Emergent Properties

それは「世界にひとつ」を探す旅 ———

■ There are as many ‘One and Only’ as there are lives.

1. Prologue: Welcome to the Nostalgia Exhibition

If you are a “Contemporary Art…what?” person, it is nice to meet you. If you are a “I have seen that dull old man before” person, it is pleasure to meet you again. I am photographer/contemporary artist Itsuki Kujo!

The theme of this exhibition is nostalgia, a remake of the “Meteoroscape Exhibition” held in 2017, and we are looking forward to reminiscing with old photographs. I’d be pleased if you look back at the past and learn about the present.

And, while we’re at it, let’s settle the dispute that began with the “Meteoroscape Exhibition” here! I’m sure you’ll agree.

Let me get this straight. What I wanted to show in the “Meteoroscape Exhibition” was actually a certain concept (Conceptual Art). It was ‘to create One and Only by an Individual’. Since, it was believed that there was only one way to be the One and Only at the time.

That is, ‘One and Only which is decided by a King’. The King, which means the hierarchy, such as states and large corporations, decides the ‘Original’ One and Only and manages its reproduction. This is the foundation of our world and our lives.

Therefore, we have overlooked the another way of being that must be taken for granted.

In order to take this method from the metaphysical to the physical, I came up with the idea of ‘sharing transaction history on the Internet, where anyone can view it’. I thought that if I applied the Bitcoin system that was being touted at the time, not only to money, but to all things, it would be possible to realize the idea of ‘creating One and Only by an Individual’.

OK. If you are a “…I don’t know what you are talking about!” person, what I want to tell you first is why the hell we need this kind of thing.

To put it simply, it is to avoid a dystopian future.

Even now, most of our food, clothing, and shelter are reproduced stuffs. The replicable realm that the further evolution of computers, the Internet, and AI will bring about in the future may well be the human being itself.

If we had only the social model of ‘One and Only which is decided by a King’ when it becomes close to, if not perfect, then the ‘King’, the agent of human morality, will have no choice but to control the realm of reproducibility that leads to the human being itself.

This is because unbridled reproductions would damage the value of the Original.

If duplicated music data ripped from CDs is distributed over the Internet, there will be no one left to buy CDs, and instead idol groups that sell them as handshake tickets will take over the industry and there will be no more stray musicians. To prevent this, individual ownership of CDs must be stopped and replaced by unified streaming distribution through subscriptions, but while such new technology is very convenient, there is a danger that if something happens, all works can be deleted at the command of an administrator and their existence erased without a trace.

This is an example. If this situation continues, the more the reproducible area expands, the more powerful control will be needed, not only over music, but also over everything else. To that extent, people will be forced to give up their freedom and independence. The end result will be a dystopian future in which immense power will be concentrated in the hands of a few, and the many will live in fear lest they be erased from existence.

Isn’t this the end of the “One and Only which is decided by a King” model?

If you are a “I am a good king, so that’s not true” person, please visit our Twitter account. If you are intentionally going through the motions, I’ll take that as your complete admission 😉 (I am, in fact, an example of one of those ‘disappeared’ people myself).

And ‘to create One and Only by an Individual’ is the antithesis of that.

In 2017, it was still a theoretical idea, but in 2022, it has come to the point of citizenship with Bitcoin as “NFT” (actually, I just published the idea, so this is just my personal opinion, though). At any rate, this is a happy ending. It’s wonderful….

But the story does not end here. The story doesn’t end here, because gradually more and more people are beginning to believe that Bitcoin, not let alone NFT, has no value and is a scam.

2. ‘One and Only’ made by an Individual

Our world, the social model on which it is based, ‘One and Only which is decided by a King’. Is this not the cause of wealth, fame, power, and the coming dystopia? Gold Kujo, the “Pirate King,” foresaw the future of the world and harbored suspicion. His dying words drove the people of the world to the sea. “My treasure? If you want it, I’ll give it to you… find it! I left everything in the world there!” The men (and women) continue to pursue their dreams, aiming for the Grand Line.

The world is truly in the great NFT era—!

