Ethernals is a series of avatar oil paintings based off of some of the DAOs Autoglyphs.
Ethernals is a series of avatar oil paintings based off of some of the DAOs Autoglyphs.
I personally like them. I’d like to see the story the artist mentioned he would write as background for the characters.
I think they could work great as pfps. Perhaps this isn’t up to par with the DAO’s main collection though, and I think we should formalize some sort of “experimental” workshop within our structure.
Agree with having an experimental workshop for projects that don’t necessarily fit with the core collection. If we can put them in that category, I’m voting yes, as I like them a lot also.
I joined Fingerprints because of its unrivaled collective commitment toward strong provenance/story (most dont buy art they buy stories), and having a strong on chain portfolio. This just feels like a complete miss, and isnt very strong as a standalone derivative. Without autoglyphs are these truly special? I dont think they are, even with glyphs as “inspiration.”
Stopping short of upset towards even voting on these, I dont really understand why there is support for this…did I completely misjudge/misunderstand this DAO?
Hi - I’m newer here so still learning but here’s my thoughts on the threads around this project.
We’re too young not to experiment. What interests me more whether or not this exact artist/project makes sense is how we’ll experiment with projects like Avid Lines as a process. If we want to do some regularly how do we set up that cadence and discussion? I read through the #lab channel and it looks like this has been in progress for months. By this point any yes/no vote I’d want to be complete so am supporting this project based on how I’d like our DAO to proceed vs. what I think of this exact project.
This exact project does make me wonder how we create a series of artist projects that utilize the autoglyphs to their fullest. I do feel it is a bit tacked on here and less central than Avid Lines but don’t understand the exact creation process for the Ethernals.
One of the (IMO) positive things about the NFT world is that it undermines the difference between art and other things like collectibles. That said, one of this DAO’s strengths is that the collection and previous projects have a high degree of conceptual and visual rigor. These avatars are cute but seem to lack that rigor. I think even our experiments should push the “state of the art” forward and not be reactive to popular trends, so I vote no.
Personally, I feel like the whole “Labs” model should be slightly reevaluated with the recent expansion of the curation board. It’s not clear who previously green-lit the artists project in there - was it the prior curation board itself, DT by himself, or some combo of the two? Feel like the larger DAO has been kept in the dark in terms of how that process went down previously.
I’m all for being experimental, but this doesn’t feel like it reaches the kind of standards for collection we’ve had thus far. I know this would be separate from the Prints collection itself, but we’d still be essentially giving this a big ole’ stamp of approval if we were to promote it via Labs. Which concerns me.
If the intent with Labs is to create a vehicle for AB Factory-esque drops, I still feel like we need to rethink the process in which artists are accepted into it as a whole given the new curation board. I wouldn’t have given this the green-light myself, as I simply don’t think it meets the standards of something that should have the Fingerprints backing. It feels off-brand.
Lastly, I simply don’t see the direct link to how these are connected to/inspired Autoglyphs at all. There’s no visual ties that make me think “Autoglyphs” when looking at these.
I mean no disrespect to the artist with these comments, but these don’t tick of many of the boxes we’ve previously established. If the “Curation Committee is to discuss relevant, forgotten, and “hot” smart contracts as art”, as per our Gitbook, why not focus Labs projects on finding up and coming on-chain/gen-artists, and giving them a shot?
I’m not voting here, but I’d like to chime in that I also am unsure of the goals of the Lab and haven’t heard much about the intention for these works specifically? They could work well as gifts to glyph holders that participated in the Avid Lines drop or have some other use, but I am unsure if we should sell them or auction them as a DAO… was that the intention?
I guess my proposed first point of action would be to establish a conversation about what kind of content the DAO should be putting out in the world? Should it be writing and research, should it be contracts for artists to use, should it be art? If we want to be commissioning art, what kind of art should it be and how should it be distributed? I think it is good the Avid Lines drop went over well but I do think it was released without much connection to long-term goals or intentions. I am all for iterative experimentation, so long as it is tied to long-term intention and purpose!
Great points. Should we perhaps revisit and clarify/add detail to the DAO’s general mission / strategy? And then break it down in plans?
I like these avatars quite a bit, but echo a lot of the comments here that it isn’t clear to me at all on what basis and with what goals the DAO wants to support and associate itself with this project, and others like it. I feel quite similarly about Avid Lines. I understand the logic is in part that “it builds on the Autoglyphs brand”, but any number of things might.
