation, and communication, are outlined. Avatars, visual representations of individuals, or fictional characters in online spaces are discussed in the context of the metaverse, emphasizing their role in enhancing social interaction and user engagement. The case study of MetaHuman Creator, developed by Epic Games, is an example of a tool that enables the creation of photorealistic and customizable virtual humans for use in the metaverse.
What does a theorist of imitation have to teach us about innovation? What could a thinker focused on the distant past have to offer us in building the immediate future? The answer to both questions, I hope to show, is a significant amount. I aim to rescue and develop a neglected strand of Girardian thought from one of his overlooked essays on a topic seemingly antithetical to imitation: innovation. This task proceeds in five steps. First, I articulate two contemporary perspectives on innovation, one dominant and one in the minority. Second, I reconstruct Girard's historical argument from “Innovation and Repetition” in favor of the minority view and, third, his psychological argument against the dominant view. Fourth, I show how Girard's philosophy of innovation sublates crucial features of both poles and provides an alternative mode for conceiving the future.1 Lastly, I wrestle with an immanent objection that threatens the prescriptive force of his entire argument and, even when reconciled, leads me to depart from Girard's conclusions, albeit in the most Girardian of ways.The dominant view of innovation is that it is opposed to imitation. The foundational type of opposition between the two is metaphysical: imitation and innovation are actions different in kind and must be conceived of as such. Peter Thiel's famous formulation is representative: certain actions, companies, and countries are innovative, going from “zero to one,” while others are imitative, going from “one to N.”2 This distinction is mostly accepted without question in the social sciences, underpinning entire disciplines such as innovation studies.3 This near-universal consensus, however, is a modern phenomenon. The Latin innovatio, for example, described innovation as being inseparable from the imitation of the past: the Jews returning to Jerusalem, Job having his wealth restored, or the rebirth of a phoenix.4 The word itself reveals as much. Innovatio is derived by appending the prefix in- (within, from inside) to novitas (novelty). It meant novelty that preceded from within, or renewal. Under this view, innovation was not about breaking free or starting from a blank slate, zero to one, but rather rescuing and developing an already formed foundation, one to N. Innovation was identical with the imitation and adaptation of that which is essential but has been obscured. Only beginning in the twentieth century has imitation been so strongly demarcated from innovation.5Built on top of this metaphysical opposition is a practical opposition. Not only are the two actions distinct, they are incompatible: the more one imitates, the more one risks eroding one's ability to innovate. This stronger form of opposition is exemplified by the idea of the “untutored genius” whose source of creativity is solely internal: a fully formed natural endowment not requiring learning nor external inspiration from divinity or nature. This idea gained ascendancy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and proponents believed that imitation of tradition impeded the expression of one's own innate genius.6 If one wants to write a great book, this idea goes, one ought not read great books for fear that they will crowd out one's original ideas. Even in the twentieth century, Wittgenstein expressed this exact sentiment when he proudly claimed not to have read any Aristotle or engaged deeply with the history of philosophy and considered those who have “academic and therefore unauthentic philosophers.”7 Of course, not all modern thinkers see innovation and imitation as practically opposed in such a strong way.8 But even for most who treat the two as harmonious, imitation tends to be relegated to a secondary afterthought as the mere mechanism by which innovation, the primary source of value creation, spreads. This, then, is the third form of opposition drawn out between the two concepts: a normative one. Imitation is, at best, of secondary value when compared to acts of innovation.The practical and, to a lesser degree, normative oppositions appear so unsound as to not warrant serious engagement, and already contested by theorists who study innovation as to not require another rebuttal. What makes Girard's response to them interesting, however, is their prevalence as the default modality by which practitioners—artists, entrepreneurs, inventors, researchers, and activists—conceive of innovation. Thus, it is precisely their obvious unsoundness that raises an interesting question: how could such mistaken ideas be so widely adopted, by the very people who engage in innovation every Girard's answer will be that is a in that makes people to precisely the features of the dominant view. Under this the of “Innovation and Repetition” is not rescuing an alternative of innovation against of the dominant it is the of to a modern this dominant view, a minority of modern treat imitation as on a with in of a between the tradition is of past and innovation proceeds the imitation of Imitation is with innovation, not as an afterthought by which it but as a Even the between the two is so to that imitation and innovation be the without a only from one to the actions or only in and not a this minority of thinkers who that imitation and innovation on a The of Girard's which I to is a one. The of his philosophy of innovation is on the it out of historical historical of Girard's argument is the from of external seventeenth century and to eighteenth century and external the people are are distant they are historical in the past or they are considered such as the between and the are they are considered more or is the is about the of about the of the of the modern and more the and even has not to this is that the against which an value was from to a distant to from the for one of Girard's one distant whose will a crucial is the Thus, this from external to be as the of Of course, external all or the eighteenth century, and the Girard's is that been a in the dominant to with the was by First, from being to for past and This idea out of the from external and to which a of historical