Itsuyuki: “What is it…can you please stop starting ‘We are!’ in the middle of a sentence?” … the chapter “There are as many ‘One and Only’ as there are lives.” begins from here.

So, the story goes that the Naval Headquarters, which is directly under the World Government, has recently been cracking down on the Four Bitcoin Emperors and NFT pirates in the name of absolute justice.

But why is this happening? Is it because Bitcoin and NFT are piracy and a crime? Is it because it is impossible for an individual to create a One and Only in the first place?

“It’s finished.”

But wait a minute. Speaking from the standpoint of the author of “Original and Reproduction”, isn’t it true that contrary to the aforementioned purposes, there are now a number of misunderstandings and confusions, and that is why the crackdown is being carried out? If it’s just one shot, it could be a misfire.

And I still want to refute that and solve it. Otherwise, the seeds of hope that have just sprouted will be crushed.

Therefore, I have published “Individuality and Emergent Properties” (this essay is a part of it), which is a counterpart to “Original and Reproduction,” in order to clear up the great misunderstandings and confusions one by one.

…What is the misunderstanding? Why did it happen?

3. Cause of Misunderstanding #1 Confusion

Once upon a time, n years ago, in my coterie magazine ” Original and Reproduction,” I described the concept of “creating One and Only by an Individual” with a long preface and a simple sentence. That simple sentence was: “Sharing transaction history prevents counterfeiting”. That is all. However, there are three prerequisites to implement this sharing.

  • Assumption 1: The overall volume is initially determined and does not change.
  • Assumption 2: The minimum price (cost value) is determined by size, i.e., the amount of commitment of both the producer and the transferee.
  • Assumption 3: Transaction history is public and can be viewed by anyone.

It seems simple enough that there is no way to misunderstand. However, looking at the way things are going, even putting aside the elementary mistake of increasing the overall amount after the fact, there are apparently misunderstandings. And one of them is caused by the fact that things that are not mentioned here are brought up. In other words, it seems to be occurring because of the confusion between the ‘One and Only which is decided by a King’ model and the ‘creating One and Only by an Individual’ model.

Let me explain again from the ‘King decides’ model. In this model, the King establishes a sacred and inviolable ‘Original’ at the beginning and then ‘Reproduce’ it. It is the reproduction that is transferred, and the king controls and manages it so that it is not reproduced again unchecked. You may have been tired of hearing this so many times.

In contrast, the ‘Individual creation’ model does not describe such content in the first place. In the initial stages, ‘Original and Reproduction’ are not segregated. Things to be transferred are neither sacred nor inviolable. It could be a duplicate, or an object that was brought from some other island without permission, or worse, it could be electronic garbage that is dumped in the ocean.

So, the NFT does not fall into your point of view that the transfer is digital data and can be reproduced as much as you want. This theory is invincible.

If you are a “What…invincible again? I don’t understand what you mean.” person, how about putting it this way?

In other words, you considered that what is transferred must be ‘Original’ thing, that is where the misunderstanding lies.

“What? If it is not ‘Original’, isn’t it still fraud?” You may think so, but think about it again. In the state of nature, is there such a thing as sacred and inviolable from the beginning? No, there is not. What swims in the sea is a live fish that (to the average person) cannot be sorted out one by one, and there is no such ridiculous thing as a swimming fillet that has been sorted out for each fishing ports or families.

And yet, fish with a price on it are sold in supermarkets every day, aren’t they? I think the reason for this is that the catch for the day is determined at the opening time of the market, various market forces are at work, and then the original value is set at a reasonable level.

These are the three assumptions I described above.

It may not occur to you if you live in the secondary or tertiary industries, where people solemnly follow the price determined by the ‘King’ who controls pricing, but in the primary industries, this process is common and quite natural.

So what I did was to reproduce its protocol using a civilized device like the Internet, which can be applied in the same way to reproductions of photographs, and if made more compact, can be operated by individuals as well.

I was simply pointing out that this is the ‘Individual creation’ model.

4. Cause of misunderstanding #2 Emergent Properties

But when you put it this way, it sounds so boring…don’t you think so? It is so easy to take shortcuts in thinking that it is difficult to understand the difference and the big picture.

