Beethoven’s hair solves mystery // Are AI art and photography the same? // First NFT in lawsuit // Did the Eiffel Tower influence “The Starry Night?”

Hello, everyone. Welcome back to By Amara. This is a weekly news show where I discuss contemporary events in the art and history fields.

I'm your host and personal curator, Amara Andrew.

And I'm Jeff.

And today in studio, if you are not watching this, I have my best friend on the podcast again. It's Jeff! Sorry, I never want to get too far away from the microphone cuz I did in the last episode and that was bad.

But anyway, the format that we typically follow for this show, which we are getting back to today, so yay, is one traditionally used by Western brides: something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue.

This week, we're actually, like I said, keeping up with the theme of the show, which is cool. We're going to be talking about using Beethoven's hair to solve his death, are AI-generated art and photography similar, or is, rather, I don't know what I'm saying, the first ever NFT is involved in a sticky lawsuit, and did the Eiffel Tower actually inspire The Starry Night?

We have all that and more coming up on this episode of By Amara. Let's get to it.

So, hello and welcome to the show. Like I said, or like I said, like you could hear, Jeff is in the studio with me.

Yo.

And

You like me just stopping you dead in your tracks?

You never say yo. Actually, anyway, so yeah, Jeff is in studio with me, which is very lovely. So, I don't know, it's nice to like, I like talking to you, you who are listening or watching this, but it's also nice to have somebody to kind of go back and forth with a little bit because then also we have very different viewpoints on some things.

Not everything, but some things, especially what we're talking about in today's show. So, I thought having Jeff here would be very nice. And he knows a lot more about AI-generated art and NFTs than I do, so that's also another part, because I actually need your help with what the fuck I'm talking about.

Perfect. Yeah. Yeah, cuz I know like development and building things.

I built her NFT project, which, by the way, Amara Andrew, the host of By Amara, has two NFT projects. One is The Dours, which is the cover art of this show is one of The Dours, that's the one that I own, I purchased from her. And then, The Spoopies.

So, a couple of things, maybe she'll link it down below, but continue.

Yeah, I'll I'll probably forget. So, go find them on my website. So, anyway, how are you doing today?

I am good. How are you doing today?

I feel like we're learning English. I am good. You, too?

Oh, yeah. We had our coffee earlier, like hours ago, and chatted, so it's funny.

Now I'm actually very hungry. It's way later in the day, so I'm just I'm very I'm using my hand to show that I'm lower energy. There you go.

I need to remember that this is also an audio podcast. Yeah, so you're doing okay today?

I'm good.

What have you been working on lately since we saw each other last week?

Yeah, thanks for welcoming me back to, well, back into your home.

You're welcome, Porky Pig.

Yeah, what have I been working on? I don't even, I'm seriously tongue-tied right now. I haven't been speaking.

I've been clicky-clicky on the computer.

That's fun. Well, you've been working on my merch actually today, so thank you.

Yeah, for MAVEN, mavenbyamara.com.

Yeah, which is a sponsor of today's episode, which we'll talk about in a second.

Yeah, I don't even know what I'm doing. I'm catching up on all the backlog of stuff that I have.

Like, he in addition to doing my stuff, he has many other things to do.

Oh, yeah, I have like a lot of business partners and clients and things through SPYR, my company. Feel like I'm just plugging everything right now, so maybe we should get moving into the show.

Go for it. You do you, man.

What have you been up to this week?

Why doesn't SPYR sponsor this? Just recording with clients. We're actually recording with another one of my clients tomorrow.

It's just been very crazy busy. I actually, it's funny, because that's actually a note that I have on here. I've just been because I'm still kind of new with how many clients I have, I'm trying to figure out my workflow and everything.

I don't know when my busy season is, and I'm finding that it's just kind of all the time. There is kind of no on-off time, just because, like with MAVEN, oh, my God, this is just an ad, I guess. But with MAVEN, we record with clients like every two months, and then we just record two months worth of content at one time.

So, it can vary, like depending on how many clients I have and blah, blah, blah. It's a whole thing. Just whatever.

I'll tell you about it in a minute. But yeah, so I don't know when my busy time is, because it's just very consistent because people still need social media content every month or every other month when we shoot, so it's just very consistent. So,

Well, the beauty of how it's set up, though, is doing that once every two months. So, if it was constantly shooting every month with all your clients, that would be impossible.

That would be not, not only for us, but just mostly for the client also to have to like block off this, not like a whole day, it only takes a couple hours, but like mentally that takes a ton of time versus just doing it all in one go, so, anyway. Yeah, so that's what we've been busy with, so. We're also planning some more travel for the next few months.

We just booked a trip to my homeland, Arizona, so it's going to be my best friend from high school's bachelorette party. I am very excited to see her, and a couple other people I went to high school with, who I haven't seen in 12 years now. So that'll be fun.

And I get to show him all of my old places, cuz he shows me all the places where he's grown up here. And I don't know, it's just really exciting. I cannot wait to show, like, obviously we're only going to be, well, I'm going to the bachelorette party, you are not going, but we're only going to be in like where I actually lived, lived for 24 or 48 hours, so get ready.

But I'll get to get a vibe for where you come from.

Yeah. Where'd you come from? Where'd you go?

I don't get it.

Big Fat O. No. Not you.

Hey, this one's explicit. Everybody knows that. That was pretty mild for me.

Anyway. Oh, and when I was writing out this template, I don't know, I just had this weird moment of gratitude to like, well, you, but mostly to you who are listening and watching, just like, I don't know, just thank you so much. Like, I don't think about it, but there are like people who listen to this and who watch this.

It doesn't feel like it when you're doing it.

No, it feels like we're talking to a camera with our faces on a little monitor next to it.

