1. Home
  2. Artists

Artists

Grimes collaboration with music platform makes 200+ AI songs available for creators

Grimes’ manager Daouda Leonard and music platform Slip.stream explain the importance of artists owning their data and controlling their rights to stay ahead in their approach to AI.

The rapid emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) into the public sector has proven to be one of the biggest developments of the year on a global scale. 

Major industries have been turned upside down with AI now on the scene. In the creative sectors, the music industry in particular, AI is often seen as a double-edged sword: a creativity kickstarter and a thief in the night of copyrights.

The popular musician and producer Grimes, however, has had a different approach to being an artist in the time of emerging AI. She was one of the first artists to be vocal about the technology after its explosion in popularity in late 2022 with the release of ChatGPT.

In April, Grimes famously said she would split 50% of the royalties with the creators generating AI music using her vocals. It was after this that Grimes announced her new platform elf.tech, an open-source software program solely dedicated to legally replicating her voice for music creation.

In September, Grimes was included as one of Time Magazine’s Top 100 People in AI. Recently, Grimes and her team partnered with music creation platform Slip.stream to make 200+ GrimesAI songs available for use by creators.

Cointelegraph spoke with Grimes’ manager and CEO of research studio for musician’s IP rights CreateSafe, Daouda Leonard, along with the team behind Slip.stream, to understand how creatives can get ahead in their approach to AI.

Daouda pinpointed the current moment on the timeline of the technological revolution as the “DARQ ages (Distributed, Artificial, Reality and Quantum). “The only way through it is to use it,” he said. “I think all industry executives, artists, and companies need to be experimenting with new emergent technologies.”

“By rights holders allowing new technology platforms to train with their data, they can be proactive about striking lucrative deals for their artists and catalogs.”

With AI, creators can now utilize artists’ voices, for example, in their own creations, and AI companies are taking creative data to train their systems. Therefore, a strong content management system and royalties mechanism need to be a priority.

Grimes’ management said it’s also using another emerging technology, smart contracts, to make this happen and manage metadata information about “who did what, when and what they’re owed.”

Slip.stream, being the platform that houses the available Grimes AI tracks, echoed the sentiment saying:

“It’s up to forward-thinking artists, executives, and companies to dream up and experiment with its applications to better protect their clients and capture any upside… It takes guts to zig when others zag.”

When artists and management don’t manage to stay on top of such things, it could become too late.

Lawsuits against AI companies have been springing up throughout the year, be it the Author’s Guild launching a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI - the creator of ChatGPT- or Universal Music Group (UMG) suing Anthropic AI, both over creative copyright infringement.

Related: Universal Music and Google in talks over deal to combat AI deep fakes: Report

Leading by example, Grimes is showing the industry what is possible when artists both own their data and control the rights to it.

“Owning your masters and publishing is only good if you know what to do with it,” said Daouda. “I don’t know if there is a perfect artist to do such a move. Grimes felt that it was important to experiment and see what’s possible.”

“I think every artist who is open to taking risks and curious about how technology can be a benefit to their career is the perfect for doing this, so I’m sure there are a lot of them.”

Many industry insiders who have wrapped their heads around the possibilities AI can present to artists and are trying to proactively find ways to reap the benefits without losing sovereignty have touted the technology as a “creative amplifier” of sorts.

Slip.stream said when artists are proactive with their rights and content shows that “AI is not about replacing humans with robots, but establishing new norms and structures for artistic collaboration that were unavailable to the masses before CreateSafe and Grimes.”

“To give anyone in the world the ability to collaborate with their favorite artist, opens up groundbreaking possibilities for creative output and fan engagement.”

Grimes herself posted a similar sentiment on X, formerly known as Twitter, a few days after the announcement of her collaboration with Slip.stream:

Daouda ended by saying that he believes what is happening with AI is even bigger than samples and collaborations.

“Generative AI or computational creativity makes it possible for people to go from idea to distribution in minutes, maybe even seconds,” he said.

“Whether that’s a good or bad thing is subjective, but what is objective is that now a lot of people can do it and it opens up modes of expression that ultimately could lead to a certain type of healing that many people can participate in. Music is healing and when we can participate in it that’s powerful.”