When you learn something, you may feel “the long way around was always the shortest route”.

For example, in a normal auction, information is shared only with a limited number of market participants, whereas the scope of information sharing here includes the entire world. And as I see it, this ‘unlimited sharing’ using the Internet is a kind of pseudo ‘dimension’ (*1).

I thought something very interesting is happening here. It is an ‘Emergent Properties’ effect, in which the ‘Original’ source is suddenly differentiated from the undifferentiated state of the jumble.

‘Emergent Properties’ refers to the phenomenon in which a collection of things that are originally nothing more than a collection of things somehow develop individuality and begin to move (*2). There are many wine farmers in France, but the wine produced in Bordeaux, especially red wine from Médoc, is said to be exceptionally tasty and becomes a brand name, right? Of course, types of grape is different, growing environment is different , and people who are responsible for the difference is different, but at any rate, the differences become recognizable.

If you think about it, isn’t this the very action of ‘Life’ or ‘Consciousness’, which somehow separates the outside and the inside of an undifferentiated thing by forming a membrane that separates the outside and the inside, and somehow begins to work with it?

I then summarized the similarities between the manifestation of life and the ‘Individual creation’ model, and discussed it in relation to the “Schrödinger’s cat” problem as an example. That was the “シュレーディンガーのパラソル展” (*3).

“Schrödinger’s cat” is not only a hot topic in quantum theory, but it is also an excellent examination of the ‘Individual creation’ model, and it was interesting because it gave me a view of the world.

Unfortunately, however, it also led to another misunderstanding.

This is, I think, because consciousness is not a matter that has been clarified by scientific experiments. The fact that a non-scientist proposed a hypothesis only increased the impression of dubiousness. I regret it a little…

However, I was able to point out, at a minimum, that there must be two dimensions in this world, one physical dimension that can be clarified by scientific experiments, and another dimension that is different from it, and that there must be multiple layers of action in each of these dimensions. I believe that I was able to explain, to some extent, why the model of ‘Individual creation’ requires preconditions.

Moreover, this can be easily proven by simply pointing out that mathematics is metaphysics. People are completely unaware of this fact, even though they use it constantly.

So, please refer to that discussion and the supplementary explanation of the science of consciousness and its history (*4), and understand that even if the ‘emergence’ of individuality is not scientifically understood at present, we can only say that it is inevitable because reality is actually so.

In other words, to assume that the world is complete with physics and everything other than that is unjust, that is misunderstanding.

Itsuyuki: “…What? You say the mind is an algorithm? Then why does the algorithm exist? That’s just rewording ‘mind’ as ‘algorithm’, isn’t it?”

5. [Column] On the Pan-Oneness of Consciousness

“Consciousness has pan-oneness, so the ‘Individual creation’ model works in reality.” Such explanation cannot had been worked for people at all, which I miscalculated. Though as far as I knew, it was obvious that my consciousness is ‘One and Only’ and that it is my own.

Well, who knows what gadgets will be created in the future?

But for now, even if I meditate with one of my left and right eyes, my consciousness does not become different from each other (I do not regain my memories or change my personality by unsealing my “Evil Eye”), nor does my consciousness suddenly leave my body and wake up somewhere far away, nor does it replace itself with that of a college girl. Nor does it create a shadow alter ego that duplicates the same consciousness so that one can work and the other can make out with my waifu, Hinata-ttebayo? No.

Therefore, my consciousness as n=1 is ‘One and Only’ and others as n+1, n+2, n+3, … must be like that as well = pan-oneness.

However, some people don’t seem to think so easily. Preach the denial of others. Their theory insists only you are conscious, the rest are illusions, philosophical zombies. Others, on the other hand, believe that we are not conscious in the first place and that our nerve cells simply reflect outside stimuli. They derive a self-denying theory that consciousness is a self-created illusions.

Itsuyuki: “…How much do these people love illusions! Do they see illusions every day? Is this a world of swords and sorcery? If that’s the case, then we must be friends already!”