And I don't think about this after putting it out, necessarily. It's just like, okay, next episode, let's get ready. And I don't know, I just like, I just wanted to say thank you.

Like, I if you, you probably already have zoomed past this part, but whatever. But just thank you so much. Like I genuinely, genuinely appreciate it.

And I know I say thank you at the end of almost every episode, but I truly appreciate it, and like those of you who have subscribed and liked and commented and just like been awesome, like, thank you. You are awesome. I'm not good at this.

But

So, also she is almost to 1,000 subscribers on YouTube, which is really excite- It's just like a fun little milestone. It doesn't It literally means nothing, but it's fun. So, if you are watching and you haven't subscribed, click the little subscribe button.

Yeah, it's free. So, thank you very much. I just I genuinely just had this like It was so weird, it was just this overwhelming feeling of like love and gratitude, so I just genuinely, thank you so much.

So, I just wanted to say that at the top of the show. So, now let me get to some ads. We already kind of plugged MAVEN.

I was trying to write this out, and it's funny when you're trying to describe what you do, it's very difficult. It's so simple, because essentially what MAVEN is, it's a video, like social media video-based content sub- sub- subscription service.

Elevator pitch.

And the person in the elevator's like, "Ding. Oh, that's my floor."

Should I just say what you do?

Look, we

She helps people…

Tell me what I do.

You shoot video for people and you edit and produce.

Like, literally from conception to post-production, I handle everything, so.

Yeah, the premise is just that a MAVEN is more than an influencer, it's an expert with influence. So, MAVEN By Amara, she helps people become experts online.

This chair. I need to tighten the chair. I don't think this will pick it up, but

There you go.

There, that was a dramatic reenactment.

But yeah, she helps people become mavens, that's the whole premise. An expert with influence. I mean, I'm not good at selling, though.

I'm good at making everything work.

Selling me. So, MAVEN By Amara is sponsoring this episode. I need to work on this ad copy.

But essentially, just if you don't have time, but you want to have social media content out there, I'm here to help, so.

And especially in real estate, like that seems to be, it's not your niche, deliberately, but so many realtors have come to her, and it's because it's so effective. That's what's interesting.

So, yeah, mavenbyamara.com. That's M-A-V-E-N-B-Y-A-M-A-R-A.COM. Mavenbyamara.com, link in the description below.

So, that was the worst ad red read I've ever I can't even say

You can't even say ad copy. There is no copy. Clearly.

It's just

Now on to the show!

I just really like that.

In-studio for a playing in-studio. They're just off-camera over here, it's really nice. She can just sort of give them a little cue by hitting the button and they start playing.

So, it actually zaps them, it's an electrification button, so I can go up to 100 million volts.

Oh, I didn't know that.

So, I just, "Tsst, tsst, tsst." Perfect. Anyway, so, our first story pairs history and science together by studying the locks of a famous dead composer and kind of looking at how he died, cuz it's still kind of like unknown. So, Beethoven was known for his substantial hair that was just kind of like everywhere.

Essentially he was like Edward Scissor, Edward Scissorhands, before Edward Scissorhands. But just his hair is just like, have you seen him before?

Beethoven, the dog? I saw the movie growing up.

I didn't even think about… Yeah, Beethoven, the dog composer. Beethoven, the composer.

So he was known for his hair, and it's actually funny because his hair might be giving us clues about his myriad health problems. So, friends of his kept his locks of his hair after death as like a little keepsake, which was super common practice. You'd just like tie it together so you didn't have all these strands just going everywhere.

I mean, I'm sure they did the same with Beethoven, the dog's, hair, so.

Probably. Aw, rest in peace, Beethoven, the dog, and Beethoven, the person.

He has to be gone by now.

Well, yeah, so, yeah, don't make that.

Oh, God. Don't make it sad, man.

Back to the composer. So, friends of his kept locks of his hair after he passed. So, now an international team is going back, going back, they're not going back in time, but they're testing these strands to sequence Beethoven's DNA.

The researchers reported in the journal, Current Biology, that they hope by studying Beethoven's DNA, that they can understand the cause of his progressive hearing loss, chronic gastrointestinal complaints, and severe liver disease that ultimately caused his death in 1827 by age 56. I also learned while reading this study in the actual journal, that both his hearing loss, as well as his debilitating abdominal pain, started in his 20s.

He dealt with them for almost 40 years. That is insane, cuz like, I mean, hearing got progressively worse, tummy inside pain got progressively worse as well. What was also interesting, too, is before he died, he actually requested that his health issues be described and made public, which I thought was really cool.

So, he wanted, maybe sometime in the future, I don't really know a lot about Beethoven, to be quite honest, but I thought that was really cool, cuz that actually sounds like something you would do where you'd be like, "Study this!" Historians have long studied Beethoven's journals and letters to find some clues about his health issues he experienced, which it sounds like there were even more than what I just laid out.

But now, we actually have science, like scientific advancements to help us to be able to study his DNA and his hair. This is really interesting. I mean, this is all very interesting, but this, this is very interesting.!

You tried to bite my fingey. The researchers in the study, they tested eight different locks that were attributed to Beethoven. Combined with provenance, the DNA testing was able to conclude that of the eight locks, only five were actually able to be proven to be authentic Beethoven hair strands.

The other three lacked sufficient DNA for testing or yielded inconclusive results, so they couldn't really tell with the rest of the three. The most famous lock of all of these, called the Hiller Lock, which I had actually heard of, was determined to be the hair of a woman, so it is not Beethoven's actual hair. So, within the story, there's another story, but that is a story for another story time.

So, and the Hiller Lock was named after his composer friend, Ferdinand Hiller, who, Ferdinand Hiller, who clipped a little lock at Beethoven's deathbed, so, you little liar.

Anyway, fun fact.

And do you know, was it collectors then that had it? Because, obviously, Beethoven, that was a long time ago.