On the one hand, the DAO brands itself has having an extremely high bar and commitment to excellence - i.e. if I may quote @samspike:
"There are only a handful of projects out there that achieve this kind of conceptual integrity. But that is normal in art. Great work is extremely rare. True coherence is extremely rare. "
But then it is also dabbling in these side projects with what seems to be a lack of a clear vision for them.
I think the key here is simply outlining more clearly the scope of the Labs program. I think the DAO could give grants to artists, or run an “Inspired by Autoglyphs” open call, or do Artblocks-style drops, all w/o endorsing any of the projects directly, or associating or risk diluting the brand of its main collection.
So I would like to see the DAO move forward with the project - after clarifying what it is it wants to do here.
I see the Ethernals project as an artist absorbing the ethos of fingerprintsDAO and our genesis collection of autoglyphs, and under that inspiration and influence, creating something completely new which (a) expands the fingerprints universe, (b) tell a story about this moment of time and the existing cultural artifacts and (c) further establishes autoglyphs as a north star in this landscape we’re part of.
These are beautiful artworks, painted by hand by a talented artist over weeks (were you paying attention to his iterations and updates?), artworks that in 1, 5, 10 years from now folks will experience and absorb this special moment we’re living today which served as its seed.
This is not the same as e.g. avidlines, a tech innovation, way to establish fingerprint’s presence in this ecosystem with also a great financial outcome, and that’s more than ok, we’re not a profits first organization.
This is IMO validation for the Labs channel, anyone with major expectations different than what has happened so far relating to that channel is in my opinion a bit off the mark, it’s a breeding ground for creativity, for artists to feel comfortable, collaborate, share WIP and create new value together under the fingerprints roof, supported by the fingerprints collective. To insist every project should follow a certain thesis or guidelines, is to kill the soul of the artists interested in being involved, this is not a product factory, it’s an artists playground, and we’re succeeding at creating new narratives, valuing artists contributions and expanding our cultural vocabulary.
Don’t overthink it.
Let’s not make everything about objective outcomes, processes, frameworks, let creativity flourish, let it be messy, appreciate it.
I voted yes.
Great points adrianleb, you might have hit the nail in the head.
I think that simply ignoring this artist (which obviously put a lot of effort making this) might send a bad signal.
Again, I still think this isn’t up to par with our main collection, which doesn’t mean we can’t show support for this in any way.
I think we should at least post it in our twitter and show a little support; nothing too serious.
We’re not buying them after all, the artist will kindly give us one (I choose the blue one).
Let’s not be too serious all the time. This attitude harms the atmosphere of creativity and cooperation we want to incentivize within our DAO, and makes people afraid of presenting their ideas. We can’t have that.
I feel that there’s a misunderstanding here. I see the comments above judging the project from a curation perspective. As far as I know this is not about a curation/collection decision, it’s a project decision, right?
I’m totally in partnering with artists to create projects that dialogue with the DAO assets or ethos. Otherwise we would not partner with any artist at all, since our collection curation bar is extremely high
I see your point, but at the very least we should hear from the artist or understand what the intention for these is before voting whether to move forward. Since you voted yes, is your idea that the artist would sell them and we would tweet about it? Or that we would take ownership of them and sell them or gift them over time? or some other approach?
I think you’re spot on here. Perhaps some of the confusion is arising from the fact that we all understand very different things by the term ‘move forward’.
Personally speaking I don’t have a clear understanding of what that means in this context and would welcome any further information that brings light to this!
I’m agree with David about the term " moving forward" …
Moreover, Like some of us, I’m neither agree this work has its place in the fingerprints thesis, neither sensible to the pure artwork personnaly …
So it may be considered like a side, enhanced or endorsed project of the DAO,but not a “branded” project
I mentioned this in the members lounge, it’s not clear on what we are voting on. My recommendation is to void this vote, rewrite what we are voting on (be very specific) and reopen the vote for 72 hours. IMO the vote, as per the initial post that sparked this conversation, should pose the question “do we want to release this work publicly as an official FingerPrintsDAO release.” I do believe it’s also important to note that Ethernals could still “move forward” even if the vote determines NO on a public launch. For example, an idea could be exclusive member option to buy before public sale. We have yet to introduce a member benefit like this so this could be a first.
agreed that this should be rewritten
Ok, I think we should then void and close this vote, write a proper project proposal and redo it in a new topic, clarifying what’s expected of FingerprintsDAO and what would a “launch” or “endorsement” of Ethernals look like.