Making a comparison between minor properties that populate the Internet now; with value that may find its way into the Wills of their builders; and the art of digital objectivism with its origins in a similar evolution toward a state of value – what I am building; sums up the creativity of a time with little respect for traditional assets.
This is played out fairly directly in the narrative at http://www.greatknot.com/2.html as it tackles a process by taking art through exercises that only the Internet can make valuable. The object lesson in this narrative is actually on what is missing. With digital interactions, already real in cryptocurrency and digital nomads, empty bricks and mortar stores carry this message.
It emphasizes that the difference between my particular art as a form of digital creativity, and digital art requiring algorithms needing mechanisms to show value, is questioning artless choices in overhead that negates a claim to value. It's the same as property in a Will with tax, maintenance, and obsolescence burdens that result in a fire sale.
That is fundamentally why the Woodstock'94 experiment experienced 25 years of incubation, and why Steemitimages has become involved in the genesis state of a Distributed Autonomous Organization on https://www.facebook.com/greatknot. Showing that involvement has substance is now the principal point of comparison when weighing the value of properties.
The “gut” objection to an object's claim to have value as art is always going to settle on whether or not it is obvious as planned out in the mind of an artist. Art has true substance only in such origins, and grows only in value as the value in it is appreciated.
Substantiality is basic to art objects but not to things designed to show off value. An artist describing an object, and then deciding to make it or not make it, is perhaps what will give digital art its greatest longevity. But that can't be evaluated in its time. This will soon be the state of all Wills too.