So, it's a variety of different sources, I'm not exactly sure, but I know, yeah, private collectors, cuz the Hiller Lock was actually on display at the Beethoven Center in San Jose, but because it's since been disproven that it's not Beethoven's hair, they took it off of display immediately, which makes sense, like rightfully so.

So yeah, private collectors. I think maybe one or two were actually descendants of the original person who took the hair lock from Beethoven.

Hopefully those were the actual ones.

I know.

Cuz that'd be weird if their great-great-grandfather was like, "Oh, this is Beethoven," and it's not.

Yeah, and it's like, "That's a doggy!" It's Beethoven, the doggy! Full circle. Okay, end.

No. So, to also supplement these hair samples that they had, researchers took saliva samples from five known male Beethoven descendants in Belgium. However, this is going to get sort of sad.

Not like, it's sad if you're one of the people. This, however, slightly backfired, because these five living Beethovens were related to each other, but not the famous composer. A lot has been cleared up with this one study, which is wild, like so much was just figured out, which is really cool, cuz then it's like history and science like coming together, and just like, I love it.

These people are not biologically related to Beethoven. It's not clear which generation the biological link was broken, but they are not biologically related to him. Instead, it's just like through familial connections, but not genetically directly related.

Yeah, yeah. More like cousins, like his…

Kisses and cousins.

But like Beethoven's cousin, maybe. Well, no, not even, genetically, so it'd have to be pre…

It was, what was the term? It was an extra, extra-father, patrilineal, it was something where the mother had another child with another man, but they were taken under the Beethoven wing, so they were raised as Beethovens.

Okay.

If that makes sense. So, they're they're all, I wasn't quite, I'm so not into genetics. Like, I find it fascinating, but I have no idea.

So, it actually would have been someone in his family at some point.

Okay.

So, it could have been before him, could have been after him, but at some point, there was a little branch off. So, okay, so then to wrap up this story, the researchers didn't find any genetic cause for Beethoven's deafness or stomach pain. However, they did find a genetic risk for liver disease, as well as evidence of a hepatitis B infection that at some point in his life he received, unfortunately.

They also stated that when coupled with his quote, "broadly accepted alcohol consumption," apparently it is legendary, I had no idea that Beethoven, I mean, most people drank a shit ton of alcohol in the past because it was just water was disgusting. I just meatballed with this on accident. But it's believed that, combined with the alcohol and then all these liver issues, that's ultimately what caused his death, which really sucks, and that's why he was suffering so much.

So, my question to you is: Do you think we should clone him?

We have to start with Beethoven, the dog. And if that goes smoothly, and if that dog can act like the other one, then, like the original Beethoven, if the clone is as good of an actor in Beethoven 6, or whatever that movie would be now, I don't know how many Beethoven movies there were. Then, we know for, statistically, we have statistic certainty that the original Beethoven would also be brilliant at music.

Yes.

That's how it works, right?

Yes.

Should we clone someone? Cloning people is such a, that's something we could talk about for a long time. I don't even know where to start.

So, how about in a couple minutes.

Yeah.

So, do you think then, if we have these historic, cuz I think we also have like a sample of Abraham Lincoln's hair or something, if we have people from history where we can confirm that this is indeed this person's DNA, do you think we should clone them? And how similar do you think the clone will be to the person? Cuz like I know that some wonky, I don't know why I'm speaking on this issue, I know nothing, but like, just what do you what do you think?

Well, yeah. So, there's two questions. Should humans be cloned?

And then, nature or nurture, is sort of the two-fold. Like, I am very curious about what cloning would be for humans.

Especially a historical figure, I'd be curious.

Well, I would say we'd have to start, it would have to become legal to clone.

Oh, my God. It's going to be like a zoo. You'd have all the clones in like cages and stuff and be like, "Oh, look.

It's Beethoven."

Yeah, well, and like Orphan Black, that show was all about clones. Spoiler alert for the first episode. But, really great show, but it is so fascinating and just, it's hard to say.

It would be, I feel like it's an innate curiosity, just cloning a human in general, to see then how they would, nature versus nurture, sort of turn out. They're not going to be the same, right? Like, especially the hepatitis infection and things.

It's not a guarantee that the, oh, wait, they would actually already have it.

I really wish his chair wasn't farting like that.

Just ignore it.

But that is weird, cuz you're not cloning infant Beethoven, you're cloning Beethoven who has the hepatitis infection, who has these things.

So, I also have a dumb question, because when you clone someone, do you also get the memories?

No.

Okay, I didn't think so. I was just wondering if it was like imprinted in the brain somehow, like within each groove or something.

Yeah. So, because it would be genetically the same, but they would have a new life.

Okay.

So, like, I mean, obviously starting as an infant.

Yeah.

So, then seeing where it goes. So, I would be curious about human cloning, but I don't I don't see it ever being legalized.

Yeah.

And I feel like we're just going to find out like, "Oh, this 60-year-old guy was actually cloned in some country." And we'll be like, "Oh, really?"

"He's been living among us."

And then we'll just sort of see what that means, cuz I don't know what the implications are for cloning someone.

I have all the answers, but I don't know.

But like if I wanted to be cloned, first, that is to want to be cloned is a very, very self grandizing…

Agreed.

Yeah, you have such high self-importance, first, but out of curiosity, if I wanted to be cloned, should I be allowed to be cloned?

Well, I'm not going to go into this other topic, but it's…

It is sort of like having a child, except we're, if in a world where we wanted a child…

Nope.

We would essentially be cloning percentages of each other. So, it's a similar concept, but very different.

Yes.

Yeah, I don't know, just something to ponder, I guess, but I just thought it would be interesting, like if you had a little clone zoo. I'm very anti-zoos also, but…

I don't know about the zoo part. And by, I don't know, no.