So, it is the role of men to seriously worry about such things and say, “I think, therefore I am,” while women look at them coldly and say, “You should work if you have time to worry about such things!” Because women are the ones who are to have baby and take care of it, if possible. And don’t forget babies are to start speaking with different consciousness.

Anyway, even identical twins, who are said to have the same DNA, will never have the same consciousness even if they are raised in the same way, and since each has a different consciousness, it is not difficult to imagine that different effects are at work in the physical world. Or is it not?


6. Cause of misunderstanding #3 Value

By the way, after all this explanation, we realize that there is one more serious misconception. That is the issue of ‘value’. Since, the term ‘One and Only’ can mean either that it is numerically one, or that it is rare and very valuable.

Perhaps it is because we live in a ‘King decides’ model society, and it is natural for us to think that way. In this model, ‘One and Only’ means that there is only the sacred and inviolable ‘Original’ and that there are no even spare copies in the kingdom. This would naturally imply that it has a scarcity value.

For the model of ‘Individual creation’, however, it is one thing to numerically identify it as one, and quite another to say that it has value. It is the same as the difference in dimension between the physical and metaphysical.

I was surprised at this, too. I said to myself, “There is scarcity value”, didn’t I? But in fact, ‘scarcity’ and ‘value’ are two different concepts and dimensions. I was fooled, too.

Nevertheless, isn’t that just as well? After all, as I mentioned in the previous chapter “3. Cause of misunderstanding #1”, things to be transferred are not sacred or inviolable in the ‘Individual creation’ model.

And this misunderstanding, that being numerically 1 is the same as having value (in a sense, a ‘confusion’), seems to have had the greatest impact among the many confusions.

“NFT is outrageous because data registered without the creator’s permission can be sold.” “It is money laundering because a thing like a digital data icon was priced a very expensively.” They must have regarded NFT as a fraud since they thought ‘worthless’ thing gets a worth a disproportionate amount because it is numerically shaped to be one.

But that is misunderstanding.

As you may have already understood, what the NFT system guarantees is only the ‘scarcity’ of the transferred. It is not the ‘value’.

To continue with the fisherman’s metaphor, even if two fishing boats catch the same school of fish, the ownership of the fish belongs to each of them, and even if the amount of fish caught is the same, the value attached to it may vary greatly depending on the onboard post-processing process, etc.

In addition, I would like to point out that this relationship between scarcity and value, although carefully concealed, is actually a separate issue, even in a ‘King decides’ social model.

For example, if you are thrown out in the middle of the desert, about to die, and suddenly a desert goddess appears and says, “Oh my…was it this gold diamond you dropped? Or this silver diamond? Either way, it comes with a ‘one-of-a-kind’ certificate from DeeeBeees, so I guarantee its quality!” I would answer immediately as I am an honest person.

“No, I dropped a bottle of shabby bottled mineral water…oh, but it was very chilled! And preferably soft water! Soft water, if possible!”

Even if I could have walked another 10 minutes and found an oasis, I would say that…

So, I insisted the value on life, which is the scarcest thing of all! (*5), but then war broke out in the north. I am sure that a lot of natural gas must have been wasted in a kitchen as well.

As you can see, in this world of ours, there is a tendency to look only at the value and not at the scarcity. In fact, when you saw the title of this article, “There are as many ‘One and Only’ as there are lives.”, you may have thought like this; “Then ‘One and Only’ = life has no value, right?”

If you thought so, raise your hand and be ashamed a bit on it.

But in that case, is it really meaningful to go to the trouble of creating a system like NFT to ensure scarcity? What is the point of saying that something without value is rare?

Then, shall we go back to the chapter, “4. Cause of misunderstanding #2”? I described the ‘Individual creation’ model is intended to emerge properties from an undifferentiated state.

In other words, if differences are recognized and the dimension of scarcity is secured, then the seemingly mysterious dimension of ‘value’, which exists on a higher level, can be created by the individual through ones own hard work.

