Proposal to Reinstate Robness as an Artist

Authors Bharat Krymo, Colborn Bell, Omz
Status Draft
Type Artist Reinstatement
Implementor SuperRare
Sponsor(s) @VanArman
Temperature Check Poll Discord
Created Date 01/24/2022

Summary
We propose reinstating Robness as an Artist on SuperRare, so he can return to minting new works on the platform. We perceive this as a win/win for the artists and the platform.

Motivation
Robness was banned from SuperRare for minting 64 Gallon Toter, a photomoshed glitch of a toter taken directly from the Home Depot website. He pushed the boundaries of Intellectual Property (IP) appropriation in his work and was punished for it. But appropriation is a part of art. Many of Andy Warhol’s most iconic works involved the appropriation of IP. This goes even further in a decentralized art space, where freedom of expression is paramount. Robness has made significant contributions to the evolution of Crypto Art, including starting the Trash Art movement.

Benefits
Reinstating Robness would add value and diversity to SuperRare’s roster of artists, and is aligned with the values that underpin this space. Using a decentralized governance process to reverse previous decisions is a powerful act and sends an important signal to the whole community. It would reinforce the fact that SuperRare is a truly decentralized platform, and have a positive ripple effect throughout the space. It would send a strong signal on SuperRare’s differentiation given Meta’s entry into this space and the ability to sense and respond to the changing landscape of community/DAO based activism.

Drawbacks
Artists may think that they can flout SuperRare’s terms and conditions, and get away with it.

Specifications
Whitelist the following address for minting on SuperRare:
0x6215e708A7b61f5ED49642F692f28ba09b807725

3 Likes

I support this proposal. @VanArman

1 Like

Happy to see the very first proposal driven towards the cryptoart culture :fire: I fully support pushing the boundaries of IP and the appropriative nature of digital art. I have some notes and questions about the proposal:

First, can the author please add a specification section consistent with the required SIP template providing the Ethereum wallet address to be whitelisted?

Second, does the Artist have any objections to accepting the http://superrare.com/ Terms of Service as is currently required as a condition of using the website to mint NFTs?

Third, this proposal strikes at the heart of some larger NFT ecosystem issues that SuperRare wants to help discuss, debate, and eventually solve - what is appropriate response for NFT platforms that receive infringement complaints relating to Artists’ minting conduct and what level of accountability must the Artist take in dealing with valid infringement complaints? I would like to invite the Authors and Artists for a thoughtful public discussion on these issues, and of course, to liberally preach cryptoart lore and ethos.

1 Like

Hi elo,

Thank you for your note!

We’ve added the Specifications section for each artist. They are all onboard regarding SR’s terms, and everyone involved is happy to participate in a public discussion on this subject.

I see that the terms of use have changed since Robness was removed. SR added a statement allowing for “valid claim of fair use”.

I support this and believe motions like this to put artists back into this community can send powerful messages for a more open space.

Appropriation of images is a very interesting topic! It is also quite nuanced. There have been many court cases and appeals/reversals around Andy Warhol’s work, that continue into 2022 (his last artwork was created in 1986!) Although the scope of this topic is beyond my grasp (if judges and lawyers struggle for clarity) I do have some opinions.

One of these opinions is the nature of the work appropriated, the effect, and the intent. For example: was the original intended as fine art, documentary, or a commercial image. Is there attribution/credit? Has the IP been licensed in the past or have the potential to be licensed and is the appropriating artist attempting to evade a licensing fee? Has the original artist been economically harmed? Does the new work create confusion regarding it’s authorship, or is it clear appropriation (e.g. Mona Lisa, portrait from dollar bill). Has the IP owner been slandered or disparaged in a way that potentially harms Supperrare? I could go on, but I think these are the kinds of topics that should be discussed regarding appropriation.

Agreed, @bellanudaart! Interesting topics indeed! and in the world of web3 they are particularly interesting given the censorship resistant nature of the art and the sheer ease of minting and selling IP through NFTs. I think the SuperRare DAO made the right call by embracing Artists who have established a reputation in the appropriative arts, but as your analysis suggestions, acceptable appropriation is not without its limits.

Just minted one of Rob’s uh I mean ROB’S latest after binge-reading all the issues of FOMAMAG (I found them to be visually very impressive, although the themes and artists got redundant imo). I believe ROBNESS’s voice is an important one. He seems - I say this because I am new to his work and personality - to be sincere in his assertions of the original crypto art ethos. Such assertions are necessary, I believe, to help balance NFTdom in the wake of the mania of 2021 and apathy of 2022.