There we go. All right, on to the next story.

How else? They do a great job.

Yeah.

I'm glad we purchased that house band for $7 million. All right, so our next story, so this past week, there was an art exhibit that was opened at Gagosian's 976 Madison Avenue location in New York City. But get this, no artists were included in this exhibit.

I have a feeling I know where this is going.

You're going to love this. Why are we both sighing?

So, instead, the exhibition was produced by Bennett Miller, who's a film director, and consisted of works created using DALL-E, which is the image generation platform from OpenAI. So, Jeff is very much going to enjoy this. The exhibition consists of, it's still open, so I was going to say consisted, but it consists of a slew of prints that were created by Miller using DALL-E, like I said.

It's a lot of different subjects. So, this, I'm actually very intrigued by this. It's a very interesting thought.

Oh, no.

I thought you were going to say something. So, it includes landscapes as well as portraits of people, and like, specifically children. There's one haunting photo, I'm actually going to put it up right here just so you can see it.

It looks just like this image by, you might not have any idea who this is, but Julia Margaret Cameron, she was a very early 1850s, I believe, or something, or 1860s, she's a very early photographer and there's this one image of Julia Jackson, who I think was her niece or her cousin or something like that. They look very similar, but whole other, whole other thing, we'll talk about in a second.

So, people have even stated who have been in this gallery to see these images, that they appear to be photographs that were created by a human. But then when you look at them, obviously, you can see, "Oh, this is like a little softer, it kind of has like a hazy quality," or like, something doesn't look quite right. So, thankfully we can still tell that, but we were just talking about this the other night, we're getting closer and closer to possibly not.

I mean, you can barely tell now.

Yes.

Like, you might be like, "Oh, his skin looks a little too shiny," just for the scene, but it is so close.

But if you look quick, you really can't tell, unless it's like really insane. So, the exhibition text also was even partially created using ChatGPT, which is also part of OpenAI. So, I like that it's this entire AI gallery, essentially.

It's just really fascinating. It's interesting. I don't know, well, whatever.

So, none of these artworks are real in a sense, but they are they're not real in the traditional way that we've produced things, but they are real in a new sense. A nuisance. A nuisance.

They are real in that they were actually like created by someone, just not typically how we've thought about these things. And when I was reading this, I was thinking of Walter Benjamin's, "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." It's a theoretical text, I guess you could call it. Or it is.

His whole argument was that like, just to boil it down very, very boiled down, like, anything produced with a camera or a film camera, like either photography or film, like moving pictures, is not art, and it cannot be art because it wasn't made by the human hand. So, it has to be something in like kind of the traditional canon of art, like fine art, where it's painting, sculpture, all that kind of crap, stuff.

I love it, but it's just it's very different.

Crap stuff.

There you go, which is also very significant because Miller stated, the Bennett Miller, the guy who like created all this, he stated that he actually drew upon the dawn of photography for his images. So, that's why some of these images actually look very similar to images that were created at the start, quote unquote, of photography, because that's what he was typing in as his freaking prompts!

Freaking. So, the exhibit appears to have started because Miller is also currently in the process of creating a documentary about AI. So, I like how very meta this is, meta.

But I like including, like making your own gallery exhibition to then, I would assume, create, like create, include in your documentary as well, and having the text be AI. It's just very interesting. I also wonder if he's even going to try to teach AI to edit all the footage together or something.

That would actually be very fascinating. So, how he got to the exhibit, though, and I have a question for you, which is why you're here, Jeff, or the viewer. Miller interviewed numerous different figures involved with AI for this documentary, including Sam Altman, who's the CEO of OpenAI, which led Miller to getting acquainted with DALL-E.

I read in a separate, separate article that he actually got insider access to using DALL-E before anybody else did, which I thought was really cool. So, he kind of got a jump start on this. I read that he also had like five years to work on this, which I don't know if that's actually accurate or not, but he had a couple years to work on this, which is pretty cool.

So, according to the description of the exhibit on Gagosian's website, Miller, quote, "began using the software to reflect on the nature and progression of shifts in the ways we understand representational artwork. The striking results engage the history and format of photography to pose questions around the contingent and enigmatic nature of perception, reality, and truth," end quote.

Because at the time, when photography started, people did not trust it, people did misuse it. Oh, my God, what's his name? I forget his name right now, but there's a guy who literally, Alexander Gardner, I think, I think Gardner was his last name.

But at the start of photography in the 1860s here in America, he actually took bodies and like that happened Okay, I'm not doing a very good job explaining this.

Is this the war photographer? Okay.

Yes, so he made his own scenes by taking dead bodies off of the battlefield of the Civil War and posing them how he wanted to, and he did sell it as being just photographic evidence of the Civil War, but that's the thing, too. It kind of wasn't sold as photographic evidence. So, it's all like intent behind something, which context is key for everything.

So, is it okay if I jump in?

So, what do you think about this exhibit?

Well, I first wanted to say you said it's an exhibit without an artist.

So, it's an exhibit without artists. So, do you classify him as an artist then, like a sandwich artist?

So, the Walter Benjamin guy said a photographer is not an artist.

Yes.

Do you agree with that?

No.

Okay.

So, and that's what I mean, that's why this is confusing for my brain, because I've found myself being that critic, this gets very complicated. I have very complicated feelings inside. But I do not agree with that because I think photography and film,

You don't agree with?

With Walter Benjamin. Like, I do think that photography and film are art forms, because there's so much that goes into it, like sometimes or even oftentimes more than just a painting, because it's like, okay, I put my colors and I plan it out and whatever, and I'm not diminishing painting, it's just there's so much to think about for photography and, I mean, there's a lot to think about with any art medium.

I'm just digging a hole and jumping right into it.

Well, now, so I have a follow-up question, then.