Magazine: BitCulture: Fine art on Solana, AI music, podcast + book reviews

Bitcoin Technical Analysis: BTC’s Short-Term Correction—What the Charts Reveal

US judge deals blow to artists in copyright suit over AI generated art

A judge mostly sided with Midjourney, DeviantArt and Stability AI’s bid to dismiss the artists’ class action lawsuit that accused the firms of copyright infringement.

Artists have been dealt a setback in their copyright fight against generative AI firms after a class-action lawsuit against several of the firms was dismissed by a United States judge, citing a lack of evidence.

In an Oct. 30 order, California District Court Judge William Orrick said the copyright infringement suit against generative AI image service Midjourney, art platform DeviantArt and AI firm Stability AI was “defective in numerous respects,” granting earlier dismissal bids from the firms.

Judge Orrick however allowed a copyright infringement claim from one class action member against Stability to go ahead and allowed the class 30 days to attempt to submit an amended suit with more proof.

“Even Stability recognizes that determination of the truth of these allegations — whether copying in violation of the Copyright Act occurred in the context of training Stable Diffusion or occurs when Stable Diffusion is run — cannot be resolved at this juncture,” Orrick wrote.

Highlighted excerpt of Orrick’s conclusive order. Source: CourtListener

The lawsuit was first filed in mid-January and claimed Stability’s AI model Stable Diffusion scraped billions of copyrighted images without permission — including those of the artists — to train the software.

DeviantArt also incorporated Stable Diffusion on its site, possibly copying millions of images from there without a license and violating its own terms of service, the suit alleged.

Related: Biden administration issues executive order for new AI safety standards

Orrick said the AI-generated images likely don’t infringe the artists’ copyright as it’s “not plausible” they’re derived from copyrighted images. He added he’s “not convinced” unless the class can show the generated images are similar to the artists’ work.

Copyright claims from some class members were dismissed as their images weren’t registered with the Copyright Office — needed for bringing a copyright infringement suit.

Copyright infringement allegations are central to similar legal actions taken against AI firms such as the Author’s Guild’s class action against OpenAI, Universal Music Group’s suit against Anthropic and Getty Images suits against Stability AI in the U.S. and United Kingdom.

Magazine: AI Eye: Real uses for AI in crypto, Google’s GPT-4 rival, AI edge for bad employees

Bitcoin Technical Analysis: BTC’s Short-Term Correction—What the Charts Reveal

Universal Music Group sues Anthropic AI over copyright infringement

Universal Music Group, Concord Publishing and ABKCO Music & Records alleged that Anthropic “unlawfully” copied and disseminated “vast amounts of copyrighted works” from the publishers.

Universal Music Group (UMG), Concord Publishing and ABKCO Music & Records have filed a lawsuit against the artificial intelligence (AI) startup Anthropic on accusations of the latter committing copyright infringement in training its AI chatbot Claude.

The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 18 and claims that Anthropic “unlawfully” copied and disseminated “vast amounts of copyrighted works - including the lyrics to myriad musical compositions” that are under the ownership or control of the publishers.

It called Anthropic’s use of the works “widespread and systematic infringement” and said the defendant cannot reproduce, distribute and display copyrighted works to build a business without the proper rights.

“This foundational rule of copyright law dates all the way back to the Statute of Anne in 1710, and it has been applied time and time again to numerous infringing technological developments in the centuries since. That principle does not fall away simply because a company adorns its infringement with the words “AI.”

The lawsuit claims that Claude can generate identical or nearly identical copies of songs such as “What a Wonderful World,” “Gimme Shelter,” “American Pie,” “Sweet Home Alabama,” “Every Breath You Take” and at least 500 more.

Related: British MPs urge action on NFT copyright infringement, crypto fan tokens

In this case, the publishers provided examples of Claude being able to deliver an almost word for word replication of UMG’s song “I will survive” by Gloria Gaynor. 

The plaintiffs have asked the court to order that the alleged infringement is put to an end, along with monetary damages.