So, let’s bring back ‘value’ to the individual! The three arrows proposed by Itukinomics were as follows;

  • Arrow 1: Take responsibility for your actions
  • Arrow 2: Gain Empathy and Sympathy
  • Arrow 3: Growing up (coming of age rituals or overcoming adversity)

Am I sounding kind of preachy now? But these are the ridiculously superfluous measures that the Meteoroscape project does on its own and that the NFT does not implement. That is;

  • “We give you a replacement guarantee, which may not be essential.”
  • “Putting size restrictions until a specified number of sales are made.”
  • “We declare the photos to be transferred may contain something you don’t like.”

The reason is that the photos we give away have no value, at least in the beginning.

Photos are taken all over the world and shared on the Internet every day. They are free to view. Actually, even if you say you don’t want them, they show you OMG quality photos and WTF quality videos because they are advertisements.

People may pay for the photographer’s labor, buy the photos because they are sold as interior decorations, buy photo books, or even buy calendars so the photos are a free gift, but if the photos themselves are sold in single slices, no one would normally buy them.

The same is probably true for the various digital data being exhibited at the NFT. No one would go as far as to buy them. Unless, of course, it is a work by an artist whose value has already been established, or you know someone who knows the value of the work. If so, it would be more likely there may be a case people would buy it, because digital data is not be in the way.

But that is why three arrows come to handy.

These three things are what we all do as a matter of course in our lives, yet they are a kind of so-called typical ‘heroic tale’.

In this context, our heroes are in an undifferentiated state at the beginning. He may be unrecognizable from any horse bone and have eyes like a dead fish. However, as the story progresses and time passes, they gradually grow in shared responsibility and empathy. Furthermore, they are complementary not only to the transferor but also to the would-be transferee.

Then the value will be felt by itself naturally. Value is created only if it is a typical heroic tale universally passed down by humankind.

—because Value means commitment, that is a feeling of cherishment.

…This is my opinion, but it may have been the cause of misunderstanding that the subtleties of this area are not well understood.

7. And the fourth “misunderstanding” stands in the way, that is Hell

Now that I have cleared up the three misconceptions, I believe there is one more fatal “ misunderstanding”. The fourth ” misunderstanding ” is the view that the way to seek for this “One and Only” is wrong.

??? “Leave it undifferentiated and let it ‘emerge’ with time? You are such a lazy guy. It is true that, as you said, the model of ‘King decides’ is stuck. In that case, instead of such a fake, we can prepare the truly ‘New One and Only’…”

The mastermind who wants to bring people to nothing is saying something I don’t understand. But I say there are many of these masterminds close to us. And in order to decipher their claims, we need to look closely at the situation around us.

For example, what about the illustration creation AI that is being the talk of the town in 2022?

The AI here is the so-called “Midjourney”. It can also be “Stable Diffusion”. It is a web service that automatically generates images based on specified keywords.

The illustrations generated by this AI are said to be good, fast, inexpensive, and perfect for the job. It is rumored that there will be no more jobs for illustrators, similar to the situation in the 19th century when photography was invented and portrait artists were said to be out of work.

Before we know it, we live in an age where such a thing was possible (*6).

However, what I am trying to say here is not that illustrators will lose their jobs. It is simply that illustrators may change their jobs to become AI operators because of the new duplication technology.

Rather, I’d tell you, it is happening at the same time: the concepts of AI ‘Deep Learning’ and ‘IDEA’ are very close that this is shown. It naturally leads us to expect the following situation;

For those who deal purely with ‘IDEA’ and design it for a living will have to be greatly affected in the future, since it could be reproduced.

As my opinion, I said Art is closely related to ‘work’ in the chapter, “There are 3 Units of Art”. (*7) And so, when it comes to the replication of ‘IDEA’, I believe that the impact on the work of artisans and designers in general is inevitable.

What will happen next? I think, this is an abstract expression, though, that the overall shift will be toward craftsmen, as they will be less inclined to Design Art. Design Art value will be relatively lost. And I think that craftspeople will become even more secretive and selective than they are now, so as not to be easily duplicated by AI.

For instance, even “Illustrator,” which is supposed to be software that allows anyone to design, has many secrets that we don’t really know how to use anymore, don’t we? Explanation sites are crowded with people. But since 2022, almost finished illustrations will be mass-produced by AI.