I think just because I've done all of these different art mediums, film and photography feel infinitely more complicated because you have various different technologies to work with to make them all work. Like, we have 80 different fucking things going on right now, but it's working for this podcast, I hope.

Yeah, the depth. It's all perspective, because the depth of a photo when you're setting up lights and you're you're worrying about the sky in that moment, the wind, the all these different things, because that's part of your art, you can

I think because it's that moment, whereas painting, you can try to repaint something. I mean, I know you have a finite amount of times, but you can try to redo it.

Yeah, and that doesn't diminish the art, but they are different things. So, I wanted to say, so you do say that photography and filmmaking, videography, whatever, is an art form?

Yes.

Would you say someone who creates from those photos, say, say a photographer who takes photos into Photoshop and creates fantastical scenes, would that be art?

Yes.

Would it still be art if they didn't take the photos?

Yes, and that's why my opinion on AI-generated art has shifted slightly. I still do have issues with the attribution to artists and everything, but I do, like I've never not thought of it as art, it's just very different. Like, I need to get used to it, I think, also.

We all do, that's what's so weird.

Because it's so like, "Oh, this is like, what?" so I do still struggle with the attribution and I know we've had a lot of discussions about it.

Well, and I just wanted to jump to then the AI art. If you see the camera as a tool to create art, if you see Photoshop or any sort of software as a tool to further create art, I would posit that AI-generated images are the next tool that we'll have to become accustomed to, and I would say this has an artist. It's a different It's a different way that you get to the art, but I would say that, I already forgot his name, but the…

Bennett Miller.

Yeah, so I would say that Bennett Miller is the artist behind this. He's just using the artificial intelligence tool.

Which I would agree. So, yeah, he's the non-artist as a pithy little headline. But it's very interesting, because now the role of artist will shift, and you're almost more of a curator in a way.

Like, it's interesting, so you're essentially painting with your words, because you're trying to attach text to an image. So, if anything, I'm just now realizing this is making being an art historian, or at least just somebody who looks at stuff and spectates stuff, I'm great with words. Even more important, because you have to know how to find what to look for.

It's the same with a Google search, and we've talked about this, where people can't find things on Google or on the internet or anywhere, because they're not asking the right question and they don't know that. And that's totally fine. It's just ignorance on their part and not negative, it's just you don't know what you don't know, so you don't know how to look for something because you don't have the answer because you don't know what to look for because you don't have the answer.

Well, there's a lot of people doing AI prompts, so this is a way to get this type of result. Not even just art, but just chat answers, like how do you frame it so you don't get what everyone else sees? You don't get the, "These are three the three best things about XYZ," which is basically every answer, it feels like.

So, like you really need to get past that, so that is a skill, it's a learned There will be learned behaviors that become commonplace, but right now, it's actually a small, I would say there's a small group of people who know how to use the tool well, and I would then say that's the same as a camera, same as Photoshop or any sort of like software, is anyone can use it, but can you use it well?

Yeah, I think it's just Yeah, I think it's just a new, like there will be classes in art school for sure. This will be a whole major about how to use AI to be creative and how to use it to write your museum labels and how to really describe your work and everything. I don't know, this might actually make people more creative, it'll just be a different type of creativity.

So, it's not going to be, "I'm going to sit down and draw every single thing," but maybe it's, "I need to describe it better." And like for people who can't draw, who want to have drawings out there, who can't paint, but want to have paintings out there, I mean, this could actually be really great, and even people who are differently abled, too, who like physically cannot do certain things, like they could have artwork out in a gallery or something.

Like, that's actually really cool. I never thought about that.

Well, and I could see the value of analog art also sticking around in a way that's different than digital art.

Oh, yeah, cuz it'll be, what's your preference? And then it's like, okay, well, I like I like knowing that this is handmade, cuz it's just like, like pottery or textiles or tapestries, cuz those are like the main things I can think of right now.

And our in-house band.

Yes, that as well. Hello. But having them be handmade and knowing that they're handmade, it has a totally different vibe than being like, "Oh, I bought this at IKEA," or wherever, not a sponsor.

But, just yeah, it's it's more artisanal, I guess you could say. So.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's all just a tool, and the tools constantly change, and it's hard because we want things to remain the same, just innately, like, "This is what I know. This is this is how it's supposed to be." But as the person who is anti-photography, like, really represents, it's like…

Many people.

Yeah, and like, what, there is no supposed to. Like, every- everything is made up and nothing matters. It's something that like I say all the time…

That's true.

Because it like everything, we've we've created and invented everything that we think is how things are supposed to be. Some groups, individuals, whatever, decided, made decisions along the way, and then we say, "This is art, that's not art," and then one day we're like, "This is art and that's art," and I think that's really just what's going to happen.

And I love the subjectivity of what is art, because it makes people really fucking mad when you ask like…

We can't wait for the comments.

Oh, my God. Some of you are real dicks. No.

But yeah, anyway, I just thought this was very interesting. I feel like we're actually going to talk about this way more off this podcast, but for now…

I mean, in other weeks, too, maybe. Stay tuned, subscribe, hit the bell, reminders.

He's my little cheerleader. Thank you. Okay, on to the next story.

Okay, this one's going to be rough. If you're listening to this, Jeff is orchestrating the Oh, sorry, I was too busy conducting.

I forgot Oh, yeah, I was in orchestra, you were in band. Band geek.

Orchestra dork? I don't know, what Orchestras, that's good.

Violin is way cooler than saxophone. Said Kenny G.

I don't need to I have no I know I'm just teasing. Anything towards play I did that. Yeah, I didn't care at all.

I was in fourth grade and my friends were like, "You're not going to be in band?" I'm like, "No." They're like, "You should." I'm like, "Okay." And then they all quit in like a year, and I stuck it out until like high school.