This case joins the many popping up against major AI developers on the grounds of copyright infringement. 

OpenAI, the developer of AI chatbot ChatGPT, has been sued for similar reasons by the Author’s Guild. Meta is currently facing a lawsuit by author Sarah Silverman and others for copyright issues. Google is involved in a lawsuit regarding its data scraping policy for AI training purposes.

As far as the music industry’s involvement is concerned, UMG has been vigilant about protecting its catalogue and the rights of its artists from AI-related copyright violations. On Oct. 18 it entered into a strategic partnership with BandLab Technologies focusing on ethical AI usage to protect artist and songwriter rights.

Over the summer, UMG and Google were reportedly in talks to create a tool that would allow for the creation of AI tracks using artists’ likenesses in a legal way.

Magazine: ‘AI has killed the industry’: EasyTranslate boss on adapting to change

Bitcoin Technical Analysis: BTC’s Short-Term Correction—What the Charts Reveal

Universal Music Group enters partnership to protect artists’ rights against AI violations

The new partnership between Universal Music Group and BandLab Technologies focuses on ethical AI usage to protect artist and songwriter rights.

Universal Music Group (UMG) announced a new partnership with social music creation platform BandLab Technologies on Oct. 18 to promote responsible practices with artificial intelligence (AI) in the industry. 

The partnership says its focus is on the “ethical use of AI,” with one of the main goals being to protect the rights of artists and songwriters.

Michael Nash, the executive vice president and the chief digital officer of UMG, added that:

“This is more important than ever right now as AI assumes an increasingly prominent place in the evolution of music creation tools.”

Nash commented that along with protecting artists' rights, the two plan to create responsible approaches to using AI in creative processes to “champion human creativity and culture.”

A similar sentiment was expressed by the CEO of the Recording Academy, the institution behind the Grammy Awards, in an interview with Cointelegraph when he said AI could be an “amplifier” of human creativity.

Related: AI music sending traditional industry into ‘panic,’ says new AI music platform CEO

This is not the first time UMG has taken on AI-related issues. In August, UMG and Google were reportedly in talks over ways to combat AI deep fakes through the development of a new tool that would allow for the creation of AI tracks using artists’ likenesses in a legal way.

Shortly before UMG and Google began talking about taking AI copyright issues, YouTube released its own set of principles for working with the music industry on AI tech.

YouTube said it had been in talks with major music industry players such as UMG over how to develop the principles. One was the introduction to its new “Music AI Incubator.”

The struggle for copyright infringement matters between artists, musicians and creators regarding AI has even reached the courts. In August 2023, a United States judge denied copyright for AI art.

Magazine: BitCulture: Fine art on Solana, AI music, podcast + book reviews

Bitcoin Technical Analysis: BTC’s Short-Term Correction—What the Charts Reveal

AI music sending traditional industry into ‘panic’, says new AI music platform CEO

Can Ansay the founder of AI streaming and marketplace platform Musixy.ai, says AI-generated music is revolutionary and brings efficiency and lowers costs to productions.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been making waves in various industries across the globe. However, the conflict between its usefulness and its ability to infringe on intellectual property (IP) has seen a particular struggle in the creative industries. 

Major players in the music industry from artists and record labels to institutions like the Grammys and YouTube have all had to factor in AI in some form.

In the midst of traditional spaces in the music industry dealing with technology, new platforms are popping up that are embracing the technology from the start. Musixy.ai launched on Sept. 14 to serve as a streaming platform, label and marketplace for music exclusively generated by AI.

Cointelegraph spoke with Can Ansay, the CEO and founder of Musixy.ai, to better understand how giving AI-generated music its own space could shape the future music industry.

Musixy.ai said that it aims to become the “Spotify for AI hit songs,” particularly those that have been banned from other platforms. Over the last year, Spotify and other major streaming platforms have become more vigilant after Universal Music Group sent out an email asking them to step up their policing of copyrighted AI tracks.

Ansay said “the establishment” or major labels are in panic mode again, “as it was back then with Napster, because they fear revenue losses due to a new disruptive technology.”

