The Seventh of twelve posts taking Woodstock, blockchain and a 1960’s conceptual art on knots to the Third Web, and beyond.
The Ontology of Rabbit Holes
If you say so…
The past several posts have developed a story of 55,000 mechanism-formed ideas. These take on the character of many unique things. Each is an individual’s unique possession. Now, twenty-five years later, an image is made for each, making them 55,000 mechanisms. Numbers are assigned until there are 55,000 unique references for each. Then the merits of the relationships to their original ideas are merged with Facebook’s Web2.0 idea of a mechanism to make their 55,000 unique identities into data-points to leave us with a narrative for how humans actually need to assume the behavior of mechanisms to trust what actually exists.
To the extent that the manipulation suggested by this makes social media do the work, a teachable moment is what has been created. But, beyond that, a better example in passively waiting for the digital images to do this on their own is given in the example of the Great Knot. Doing nothing but keep fingers crossed, hoping that a critical mass structures itself into an autonomous governance mechanism to formalize this ontogeny into a verification process for identity will also work.
Through just letting an autonomous cohort function automatically, this experiment in interactivity is meant to open consciousness to the realization that there is always an actual possession and always a surrogate of it in the Web2.0 world. What got baked in in the beginning of the intermediation era; in the model of art; has always been there, in copies carrying the attributes of the original’s reputation.
That situation for securing an identity’s true existence, from the point of view of authenticating 55,000 Woodstock’94 tags in this trial, was from the perspective of the Web3.0 world. That demonstration of the feasibility of a guide/guardian protocol to bring into play the concept of preserving the surrogates as interpreters of the truth — that is what has been set up in the first half of this work.
The second half
There is a vast change from that order of things now. Art makes a run at not being a mechanism that builds tangible objects. To get a grip on this, http://mssmith44.tripod.com/mapapp/procession.html tests a type of web presence, carrying the title of “Paragraphs on Perceptual Art” to be an interface with a virtual entanglement perspective. The title references the influential Sol LeWitt treatise “Paragraphs on Conceptual Art”; from the same 1967 year as the origins of my art of the knot. This single page site was put together following Christie's early 2018 foray into digitally rare art in auctioning an ERC721 ownership contract for a Cryptokitty. It will bring everything together when this series is completed.
LeWitt’s beginning of his commentary in his “Paragraphs” with “the idea becomes a machine that makes art” stages what allows art to be virtual today. Though the possession of the art that this implies may be in an entirely different dimension than Woodstock’94 tags or pics of the Great Knot, it nonetheless represents the state they’ve been presented in here. Their back story follows a course through the twists of fate being played out as mechanisms struggled to reach out; and goes right up to when virtual images evolved to the point where everyone accepted that electronic media had eclipsed all need for signature relationships with physical tools in art making. That makes the idea that LeWitt’s machine-making-art explains this twenty-five year old connection not so far fetched an origin story at all.
My White Paper at http://www.greatknot.com is a mechanism. Interpreted as conceptual art, it need do nothing more than have drafted the specifications of my art. These needn’t make anything. Nothing need even be completed even if I happen to have started something. Like plans of works by Sol LeWitt and Robert Smithson, created during the same period my plan for knots was first drawn up, that are executed today, long after their deaths, in conceptual art’s reading of art, art’s value is relative to what this White Paper and its meet-up space on Patreon says is its value as a concept.
All Web3.0 art is conceptual
Make no mistake; there is an actual, physical, material work in the making. Its been disintermediated from me, just as the Great Knot land art sculpture is, to make it conceptual art. In the world of an Internet of Things, every attribute and citation is preserved at the end of a protocol action. What is going to be its link to my original conceptual art are threads of a concept in Web3.0 from what must someday revert in a temporal use to its origins. That’s in the plan.
As an oracle, in contests that value specifications for their trustworthiness, or in uses directly related to how much the idea has been referenced as a precedent, or proof, for verifying a state of origin, the “Things” of this conceptual art will have their reputation staked, as a witness’ is, on what is actually; for instance; a true work of Sol LeWitt; which is to say, leaving any mark leaves a legacy. Art is always perpetuating ideas in a history that has ended up reiterating every practical function its ever been put to.