What a trooper. Okay, so our next story, stick with me, this is very complicated, and this is most of the reason why I have Jeff here today.

Oh, I thought it was the last one, okay.

No, it's mostly this one. I wanted to hear your thoughts for the AI one, but then it was mostly this one and I was thinking of just having you come in for this story, but I you're here this whole time, so hello. Okay, so I'm going to do my best to explain this as clearly as possible, for things that I mess up on, we have Jeff here to help.

Another, I keep saying a major NFT case, but yet another major NFT case was dismissed by a judge this week, and this is really, really important because it involves the first ever created NFT. A Canadian company called Free Holdings filed a lawsuit against a man named Kevin McCoy. In the lawsuit, Free Holdings claims that they were the rightful owners of this historic NFT called Quantum, even though Kevin McCoy had sold the NFT in question for $1.5 million at Sotheby's in 2021.

What is going on? Let me give you some background. So, in 2014, this NFT called Quantum was invented by Kevin McCoy and Anil Dash at a conference, and like I stated, this is the first ever NFT created.

Did you know this?

So, I know I didn't the first name I didn't remember, but as soon as you said Anil Dash, then I was like, "Okay, yeah, I do know about when this happened."

Okay. So, this is a video clip made by McCoy's wife, Jennifer, and if you're watching this, I'll have this on the screen, but right now, I'm just showing it to Jeff on the computer screen just so you can see. This is what it is.

It's just a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 an octagon of variety of different octagons pulsing in and out, various different colors, and it's switching back and forth very quickly. It's kind of what like an acid trip would look like, I would imagine, I haven't done acid, yet, maybe. So, it's just It's very It's like when you like close your eyes, and if you see like the firework kind of things in your eyes and you have like all the colors and stuff, kind of looks like that.

Anyway, I like it, I think it's fun. So, that was that. So, McCoy had minted this NFT on a blockchain called Namecoin, which is a blockchain software modeled from Bitcoin's code.

Are you familiar with Namecoin?

So, I'm not familiar I don't know how long that's stuck around, but I do I feel like I'm interrogating you. Where were you on this date? Because like right now, an NFT is an ERC-721 on Ethereum.

That's a very specific This is why I have him here. Yeah, it's a very specific thing. It I mean, I say that on the Ethereum blockchain, it's specifically a 721 or an 1155, but then you have Solana and other chains.

So, what an NFT is a question, and I feel like that's where we're going.

Okay, so this Yes. So, we will explain everything that Jeff just said in a moment, cuz I also get quite confused. So, okay, so, McCoy, in 2014, minted this NFT called Quantum on Namecoin.

Namecoin registrations, though, must be renewed regularly, so about every 222 days is what I saw on their website. Most art- other articles that I read said between 200 and 250, so, Does it still exist, Namecoin?

Yes. I don't fully understand it, though.

Okay.

So, they still exist. So if someone doesn't renew their registration, though, it's free for somebody else to claim it and then claim ownership over it, which is very odd. I don't quite understand.

Yeah, that's confusing, because they did it like a domain name, like for websites.

Exactly.

So, I don't know. I wonder how that works. That doesn't…

It literally doesn't make any sense to me, but this is just what I've read. So, Free Holdings, the company that is suing Kevin McCoy, claims that in 2015, the year after McCoy had first minted Quantum, that he actually failed to update his records, and so Free Holdings was able to claim the Quantum blockchain record on Namecoin.

So, this is where it gets even trickier. To prepare for the sale of Quantum, cuz like I said, Kevin McCoy sold Quantum at Sotheby's in 2021, how the fuck did he do that? With Sotheby's, he minted Quantum on the Ethereum blockchain.

So, then they said that the original had been burned or destroyed when the registration lapsed. So, he also preserved the on-chain data that was once held on Namecoin to the Ethereum blockchain. So, then, just to give you the full picture, so this is kind of where it gets split a little bit on the issue.

I do have to just pause for one second.

Yes.

The "it was burned on Namecoin" is verifiable.

Yes.

So, that's strange. And let's see, I don't know how Namecoin works, but it should be On any other blockchain, everything is verifiable. So, you can't hide.

You can't hide anything. Like, you can track every single thing that's being done on blockchain.

This is This is not it.

I don't know where we left off. But we just did a little a little research to try to understand how Namecoin works. And it's based on Bitcoin, but they reference it like it's a database, a name value pair, which then…

So, what is that?

I don't know if that means that they store the data separately and that's why you need to renew, or if it's truly on the blockchain. Because the data should be on the blockchain, which means whoever holds that record would be the owner of the NFT, but also it wasn't an NFT at the time. Like that wasn't a Maybe he may have coined the term, or they may have coined the term NFT, non-fungible token.

They may have at that time. I don't remember for sure, but what we consider an NFT now, that wasn't yet. It wasn't standardized.

Right.

So, it becomes really confusing. Like, so you should be able to see who owns it, that should be verifiable. But it's possible if Namecoin isn't quite as If it doesn't operate in quite the same way that we expect tokens to operate, then it's just all up in the air.

So, what I was able to kind of figure out…

Cuz I do have one more question about it, too.

Is that Namecoin functions by assigning a token a name that's associated with a public key or a string of numbers that assigns ownership of the NFT, whereas with the Ethereum blockchain, you have the smart contract and then the actual like NFT which shows ownership of it, cuz then you have the whole log, essentially, of anyone who's ever owned it.

Yeah. So, I guess the question is different. I think we have a different question.

Okay.

So, we're asking legally, like they're suing because they own it, but I think the question is, is Sotheby's selling the original mint? Or is it that they're selling the digital file that was the first digital file ever created as an NFT? Because if you're looking at it as that, so this these are the artists who created it.

They now are taking their code, putting it on Ethereum, which is now a new NFT, it's a new token, brand new. Look at his smile. You know his smile.