“Unlike back then, the AI revolution is not only perfectly legal, but even threatens the existence of record companies; music is not only produced much more efficiently but also cheaper.”

He said AI presents “talented producers” with the ability to produce and monetize a hit song with any famous voice in any language. Musixy.ai particularly emphasizes the creation of new and covered hit songs with AI-generated vocals of well-known artists.

Related: AI-generated music challenges “efficiency” and “cost” of traditional labels, music exec.

Musixy.ai also works with Ghostwriter, who produced a viral song with AI-generated vocal tracks of artists Drake and the Weeknd called “Heart on My Sleeves." 

The song initially was said to be eligible for a Grammy, though the sentiment was later clarified by the Grammy CEO highlighting that it was taken down from commercial streaming platforms and didn’t receive permission from the artist or label to use the vocal likeness and therefore doesn’t qualify for nomination

Ansay said if Musixy.ai is recognized as a streaming platform by the Recording Academy:

“For the first time these amazing AI-assisted songs could rightfully win the Grammy recognition they deserve, produced with the help of AI.”

“This is especially true for those songs that unofficially use the vocals of famous singers with the help of AI that were arbitrarily banned from all other recognized streaming platforms,” he continued.

Ansay argues that from a legal perspective, vocal likeness is not “protectable,” as it would violate professional ethics and make it difficult for singers to work having a voice similar to another more famous voice. 

Instead he suggests that AI vocal tracks should be marked as  "unofficial" to avoid confusion.

Recently Google and Universal Music Group were reportedly in negotiations over a tool that would allow for AI tracks to be created using artists’ likenesses in a legal way.

When asked if AI-generated music be "competing" on the same level as non-AI-generated music in terms of awards and recognition or have its own playing field - he said both directions could be viable.

“For that to happen, one must legitimately, legally, and arguably under the rules of the Grammys, distinguish what tasks AI is used for in music production and to what degree.”

Otherwise, he believes a new category should be created such as  "AI Song of the Year" or something similar. "Because according to the Grammys' mission statement on their website," he argued, "they also want to recognize excellence in 'science.'"

Magazine: Tokenizing music royalties as NFTs could help the next Taylor Swift

Bitcoin Technical Analysis: BTC’s Short-Term Correction—What the Charts Reveal

Grammy CEO clarifies AI Drake song ineligible for award over copyright issues

The Record Academy executive clearly stated that the track is “not eligible” and cited that the vocals were not legally obtained nor were they cleared by the label or artist.

The CEO of the Recording Academy, which hosts the yearly Grammy Music Awards, has cleared up misconceptions regarding the eligibility of an artificial intelligence (AI)-generated Drake song for an award nomination.

On Sept. 8, Harvey Mason Jr. took to Instagram and released a video clearly stating that the track is “not eligible for Grammy consideration” and wanted to be extra clear that:

“Even though it was written by a human creator, the vocals were not legally obtained, the vocals were not cleared by the label or the artist, and the song is not commercially available — because of that, it’s not eligible.”

He said the topic of AI is both “complicated” and “moving really quickly” while also commenting that he takes it “very seriously” and anticipates more evolution and changes in the industry.

While music with AI components can be eligible for Grammy nominations, the track must meet specific requirements, most importantly that the part up for nomination was created by a human. For example, for a track to win an award for vocal performance, it must have been performed by a human.

Mason Jr. reiterated this element in his most recent statement by saying:

“Please, do not be confused: the Academy is here to support and advocate and protect and represent human artists and human creators period.”

In a previous interview with Cointelegraph, he also stressed this aspect, saying “The role of the Academy is always to protect the creative and music communities.”

Related: Justin Bieber hit track becomes NFT for royalty sharing

In addition to the human element, the other aspect stressed by Mason Jr. is that in order to be eligible for an award, the track must be commercially available. This includes availability on major streaming platforms, such as Spotify and Apple Music. 

However, the track in question was removed from platforms due to its copyright violations and lack of approval from the artist and label.

Labels have been advocating for platforms to be vigilant in removing content that infringes on the intellectual property of artists. Back in April, Universal Music Group (UMG) asked streaming services, including Spotify, to remove AI-generated content.