imitation. for is an that their being is of imitation. The of the imitation of the as and reveals the value to Second, the of innovation from to The of this is a in the with which innovation. to the seventeenth century, and the primary of innovation, it with and the the primary of innovation was it to The of the word but and that was This could be the from external to the external one's value is by one's to a distant the of innovation is, and, the one's value is by one's against a of the of innovation from others is, distinction and, This has been a from to different the third The idea is that are at even value is when compared to source is solely the to on tradition or to great to us will on to of the in innovation has in so it makes to out the has in a is not the a but a social and that to be from and the modern historical with two on imitation: an of with a to The for the in is in external imitation is and without to The the without even being imitation is and a a only to have in for the in from of the First, aim to be it to any any on a it was a question of to but to What was was not the of imitation but that of the and as who free from the of tradition to their own this modern was the The innovation, which was their of the the of is not one of but of of course, the with the imitation of tradition rather the from from Second, innovation is a to be rather a to be This, in with the dominant view that imitation and innovation are the for being a have from distant mostly in the past to in the more the their to us is and the the of Imitation does not as the have the of being or of so their contemporary on the are more on with they have could be and as imitation be an that they are to in the of external have to in from external to the in and the two on the historical he to innovation is in such in both and the has the such while the to have Even the of and of the must at the past century will be for more so Girard's answer is that different in the two the or the to in different If the that is the that it is If the is mostly for the of has so it the to the is a an of and This the to one is on the one is to the of the external not a of to be to so to imitation. the imitation one to to even for those who is a and are so that is in being a for This a of imitation and a that has a of and, the such of are Thus, the in the in of imitation. of is as in the mechanism to between and with to teach and those in of to the to the type of imitation described in or they to their by the to that of The to be a to be considered innovative, to not one's the of imitation are so strong that as is at all rather the of the even it against own in to Not rather in in is about this of is that it at the very it to is one is on the by being they is not It is to be of one is a who is from the primary Not only is not it even the of the with as an of from to more his This to show the of and such as with and for Thus, to be more of the to then, that is an immanent to the of and the of are two one to Girard's historical argument as could the of the historical has been more the for the imitation is for innovation. Even both the most to be is the of that obvious the mechanism by which the of innovation threatens innovation. The is that it is an of and not of that innovation in This answer to the historical is Girard's argument for the minority view. If the dominant view is the to have more of imitation. The that the is that imitation has more the practical opposition claimed by the dominant view. It the metaphysical and, normative oppositions strongly in the two actions are so practically are they different in If it even to one the the this question of the the metaphysical opposition is the foundational one. It is foundational in the that it is to be the two to any strong the for Girard's psychological then, must Girard's own on this foundational on imitation and innovation are different in kind or in not the of is to that certain actions are more that to between innovation and imitation. in a it is so with imitation that be only the a of however, are that an metaphysical about the of the two actions that us to this even it be to The actions that or only in be to to as an It is that are more even are mostly on the and of innovation be from a and must of imitation. The is imitation be without being and must a of innovation. What to be imitation the of is mere are by the very of an to a of how the of one the of the to to and to of but to it with not to about the of imitation in are to the question Girard's psychological not to about the of imitation in innovation? If they are on a only in and only a does the dominant view this is the modern so on that innovation has to with imitation and from the zero to The answer is one from one for If the of an innovation be to or the source of value must in the with the past is as the of a The is that the dominant view of and not the for innovation the of it more and more and of of features to a modern the of This is the for in of and is to both the of the dominant view and the of Innovation was in in a against creation, innovation was and was more with It described the from divinity and was with the to both of innovation Innovation was the that from the but that which us to the was as for his own a the of innovation to it the that the of innovation on a with and the that to that been the of the of as as the dominant view be read as to the of The being of while the the force of innovation. only the of innovation the of an that The for innovation is the to be the is at to that one The be stronger to one from be a but is it with to that is to of to be at the of all and is not the that one is with the ability to The dominant view of innovation, then, is it is inseparable from the to an be as modern innovation is by the to have one's for example, are against their own to a are who have their to building the of to this as their own it a and to their while of is a to with the that they to Under the of a the of the of is to for the that one's has the to the of history is, to that one is to about such Girard's argument the psychological for the dominant view is and the minority view is Under the minority view, to innovation, have to the have to imitation. have to the of those who and about learning from this is to of the dominant view is a to this strongly innovation and imitation the two as and the the not only not have to the of proudly the of imitation as that are that the dominant view and the of are the of and is to who to be of their actions