I actually have all of this written down, which is really cool. I feel proud of myself.

Good, yeah. So, like, is it because the NFT is a record, especially with most NFTs, an image or a video or code, most of the time isn't actually on the blockchain. Most NFTs are stored on a web server.

So, what'll happen is if that web server goes, not 100%, but a lot of them, if that web server is ever not paid for, all these images are gone, which is something that isn't talked about as much. So, you would you would own the reference to it.

Oh, and that's kind of what happened to Namecoin, then, cuz he didn't re-register, which is odd to me.

Yes, but it that See, it's just that's confusing, because it's a little different. Like, I don't know how Namecoin It feels like Namecoin is sort of saying, "We're we're storing your data on a database, you must renew it for us to keep it," is sort of how it sounds. But then it's blockchain, so it's public, so I don't really know what that means for Namecoin.

So, this is very weird, which is mostly why I wanted to have you here, cuz I was like, "I just don't understand this at all." so there are like three different interpretations that are kind of centering around this case specifically as to what the hell the NFT actually is. So, one is that the NFT is the asset in question, so that is like the token.

The other, or another one, states that when it's moved from one blockchain to another, so in this case Namecoin to Ethereum, that's creating a whole new NFT on a whole new blockchain. The judge did have a ruling, as I said, and they went with the second definition, arguing that Free Holdings failed to make a convincing argument as to why they were entitled to Quantum as it existed on the Ethereum blockchain, which could be proved by their pre-registered receipt, which represents a wholly different NFT.

So, TLDR, the judge was just like, "No, you, Free Holdings, the company, you don't own this, the Kevin McCoy guy did because it was a new NFT on a new blockchain." So, it's exactly basically what you said.

Yeah. Well, and also that was a case against…

Also, I'm so sorry if you don't care about NFTs at all, because this is probably a slog.

There's also a case against Bored Ape Yacht Club, because…

Many.

But the one specifically where a guy minted all of the Bored Apes, and then sold them. And the argument was that an NFT can't be duplicated, because an actual token cannot be duplicated. Like, that string of characters that, essentially string of characters, but like that reference to that token, there is no way to duplicate it.

We talked about that on this podcast.

But then you can just attach any image to it. So, the argument was that he wasn't duplicating and selling the Bored Apes, he was selling new tokens that were connected to images that looked the same. I don't know how that one turned out.

I don't remember.

Yeah, I don't remember either.

Yeah, it's all, just like AI-generated art, it's all so murky, because there's no We haven't decided this is how it is. Yeah, and we haven't agreed upon what we're making up is the actual "this is fact" and we all agree with it.

I'm actually kind of shocked that it was dismissed, because I thought the judge had actually ruled in favor of the company and be like, "Well, yeah, like you have ownership," but they also,

It's hard, because then…

They don't. It's a totally different They're like two NFTs.

You're saying the artist, you're almost saying the artist was stolen from, and you have to re- You have to give the, like he wasn't stolen from, but you're almost, cuz he never sold it. He didn't sell it to this company. So, you're almost saying this company found a way to acquire this piece of art, therefore they're entitled to all the money that would come from it.

Right.

So, it's a weird thing. And it's not theft, it's definitely not theft, but it's a strange…

Well, yeah, it's to prevent squatters, I know. I'm guessing, cuz then if you said it's like a domain, then every 222 days, then it would be…

So, it said it was a number of blocks, so it's just how their system works. So, it's not even based on days, it's based on how many transactions happen.

Oh.

So, in theory, if there were a If Namecoin became the chain that was used for everything, you probably could never renew fast enough.

Oh, my God.

Because like, yeah, it just It doesn't scale. It's not That's why Ethereum's completely new smart contracts and all that.

Glad for Ethereum. Good. Okay, well, also check out my NFT projects.

Yeah, The Spoopies and The Dours. She will link them down below.

If I remember.

If you remember. We will see.

Okay, so.

And also, just for clarity, Ethereum has NFTs, Solana has NFTs, Tezos has NFTs, and I believe Cardano can have NFTs. Cardano's not common for it, but those are the three major ones: Ethereum, Solana, and Tezos. And people have done things with Bitcoin where they call it, I wish I could remember the term right now, but recently they did something to put like CryptoPunks and things on Bitcoin, but it's really like what you call an NFT is generally on one of those three chains.

Yes.

Just for clarity.

Thank you. And I just spit.

Yes, you did, but that's fine. Thank you.

Thank you for everything.

You are welcome.

All right, in-house band, we're on our last story.

I'm really glad I asked you to be on here for that last part, because I was so confused. I couldn't figure out how Namecoin functioned. I was like, I've never seen anything like this, and I'm so not versed well in NFTs and crypto.

You're way well-versed.

Well, yeah. And, I mean, that was the thing, too, is though that duo said, "Since this exists and this is a record with data, we can store data on there." So, that means we could store anything, including digital art. So, yeah, so it set the stage for what later became CryptoPunks, later became NFTs as we know them now.

Yes. Okay, so we are leaving Crypto Land, and we are headed to Gay Paris in the 1880s. So, an art historian named James Hall, a professor at Southampton University, and who was a former art critic for the Guardian, states that he has a new theory that Van Gogh's painting, The Starry Night, you have seen it many a time, I am sure, but here it is just for your information, that The Starry Night may have actually been influenced by the Eiffel Tower.

So, my dear Jeffrey, that's what it looks like. So, that would be the Eiffel Tower.

It's plausible.

I don't know. Okay. Let's just get into it.

So, let me just say that, for some reason, the sky in Paris is magical, and I don't understand why it's so It seems like it's always magical.

So, there's a Let me just spit some facts to you. However, I believe you. I ain't never been to Paris.

Spit those facts.