Then, won’t people who say they don’t use digital media and draw everything in pencil become famous? That’s still in the case, and they are better. The techniques developed there are secretive and difficult to duplicate. “Hmph…I have the very best ‘Hand of Muse’, that’s why I can draw like a living apple, you know?” And…

??? “Far beyond that study, it is the real scarcity value. We shall call it ‘the Real One and Only’.”

Isn’t this what the mastermind means by ‘New One and Only’? These days, we can see such an idea through in many places, can’t we?

“Those mobs, who are surely nothing, worn out by machines, have no value. Only the limited people who have value should survive. The world population must halve it and only beautiful, competent, and obedient people should survive, and the AI will handle all the rest. That is a sexy ideal for the global environment.”

Itsuyuki: “And that was the Nazis. Not the one wearing Nazi fashion.”
???: “That’s right! That’s why they can’t understand that even cloned soldiers are the only life with their own separate consciousness!”

…I feel like I’m talking about animation again, but what I’m trying to say is that this kind of thing has already happened to mankind in the past. There is no need to repeat such history. We don’t need such ‘Real One and Only’, to put it bluntly.

Craftsmanship shines through in daily life, and that is the result of study. The goal is not to make it shine.

Who at all brought this hell?

8. Epilogue: Art, Transfer, and Sometimes Photography

That being said, I have seen a variety of misconceptions and confusion around the concept of ‘Individual creation’ I submitted five years ago. Perhaps there are many other misunderstandings.

But at this point, you’ve probably come to understand how arrogant and narrow-minded the “no value bitcoin or NFT” discourse is.

In the first place, I don’t have the authority to advise others either, but we should refrain from the act of disrespecting people’s feelings and telling them they are worthless in the first place. If a wife felt bad about her husband’s hobby of plastic modeling and abandoned it without his permission while he was at work, she would be on the verge of a divorce, wouldn’t she?

Of course, it’s a different story if the object of affection is a crime, a cult-like activity that is currently being talked about in Japan, or something that destroys the lives of those involved. You might say it’s not worth it.

But this social model ‘to create One and Only by Individual’ is not only even a crime, but an essential concept for the stable operation of the ‘One and Only which is decided by a King’ in the future. I think it is necessary to prevent that “Hell” from appearing on earth.

Because isn’t it so?

As I have already pointed out, without the existence of the ‘Individual creation’ model, people will be forced to give up their freedom and independence, and even the existence of the individual will be in jeopardy. I said that this is a dystopian future, but it seems to me that this is exactly what is happening now. Is it really a coincidence that it was only after the advent of Bitcoin that counters like “Me,too” and “BLM”, for example, became active…?

Moreover, NFT does not exist under anyone’s direction, but rather voluntarily by participants who feel the value in it. The highest value of a work transferred by NFT is 7.5 billion yen (*8), which may sound outrageous, but to support one individual who maintains a certain work, for example, it costs at least 3 million yen per year and 30 million yen for 10 years, and it is not possible that such patrons are cheated into doing so.

On top of that, even an icon that seems worthless now may become an object that expresses the times in 100 years. Of course, it may not, and it may just be a failure. But isn’t this what Contemporary Art is all about, not chasing after the ‘correct solution of IDEA’ but rather strolling in the ‘incorrect’ area around it…?

So, if there are immature aspects, for instance, Bitcoin requires huge amount of electricity to maintain, or NFT gives scarcity to stolen goods, I would still like people to feel the value in those state of the Art areas.

In particular, I would like to question the PC millionaire who started declaring that it has no value. I want to question him for an hour. I want to ask him for an hour, “Isn’t it reasonable to give people a chance before you endorse giving up our freedom and independence?”

…And in this world of pandemics and wars, I would like people to feel the value of creating ‘One and Only’ by oneself.


This concludes the story of the great misunderstanding and confusion that began with “Original and Reproduction”. Hopefully, the concept of “creating One and Only in the world by oneself” will continue to be a household words in the future.

OK. One last thing. I would like to clear up a misunderstanding about my photographic works.