Most recently, UMG and Google announced a collaboration to combat AI deep fakes. The two are in negotiations for licensing melodies and vocal tracks for use in AI-generated music.

Magazine: BitCulture: Fine art on Solana, AI music, podcast + book reviews

Bitcoin Technical Analysis: BTC’s Short-Term Correction—What the Charts Reveal

AI-generated Drake song up for Grammy nomination

A hit track made from an AI-generated vocal track of the rapper Drake has been submitted to the Recording Academy for Grammy nomination in two categories.

A viral track from the anonymous producer “Ghostwriter” using an artificial intelligence (AI)-generated vocal track of the rapper Drake has been submitted for consideration for a Grammy award, according to a Sept. 5 New York Times report.

The track “Heart on My Sleeve” has been submitted by the Ghostwriter team to the Recording Academy, the organization behind the Grammys, for nomination in Best Rap Song and Song of the Year, a representative told the NYTs.

In both of those categories, the award is attributed to the songwriter, who was also confirmed by the Ghostwriter representative to be a human. 

Earlier this year the Grammys updated its policy for awards in the upcoming award season saying that music with AI-generated components is eligible for an award. The catch is that the category for which the track is nominated must be for a human-created portion of the song.

The CEO of the Grammys, Harvey Mason Jr. confirmed this saying music with AI elements is “absolutely eligible” for Grammy nomination. He reiterated that to the NYTs regarding the Ghostwriter AI-Drake track saying:

“As far as the creative side, it’s absolutely eligible because it was written by a human.”

He also pointed out that the Academy also looks at whether or not the song was commercially available, which is a component of Grammy rules that says a track must have “general distribution” to be eligible, which includes availability on streaming platforms. 

Related: AI can be a ‘creative amplifier’ — Grammy chief exec Harvey Mason Jr.

However, “Heart on My Sleeve” was removed from all major streaming services, despite industry experts saying that its use of AI fell into a “legal gray area.”

Cointelegraph reached out to the Recording Academy for further comment on the situation. 

Back in April, Universal Music Group, one of the industry’s most prominent record labels, sent out a mass email to major streaming services, including Spotify and Apple Music, requesting they block AI services from harvesting melodies and lyrics from copyrighted songs and remove songs in violation of copyright. 

Shortly after, Spotify was reported to have ramped up policing of tracks in violation of copyright infringement on its platform, as well as blocking artificial streaming of songs to increase listen count.

Magazine: BitCulture: Fine art on Solana, AI music, podcast + book reviews

Bitcoin Technical Analysis: BTC’s Short-Term Correction—What the Charts Reveal

Justin Bieber hit track becomes NFT for royalty-sharing

Justin Bieber’s hit song from 2015 “Company” has been turned into an NFT by anotherblock from which fans could earn royalties from future streams of the track.

On Sep. 7, the blockchain-centric music tech platform anotherblock and the co- producer of the track Andreas Schuller, also known as Axident, will drop the track “Company” as an NFT with only 2,000 available.

The global pop icon Justin Beiber will have one of his hit songs turned into a nonfungible token (NFT), which fans can then invest in a stake of the royalties. 

While Axident will still remain the rights holder, fans owning an NFT of the track will then be able to participate in a 1% royalty share in the streams of the song. Axident spoke to the significance of fans in the music industry and how blockchain and music rights open up an entirely new world of interactions.

“The ownership of a song bears far greater weight than its monetary value; it forges a profound connection to the art that, until now, has been beyond the reach of fans.”

Upon the song’s initial release as a single, it made it into Australia’s top forty and landed at 53 on the U.S. charts. To date, the track has massed over 500 million streams. 

Related: YouTube releases ‘principles’ for working with music industry on AI tech

Cointelegraph spoke with Michel D. Traore, the co-founder and CEO of anotherblock, who said that delivering universally beloved songs is a powerful way of “acquainting” the masses to Web3. 

“"Company" serves as a prime example of a song with immense potential in this regard. Through the Web3 tools, we can offer music enthusiasts something that, until recently, hasn't been accessible to the general public.”