Okay. So, the Eiffel Tower was construct- Just for some background, just so we're all on the same page, the Eiffel Tower was constructed from 1887 to 1889, with The Starry Night being completed in 1889, I think like June 1889, and the Eiffel Tower was finished like May 1889, and it debuted for the Exposition Universelle, or like essentially just the World's Fair.

There were a fuck ton of World's Fairs from like 1850 to 1910, as you're very well aware of. He's heard me talk at nausea.

Do you know when the last one was?

Oh, God, it was like 2016 or 18 or something like that. It's I don't know exactly when, I'm more versed in the beginnings of the World's Fair, but they happen like every year basically. The exposition opened in May 1889, and Hall, the guy who's positing this whole theory, argues that Van Gogh, who started this series of paintings in June 1889, may have actually been influenced by the light show that accompanied the Eiffel Tower.

So, there was a whole late night show of pyrotechnics, electric light, and explosions, that Hall says are, quote, "repeated in the pyrotechnical music of the stars, sky, and clouds in The Starry Night." I like that little It just sounded beautiful. And he continued, quote, "For Van Gogh, the cypress tree is a natural alternative to the Eiffel Tower, the centerpiece of the exhibition.

Starry Night is a rural and cosmic counterpart to the light show that marked the opening of the exhibition," end quote. So, why does he think this? Because it's like, okay, Van Gogh was in France at that time, he was in Paris at that time.

But that's kind of like the only connection. It's interesting, though, because I when I first saw this, I was like, "Bullshit! Like, I don't fucking believe that." But then I was like, "No, like hear it out, like don't be so just judgmental and negative like some of you assholes are on TikTok, but I digress.

I could not really find a great reasoning for this, just to be fully honest, because I want to approach this with a super open mind, but a few, there were a few different things that were laid out in this article. Also, I should point out, this is a teaser for the actual article that's coming out in April, so this is just A teaser article?

So, people are writing about this article coming out in April before it's actually out, because Is it coming out in a journal? Is that what Yes. It's coming out in a journal.

It's coming out in the Burlington Magazine, so I'm actually very intrigued, but this is how you generate enthusiasm and interest in your article, because nobody reads academic articles, except for me and like two other people on this planet. So,

A few different reasons I held up three, but just a few different reasons as to why Hall thinks that Van Gogh was influenced by the Eiffel Tower. One of them includes that Van Gogh was obsessed with ancient Egypt. The Eiffel Tower was marketed when it debuted as even more impressive than the pyramids, so that's one.

Another is that in 1886, when Van Gogh arrived in Paris, a competition to build the monument had just launched and was won by Gustave Eiffel, hence Eiffel Tower, and that its plans and preparation were constantly in the news, so it could just be if you're consistently hearing about it, it's just supplanted in your subconscious or implanted, rather.

The final reasoning given by Hall, and again, this is very brief and very like surface level, so I'm hoping in the article he goes way more in depth, but the final one was that by the time Van Gogh had left Paris in February 1888, cuz he went like to the countryside, construction of the Eiffel Tower had risen above the skyline.

So, basically, it kind of just felt like a whole lot of nothing in the article. I'm still curious to hear this, because I don't want to discredit it at all, because it could actually be like, "Oh, wow. No, that like totally makes sense." but I think basically what he's suggesting is that Van Gogh got so caught up in all of the excitement about not only like the exposition, but also the tower being constructed, that he just became obsessed with it, possibly.

Like, nowhere in his journals or his letters does it seem that he's like obsessed with it. I don't know, I haven't read the letters in a very long time and I don't remember the Eiffel Tower popping up that much. Like I said, I'm not I'm not pooh-poohing this theory, but I just thought it was a very interesting story cuz if it is real, then that could be really cool.

What do you think looking at The Starry Night? Cuz I kind of see it, but it's also it feels like such a stretch, like it feels like it was just supposed to be something That there is the hill. Like, what is the What?

Like, Montmartre, how do you say it? Montmartre. That.

So, there is like it's plausible. I think more than Well, so this is of a village. Yeah, but it's plausible that if it was based on it, that this is his reimagining.

Oh, yeah, and that's why they're saying like this is all like this Yeah, like fireworks and things. Yeah, and off obviously for a long time it's been attributed to Van Gogh's varied mental states, and like sort of psychosis, where he could see various different things moving that typically don't move. So, like I would say it's plausible, but I think more than anything, if, not if, well, no, if, if this generates as much interest as it seemingly has, there are going to be a lot of theories posited by everyone who writes about art.

Yes. That's what I like I think this is just opening the door for everyone to say, "No, no, no, this is this is definitely this, I know it's this." That's kind of what I was thinking as well, like, I think it's a fascinating idea, because, to my knowledge, nobody has ever really connected the two, so And question everything, I think that's a good just general framework, is to question things.

I totally agree, like I think it's just very fascinating and to not immediately just discredit this person and just be like, "No, like you're a dingus," and just be like, "Well, no, like let's hear it out and let's think it out, and then we can decide after they present all the facts." Because I think so many people, especially nowadays, are so quick to be like, "Nope, wrong," and then it's like, "Well, hear them out.

It could actually be really interesting, and at least you have something to talk about then later with your friends or whatever and be like, 'This fucking idiot.'" anyway, so,

Thank you for listening. This was a much longer episode than I meant, so I apologize, but thank you very much for listening. Again, like I said at the beginning of the episode, I truly appreciate it.

Any support that you have, whether it's liking, subscribing, sharing, on Patreon, also, if you participate in that, thank you so much. And thank you to my best friend co-host, Jeff Sarris, or, I guess, guest host. Thank you for being on this episode, I appreciate all of your input, it was very helpful, and I'm Amara Andrew.

I'm Jeff Sarris.

Never stop creating. We did it, sugar tits.

Boom.

Yoink.

Badoinkie.

Bye.