This treats the Third Web, in fact, as the ultimate form of conceptual art. In an Internet of Things, things have lives, and lives have value. In the present Web2.0 ecosystem, things are represented as virtual reality inhabiting the dimension of a device. When that device can associate value with virtual reality’s relationship to it, it will have developed the potential of populating a level of imagination that has existed in the realm of art since the beginning of recorded time.
The trick in being an art planned to be interjected into the protocols of a decentralized Web3.0 Internet, is that the art must be the fair start established for its own genesis state. The conceptual art in my White Paper is an example of an art almost totally geared to subvert today’s Web 2.0 way of fitting image recognition programs into its curative operations. Its fifty year old thesis assumes that the receptivity of big data to redundant image appearance in this work’s three informational meme themes of the knot, the Woodstock’94 tag, and photographs of the Great Knot, will all be read as equally real… just of different states of reality. As object categories, these three all accept that Deep Learning will question their purely virtual paradigms, and challenge that in a deeper dive into the conceptualization of mechanisms blockchain consensus is needed for as totally new images enter Third Web space.
The technology is on the way and the White Paper is ready to create that state of confusion. By each knot being a meme that appears to display the particular structure of a mechanism with a specification created to design an image that the analytics in Machine Learning interpret and identify as an image of digital, not natural, origin; it is a true fit for this Third Web’s recognition of the virtual reality of a state of digital imagery.
However, this art of the knot additionally provides the Third Web with images beyond description that fall into a category of mental objects. These transcend this White Paper’s world that is compositions in the geometry of precisely placed repetitions of a finite set of linearities illustrated here, following a routine protocol of shapes developed into patterns bound by lines, that act as paths passing in dimensions populating perceivable space. This is easily imagined within a human’s recognition of reality as a plan. A mechanism without imagination could never comprehend it.
Setting up the Third Web
Fitting the human imagination in as a specification for the creation of actual knots has been greatly simplified in just showing how the actual Woodstock’94 tag’s ownership is differentiated from a virtual image, and fitting that to the present human perception of authenticity. The important relationship the Great Knot offers is as a figment of constructive space for a physical manifestation of this. But it is still the actual stylistic colorations and natural changes in form in the tags, where the truth rests in the image of a physical object; and when the land art sculpture is set up to pose for its digital portrait; for the record; that is what is being set up to capture a system of truth here.
These show conceptual art principles that demonstrate that a virtual relationship can grow autonomous identification qualifiers in the course of being translated into cyphers to fit the Internet’s digital state of being. Setting the stage for a baseline value for primary source identities is what would have the experiments eventually end up exposing the paradoxical world of Web2.0.
More clearly stated, the Woodstock’94 tags introduced speculation that Deep Learning capabilities have an ability to convey a conceptual statement about the collaboration between the totally material past and stewardship roles found in big data discoveries of significant properties of that past. In this case, instead of leaving authenticity as restatements of resources, the oracle’s claim removes these competitive pressures by assigning a “false” category to the natural variables of virtual reality. This is a concept where every physical object has a proof-of-responsibility; or reputation; task, making consensus and blockchain necessary as the only truly responsible verification proof of truth.
Philosophically, Deep Learning should only support a checklist naturally grown as a chain of title or chain of evidence from threads of chains big data algorithms glean in their image identification capabilities as prospectively informative, and as these evolve through Deep Learning into knowledge, the history, of what and when learning takes place from it, becomes what human understanding is. That is the promise of a next Web to the world.
This was the big idea, represented in the Woodstock’94 tag, as it abstracted tags into a form that a Distributed Autonomous Organization can be built out from; a form natural to a human way of comprehending truth. Fact checking by the guardians of actual objects that are referenced in such a history of authenticity, or are added to the source of proofs that do not confirm this history, amplify a systemic propensity toward “truths” acceptable to consensus that is supported by knowledge.
This understanding of a decentralized knowledge base is helped enormously by the posts that follow. The tag’s immutable signature turns out to be a paradigm of crypto-mechanical reproduction converging different dimensions of attention onto a way of thinking that prepares for the tests the White Paper on knots holds in store.