When you visit this site, you will notice that I have divided my work into two categories: “Graphic Work,” which is Design Art that should be close to the ‘correct answer’ for ‘IDEA’, and “Photographic Work”, which is Contemporary Art that may be ‘incorrect’. If you are thinking of transferring the work to someone else, perhaps you would feel Graphic Work is the one that is least likely to cause resistance. On the other hand, a Photographic Work is a photograph of “reality” and would not be transferred unless there is a strong emotional attachment to it.

This difference is the same as the difference between the reduced image without visible blemishes and the large ‘Original’ that reveals it, told in the chapter “Art Embankment Plan” (※9), which also seemed to be resulted into a misleading metaphor.

However, this does not mean that I deny that the Graphic Work is made-up and can be reproduced, or that the Photographic Work is ‘correct’ because it has not been modified at all.

(And while I try not to correct photographs by erasing the subject, I sometimes do so anyway when it is absolutely necessary, and I sometimes correct noisy old photos by using AI to supplement the image to make it look better. I’ll let you know if you want to know such unpleasant ‘reality’…)

Well, I have to admit that it seems Contemporary Art will win out over Design Art in terms of the intensity of the feelings that people will have for it in the future. How many people will be able to maintain their affection for mass-produced images forever?

However, as mentioned in “Photography, as well” (*10), Design Art and Contemporary Art are only tentative categories submitted by creators. The judgment as to which it belongs to is left solely to the transferee, not the creator.

This is because, I assure you, there is no such thing as Design that is perfectly ensured ‘IDEA’ or Contemporary Art that truly escapes from ‘IDEA’.

Therefore, no matter how much AI evolves in the future, no matter how quantum computers are developed, no matter how many robots are created that can work in place of humans, if we have the concept of ‘creating One and Only by oneself’, humans will not fall into dystopia for a while, and we should be able to live much as we do now.

How can I say that so clearly? Easy peasy. That is, of course, because…

— “No Man is Perfect.” (*11)


  1. A kind of pseudo ‘dimension’: the dimensions here are not physical space, but several independent coordinate planes in mathematical terms. See “The “Schrödinger’s cat” and its answer;” – https://meteoroscape.com/conceptual-works/life/
  2. Emergent Properties: A phenomenon in which local interactions between elements affect the whole, and the whole in turn affects individual elements, resulting in the formation of a new order. – From Digital Daijisen (Shogakukan)
  3. シュレーディンガーのパラソル展(Schrödinger’s Parasol Exhibition): See “The “Schrödinger’s cat” and its answer;” – https://meteoroscape.com/conceptual-works/life/
  4. The science of consciousness and its history: See “Who is ‘Itsuki Kujo’ ? or a refutation of Heideggerian ontology” – https://meteoroscape.com/conceptual-works/individual/
  5. Value on life, which is the scarcest thing of all! : See ibid.
  6. We live in an age where such a thing was possible: painters are in trouble… I was thinking like someone else, but the published method of image generation was completely consistent with my work “人為的アルゴリズムで最高に街な画像を作ろう!(Let’s make the best city image using an artificial algorithm!”. So I was thinking to myself, “Oh, no, it all started with me 🥺!?”. But since Google already has “Deep Learning” under control, I think it’s only a matter of time. A similar idea could have been somewhere else in the world.
  7. There are 3 units of Art : See “There are 3 units of Art.” – https://meteoroscape.com/conceptual-works/art/
  8. The highest value of a work transferred by NFT is 7.5 billion yen: See NFT books on the market. May be updated.
  9. Art Embankment Plan: See “One more thing,” – https://meteoroscape.com/conceptual-works/one-and-only/ ,which was an ostentatious naming.
  10. Photography, as well.: See “Photography, as well. – https://meteoroscape.com/conceptual-works/photography/
  11. “No Man is Perfect.”: from the movie “Some Like It Hot”. It is an old movie, so I am sure no one will recognize the quote. Now, for the rare person who has reached this point, see the previous section, “Who is ‘Itsuki Kujo’ ? or a refutation of Heideggerian ontology” – https://meteoroscape.com/conceptual-works/individual/ you may understand that the concept of “creating One and Only by an Individual” is based on human consciousness and phenomenology.

PREVIOUS:Conceptual Works