as from zero to one. the that one a of being fully from all of this in Girard's the of imitation is the of modern innovation Imitation is the Innovation is the of are the two so however, an immediate imitation does not to innovation. it leads to best, has it to be but are the for formulation of Girard's philosophy of innovation is in this one for innovation is a of the past and a of are two to be First, it is and not imitation that is being is this distinction and innovation as on a that a stronger What he have in is that as when one for for at both are by a a for the in or on the is with the one one Girard's of the in his a of having and being with being is a of be by the a or a of the is while on the one the to and when when innovation one to be focused with and not with different nor people with those The must be to both and breaking from tradition but not have one as the primary Innovation is a that be by being it must and be makes this of being The is in the so as to not treat the past as so as to see tradition as having to teach to this of is as a of the of the dominant view, which be described as for the of others in one's It of the of that is in of a that one's on tradition but the of that tradition original of one's This is a between the of and the of formulation of Girard's philosophy of innovation reveals the to innovation in both historical of the of external when to of as a mere of a great the was to to with and by an by or the to from What was the of imitation. The was to tradition so that more to from of when to of as the is to to are with and demarcated by an or the and to from What is the of innovation. The is to tradition to it more of the then, most of his imitation only as a to historical This of course, that historical even the features of the dominant view as a this is the to Thiel's to the formulation of Girard's philosophy of have a of the past and a of a view that sublates two It the from the minority view that innovation is inseparable from imitation without that the is to the It the that tradition innovation from the dominant view without the past have Girard's argument in “Innovation and that of innovation proceeds and not imitation: one to N. But in Girard's psychological argument for this he an immanent objection threatens to the practical force of his entire The objection has to with the of psychological must that the minority view is the for innovation is to a This the question of one so of the dominant view in is in to innovation as force not in Of course, great have been by or But proponents of this objection to the an is for acts of innovation. the it or an innate even much. The is not of this of innovation and the modern one of most form of the of It as that the is by those exact people who are with a in it in to their own This of objection that Girard's in how innovation threatens at the prescriptive force of his own even innovation does not from zero to one in it proceeds it as to this response to this objection is to that it is the two are so does not they must in the for example, a of the itself or the to But even this is for a the that all it or have been by us that an be formed without even a from will on this that is a of I to it in to this a not a I show how the features of it as a of innovation. The of that I with is having a of one's in the I both the and is to the of as being more and more will out this the a of the on a as one of his own the and the not any to the and his be and fear and in The the and to their with all to force their the But it was and great at the of the very the to both of believed to that he this and he believed that by the mere that this was it a is, the of is so great that it even the natural of the is to this and is on this this is to the all to the This is the and most obvious in which is the of the natural and even and one's own and The to this reveals another in which is it The that to his not question his But a third of that be from not from this the that to is to is the with so of the of as a of one's two in the us Girard's of The of is the most form of it not only the of others to one's it zero and from others in to value and to has how this most form of is an of the modern of innovation. I show how in is to innovation First, is a strong it to one's social of Second, is it is and, has the of being the of and the of and the both the that the to The they This of in the for or which has that two features the of and it to innovation, in of the for has been for but the that this is to most of innovation. this I to out that is a as as the for the of the but more it be even the when one's is the for the social of the The features of to is another to an in one's own is a view of the of the of the of the the and itself are a about his own with the of the I this ability to and as crucial for it one with by out all how the how the or how the The be the ability to the one's in a such an the of in to the their to be What be an philosophy of history to have of this as The a of is to the of the to and it as in a of who offer not while those who the of are and but of ability to it is, as the others their the the to his be one famous which he and others of the of be the modern in certain people is more an innate for which has to be and in This is for innovation, which and most at is the of as an in the they must this by a of the as in to the which is a must be to to in the for which it itself an in the to the I the about the being the one What is about an or a in the is to one's as a I that this aim of does not in the novelty of for example, by the as others but innovation is novelty makes the of and the to more for the they that is to their in the this innovation, is at against does not aim at innovation, innovation is to the me be on I have not with this of I have not that is for great innovation. features of to it in I have not even that is I fully that have been by What I have are the and between and innovation that them natural This is the more form of the between the of most form of and the dominant view most form of that The that the in the in with the of any historical the not that an be without at by a of the most an without it to I on a from as the force of innovation to to the innovation leads to and an by is one that and this at which such a First, makes the type of have If one in a only to be even in an it could the the of a the with building of Second, to that a is to that it in or that it wants the to be This is wants to at a that it is not and has in