Critical Coins, 2015, Counterparty
To make the process of art reviews and criticism more transparent and quantifiable, we can use cryptographic asset tokens to represent critical opinion and valences.
Here’s a token of simple, uninflected critical approval:
Positive and Negative Critique
Positive-only measures can distort valences. Having tokens both for approval and disapproval addresses this:
We can use a range of tokens to express a traditional star rating:
We can use three different kinds of recipients for critical opinion represented in the form of tokens. If the artist (or work) has a Dogecoin address the tokens can be sent to that address directly. Otherwise we can create (preferably a vanity) address for them to hold the tokens in escrow. Or we can create an unspendable address (again preferably a vanity address) to send the tokens to. This prevents the tokens being transferred, which is either a bug or a feature depending on whether we want this to be possible or not.
Presumably art is the product of aesthetic competence, and if I as an art historian or critic approve of your exercise of this competence I cannot fault you if your exercise of that competence in the evaluation of someone else’s art or critical competences leads you to transfer the tokens of my critical approval to a third party. So transferable tokens make sense and in fact the history of their transferals adds value, it provides a historical record of regard, influence, and my original opinion.
Call For Review Subjects
If you have a Counterparty
Dogecoin address and art to review, contact me with a message signed by that address containing the URL of that art and I’ll take a look.