Traore highlighted that the royalty share is being divested by Axident. “Producers often do not receive the recognition they truly deserve,” he said “and one significant aspect for us is to shine a light on the creators behind the songs.”

“This not only creates a new revenue stream for producers but also provides fans with the opportunity to discover and connect with these talented individuals and their incredible work.”

Anotherblock has already worked on Web3 ventures with some of the largest names in the music industry, including pop sensations The Weeknd, Rihanna and Martin Garrix.

Magazine: Tokenizing music royalties as NFTs could help the next Taylor Swift

Bitcoin Technical Analysis: BTC’s Short-Term Correction—What the Charts Reveal

Hollywood studios offer new proposal for AI and data transparency to curb strike

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers released a memo of its offer to striking writers and actors, with proposed guidelines for AI usage and data transparency.

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) released details of its proposal for striking actors and writers on Aug.22, which included standards for the entertainment industry surrounding the usage of artificial intelligence (AI) and data transparency. 

Under the proposed conditions, generative AI cannot be considered a writer. Therefore, any AI-created material cannot be regarded as literary or intellectually protected.

The proposal also ensures that material produced by generative AI cannot affect credit, rights and compensation. While companies can use generative AI-created scripts as source material, any writer who reworks the script will be compensated as if they are the original author.

Additionally, any studio or production company seeking a writer’s help in the development of an AI-produced script must disclose the origin of the script.

Initially, the proposal was released eleven days ago, on Aug. 11, but without significant information about important issues raised by the striking parties.

Related: US judge rules in favor of human ingenuity, denies copyright for AI art

Along with updates to AI-related matters, the proposal touches on data transparency issues. Before the proposal, writers rarely had access to metrics produced by their work.

The updated offer would allow viewership data to be made available to writers and presented in quarterly confidential reports. However, for the time being, it would only include subscription video on demand (SVOD) metrics — not advertising or transactional videos.

The AMPTP proposal suggested that:

“This increased transparency will enable the WGA to develop proposals to restructure the current SVOD residual regime in the future.”

The latest developments came on the 114th day of the strike and were the latest iterations of AI incorporation from Hollywood studios. 

On May 3, they rejected requests from the Writers Guild of America to ban AI completely from the writing room.

There were also proposals that suggested background performers should undergo scanning, receive compensation for the initial day of work and then grant companies ownership of the scan, image and likeness. This sparked a wave of backlash from entertainers in the industry.

Nonetheless, the signals of big production companies looking to incorporate AI are apparent. On July 27, Netflix posted AI job positions with exuberant salaries reaching up to $900,000.

Magazine: Experts want to give AI human ‘souls’ so they don’t kill us all

Bitcoin Technical Analysis: BTC’s Short-Term Correction—What the Charts Reveal

Slow Food: Kenny Schachter reflects on blockchain art’s past, present and future

NFTs might never boom at quite the same pitch they once did. With his first solo show in 25 years, Kenny Schachter sought to demonstrate how that’s a good thing.

With crypto in a state of turbulent flux, a demographic of nonfungible token (NFT) detractors in the fine art world might feel trigger-happy to, at last, declare the industry down for the count. 

Meanwhile, artist, critic, dealer, educator and outspoken NFT proponent Kenny Schachter is celebrating the conclusion of Slow Food — his first New York City art exhibition in 25 years — at The NFT Gallery on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, fresh off the heels of headlining NFT Art Day ZRH in Zurich, Switzerland, coinciding with the iconic annual Art Basel art fair, less than 50 miles away.

In June 2022, Schachter had just presented the first-ever NFT booth wall at Art Basel with Galerie Nagle Draxler, expanding the acceptance of NFTs just before profile pictures became the face of their demise. Soon after, Schachter was spotted among the art world elite in Hydra, Greece, celebrating zeitgeist sculptor Jeff Koon’s first token drop with Pace Gallery.

Schachter told Cointelegraph that while his commitment to the intersection of blockchain and art hasn’t faltered since then, “it’s hardened.” The contentious art-world rabble rouser hails from a working-class Long Island, New York family. He studied philosophy, then law — worked in fashion and on the stock market floor — all before stepping foot in his first art gallery in his late 20s or making his name as an art market reporter. Schachter became an artist before the millennium turned, exhibiting his first computer animation in 1993 and producing digital prints as the decade ensued.