to most that to in their is in the of the it wants to be The that are in a does not a are from zero to one. and of even when they are of then, that and of their the for alternative What to be and are of the foundational of and one be that one's is from as from to who This one of the features of to be and to the be as and developing of an in the both force and then, deeply itself in that I have out of Girard's opposed to the he a that the dominant of innovation will to but This be by out the form and force of one wants to develop an an of must be in the as the force of innovation. this does not Girard's that they to tradition in the form of their innovation, but and will What is then, is for to be zero to one in their but one to in their to the mechanism is one a an be the will out with a a and for in building a only he it he rather a a the I is to his I to he has been his entire that innovation is the only of that are different in kind from that they have about mere I read to only of and and, he of and I he philosophy and I from in any form of or I his and that all his and the will be by his he this I it as the of a and he for he have not to about as and more is the I that this does not natural and develop an of imitation. I that he his they and the of his I so by that innovation and I to more of this one all the the only hope I have of such a to offer the of his imitation be he at his I that he that he in being a but not so as to his the I be but for to to a If he I will teach how to be a he does I will his a great one. the I for every I only and could fully of this the to the of I hope to have out with this is that the in the most of to be a with of as an in his is with the that he tradition while being fully in of this is not but the The Wittgenstein who I I have a of I have one from I have on it with for of is how have task for the social on an then, is the of the dominant view while building social that innovation proceeds as such. The of the is by a to the of with a on the all to be on a dominant that an of imitation in I have from then, only in the most Girardian of the most obvious of “Innovation and Repetition” is rescuing the minority view of innovation while the dominant view to be unsound and to innovation practically the even however, is to the that this view so and for the modern the of the third one this the dominant not only is it and practically it is the it the dominant view by it to be a force in an the The dominant view is in a different innovation does not from imitation but from having the with Thus, in tradition is the dominant view is to about that the two us the which the dominant view and to in the of a and that is fully of both the and of for for a is to so certain of his own that he his But an for every is to all of and for I have that this by in while imitation in the of zero to one in one to in innovation a of it a to be in all the in the innovation, but the of is not and even and to This is the of “Innovation and that is at the of innovation. it is one expression of Girard's that is the and and Thus, to an must be to a with the in this the most of this be a question of an innovation at innovation of this it is to value of innovation, to to the in the of external to treat as and as innovation us to with the of for the but This is the question I to have must between and innovation, as their between and this I hope to a more view on the of the even of social be with This however, has a with It the from itself for the mere of It the about of innovation, that an even is by us with a between form and and an even more more on the value of innovation. But this is the two that this modern It is precisely the theorist of imitation that has the most to teach us about innovation. the without being in the past any more in Girard's own with in the
The origins and development of Ethereum, a platform created by Vitalik Buterin to extend the capabilities of blockchain technology. Buterin’s inspiration for Ethereum stemmed from Bitcoin's limited functionality. He sought to create a more general-purpose and powerful system, comparing Bitcoin to a pocket calculator and Ethereum to a smartphone, which could perform a variety of tasks, including those a calculator does. 1
Los NFT (Non Fungible Token) tienen la capacidad de convertir algo reemplazable en algo único a través de un certificado digital de autenticidad. De esta forma, los objetos virtuales, principalmente obras de arte, se crean, exponen, compran y venden de forma digital, no sin abrir un sinfín de críticas y debates. En el corazón de esta transformación se encuentra la técnica moderna, llevada adelante por su último eslabón: Internet. En este marco se cruzan de forma novedosa arte y técnica, pero también se ponen en tensión los polos físico/virtual, ya que los NFT pueden servir como prueba de propiedad de cualquier artículo, independiente de a qué polo pertenezca. Los límites se vuelven borrosos y nos encontramos ante otra prueba de la digitalización de la vida moderna. Y de haber sido un proceso impertinente, no hubiese generado acalorados debates en redes sociales. Este ensayo busca atravesar la reactualización del problema de la técnica moderna que acarrean los NFT y la cristalización de este proceso y conversación a través de memes. Algunas preguntas que aparecen son: ¿cómo impacta y atraviesa al arte los NFT? ¿Se puede hablar del criptoarte como vanguardia artística? ¿Qué implicaciones tiene una nueva forma de reproductibilidad técnica? ¿Cuáles son las tensiones que producen los NFT que generan conversación? ¿Cómo se puede reconstruir este debate a través de memes y cómo estos encapsulan un metálogo?Para responderlas, se buscará por un lado recorrer y sistematizar el presente técnico del arte teniendo en cuenta cómo los NFT transformaron su realidad, y por el otro, se detectarán los ejes problemáticos de dicho presente para luego ver cómo estos están representados en memes de forma simplificada y accesible. Para realizar dicho recorrido, se hará uso del análisis de contenido y la sociosemiótico para rearmar el debate alrededor de los NFT a través de conceptos como el sentido social y las huellas discursivas presentes en la teoría de Eliseo Verón. Será necesaria también la definición de metálogo de Bateson, el concepto de presente técnico indeterminado de Anderson y el de técnica presente en Bookchin, Mumford y Castoriadis, la definición de arte y de vanguardia de autores como Huyssen y Badiou, la reproductibilidad técnica y el aura del arte de Benjamin.