“As far as I’m concerned, I’m involved in art,” Schachter said. “That’s all I care about, more than pretty much everything, except for perhaps my kids.” Rather than encapsulating Schachter’s full oeuvre, Slow Food, which closed on June 17, focused on the artist’s most recent blockchain forays: a collaborative, evolving rumination titled Open Book, his new blockchain-based game Pop Principle, and a sculpture about the insidious trend of dinosaur bones being sold through art auction houses. An NFT accompanied each artwork — underpinning them all.

Riding out the booms and busts

When Schachter caught wind of NFTs in 2020, he brushed them off as another form of money before recognizing solutions for difficulties dogging his practice — wrapped in a blockchain bow.

Of course, digital art had long languished in the absence of a practical means to sell and trade it. A number of galleries offering digital artworks in their booths at Art Basel as of 2022 still handed the pieces off after purchase as a file on a flash drive, authenticated based on file size.

Even before NFTs, digital art had been pigeonholed in the manner of other mediums, like performance. Although NFTs gained fame only once artists started making big money, Schachter saw a greater chance to expand his audience beyond the narrow-minded art world.

Several standalone artworks complemented Schachter’s larger projects across Slow Food, like “NFT Gimmicks,” a two-part piece including a fine art print that immortalized a snide tweet Schacter made in reply to Dot Pigeon’s April announcement that the artist was quitting NFTs due to rampant speculation — alongside the actual balaclava Schachter is seen wearing in the post.

“NFT Gimmicks” artwork on view in Slow Food. Source: Vittoria Benzine

“First of all, he’s made millions, probably, off his NFTs,” Schachter told Cointelegraph of Pigeon’s headline-making move. “If I sell an NFT, whether it was $5 or $25,000, that’s a social contract between me and the collector. I have an obligation to support what I’ve done.” He noted that Crypto Mutts, a profile picture collection Schachter founded to mock Bored Ape Yacht Club, will likely end up in his will, to ensure the project survives after he’s not around to maintain it.

Money is nice, but Schachter swears up and down it’s not driving him — he recently opted to forego royalties from resales. Instead, the artist emphasized that his faith relies on the community that NFTs build around his practice and the connections the space lends itself to.

Recent: The Hinman docs: Implications for XRP, SEC credibility and more

The artist had to learn fast about blockchain in his efforts to get involved. He initiated a virtual mentorship with an avid NFT collector and Google executive based in Singapore. “Every two or three weeks, I would sit there like a child with a pen and a paper,” Schacter recalled of their sessions. “I ended up making an artist out of him, putting him in an NFT show I curated at Nagle Draxler in Cologne in 2021.”

Similarly, Schachter’s more far-reaching projects across “Slow Food” require people to make them function. Open Book began last summer while he was co-authoring The NFT Book. Inspired by the social media responses he got for input while helping pen the book, Schachter curated 20 disparate artists to contribute stances on NFTs — some positive, some critical — for Open Book. Those quotes oscillated on screens across Slow Food, with some from Schachter himself. The show allocated a room where guests could contribute before it goes live on NFT market Async Market this month.

Schachter calls the project “a book that doesn’t have an ending, nor a middle for that matter. But there’s a beginning. It tells a story of a field radically transforming in real time.”

Playing further

His blockchain game, Pop Principle, runs on the high-end digital art streaming service and collecting source Daata. It took shape in early 2022. Originally titled Digital Duel: Crypto vs Canvas, the game’s new iteration pits teams of vocal NFT supporters and detractors from the fine art world — artists, writers, curators, dealers and influencers — all against each other.

Each round of Pop Principle will introduce new teams with new characters on either side, all available to mint in open editions. Collectors mint as many of their favorite characters as they can afford to in order to support that figure and their team. Whichever team gets the most mints wins, but the real crown goes toward whichever collector holds the most copies of the winning character — that collector gets a unique Schachter sculpture in real life. To celebrate Pop Principle’s inaugural round, which closed June 17, the top 50 holders all received an airdropped NFT.

“The concept changed from a battle to a reflection of the fact that life — in art and beyond — has been reduced to a popularity contest,” Schachter said, “measured by likes, followers and money.” While there’s no role-playing or hand-to-hand combat, it was fun to watch art dealer Larry Gagosian, whose gallery some regard as the art world’s evil empire, lob stacks of bills at opponents like famed artists Refik Anandol and Beeple, in a montage on view at Slow Food.Sculptures of this round’s protagonists punctuated the show — Beeple greeted visitors, while teammates Anandol and Nigerian artist Osinachi conversed with the round’s sole neutral party, curator Hans Ulrich Obrist, near the show’s rear.

Osinachi, Obrist and Anandol sculptures at the back of Slow Food. Source: Vittoria Benzine

The figures all had big eyes, attention to detail and a real sense of life. They felt like Schachter’s distinct take on the infamous artist KAWS’s signature style, although artists are notoriously crabby about being compared with each other. Schachter’s go-to fabricator in China brought his digital designs to freestanding, 3D existence.

Perhaps surprisingly, David Hockney hasn’t yet factored into Pop Principle. In 2021, Hockney, the highest-valued painter alive, called NFTs “silly little things” for “crooks and swindlers.”

However, Hockney’s recent series of iPad drawings — the subject of a hyped Pace Gallery exhibition in Chelsea, Manhattan, in winter 2022 — would likely benefit from blockchain elements.

“Would you rather own a $100,000 outputted photograph,” Schachter asked, “or would you rather own the high res file from which he made it, in which case you could make a tapestry, you could make a painting in China for $100, you can make a photograph or a lightbox or projection or keep it on your phone, do whatever you want?”

That’s precisely how “Missionary Position,” a tapestry featured in Slow Food depicting Mother Theresa in a robe adorned with Ethereum insignias, came to be. Schachter got in touch with an Albanian artisan through his network, who wove his digital design into an art object.

“Missionary Position: ETH (tapestry version)” from Slow Food. Source: Kenny Schachter

Fine art recoils — even from practical applications

NFT art might never boom at quite the same pitch it once did. Schachter says that’s a good thing. It could benefit the space by taking the focus off the very behaviors from the traditional art and finance spheres that NFT proponents claim they’re trying to buck — placing the focus back on the possibilities. Blockchain offers many practical applications relevant to fine art beyond just hype, revenue, new audiences and new understandings of art as an idea rather than an object. 

For example, it can create an irrevocable record of provenance, which could foster a little more transparency about how many — and maybe whose — hands an artwork has passed through.

Why, then, are some art industry figureheads raring to dance on the blockchain’s grave?

“The art world is like a smelly dog pissing on a tree,” Schachter said. “When they see another dog coming by, the first thing they want to do is piss on the piss that the other dog just did. When the art world sees a new means, a new technology, they see platforms that fully function without their input, they get very defensive and very territorial.”

“Art is a zero-sum game, generally speaking, where one person or entity succeeds at the expense of another.” 

More money for Nifty Gateway means less money for galleries — unless they’re creating new audiences. But art is ephemeral, relational. Prices are based on previous prices, and acclaim comes from proximity to superstars. There’s a lot at stake in the ruse that these emperors are clothed.

“When I found out about the art world, the first impression I had was people swinging from the chandelier, drinking absinthe and going to orgies,” he said. “Boy, was I in for a slap in the face.”

Magazine: Opinion: GOP crypto maxis almost as bad as Dems’ ‘anti-crypto army’

No matter, though. Schachter’s pressing forward. “Slow Food,” he said, was a dry run for his debut solo museum exhibition at the Francisco Carolinum in Linz, Austria, opening in September.

“Nobody offered me a fucking show when I was in the art world for 30 years,” Schachter balked. “I got offered a show and had success in the NFT space. In the art world, success affirms success. By any means necessary, will I pursue my interest and my goals.”

Bitcoin Technical Analysis: BTC’s Short-Term Correction—What the Charts Reveal