MOOI NIET. Working documents

Decision register#

Decision register — updated 1 September 2026

This document retains decisions under their original question numbers so the conversation remains traceable. It is not a machine for generating more questions. A calibration prompt is a test to apply repeatedly; an open question is a consequential project-level choice that reality has made answerable.

Questions that depend on a particular artist, work, place, cost, or permission belong in that edition's brief. They should not be escalated into abstract gallery governance while their material is still missing.

Resolved: curatorial position#

Questions 1–5 were resolved on 1 September 2026 and retain their numbers as a record of the conversation.

  1. What belongs cannot be specified in advance. It will ultimately be what Mike and Karlie find interesting in the moment, driven and constrained by the tenets in this corpus.
  2. Taste will be documented publicly through SMAAK. Concrete, dated selections, refusals, disagreements, and revisions should be easy for both people and software agents to discover. Technology supports the record; it does not make the judgment.
  3. Curatorial authority belongs to Mike and Karlie. MOOI NIET. is their Goose Group experiment. There is no external panel or claim to delegated public authority.
  4. Logistics and entry remain human, named, and local. Work is handed over by Mike, Karlie, or a known art handler—not an anonymous gig courier. A prospective host begins with a phone call, reached through a simple scheduling link when an edition is ready.
  5. The anti-proxy test is not a fairness claim. MOOI NIET. is an opinionated structure for repeated attempts, not an oracle of taste and judgment. The test belongs throughout the corpus so it can shape upstream decisions and stop familiar advantages from quietly impersonating artistic importance.

Resolved: artist proposition#

Questions 6–10 were resolved on 1 September 2026. They establish a position; the actual commercial, legal, and release terms remain to be designed with real artists and works.

  1. The first offer is an interesting creative canvas, not a payment product. The mechanics, frame, circulation, secrets, and prospect of making a new kind of work are the principal draw. The experience offered to the artist should be as carefully designed as the one offered to the host. Money flows on transparent, declared terms, but MOOI NIET. is not a get-rich-quick scheme or a route to followers. It is a way out of treating creative process as top-of-funnel labor. The mix of commission, circulation pay, sale, or other material support belongs to the work or collection.
  2. Initial artist discovery should be direct and human. Mike and Karlie go to galleries, studios, and other places where work is encountered, speak to artists whose work interests them, and leave a simple card pointing to this public corpus. The opening proposition is an invitation to consider a new kind of commission, not an unpaid application or a demand for institutional fluency.
  3. Terms are part of the creative pairing. Rights, permissions, custody, recall, exit, publication, and any physical or digital mechanics are designed per work or collection during curation and commissioning. They should facilitate the brief and add to the experience, not arrive as universal boilerplate after the work has been chosen.
  4. Public afterlife is an edition mechanic, not a platform entitlement. A later rendition may keep, transform, reveal, revise, withdraw, or deliberately lose parts of a work's process and cultural life. These possibilities should be used sparingly and only when they add to the creative or experiential proposition—not to manufacture scarcity, status, or collectible tokens.
  5. Release includes surrender. Once a work moves among hosts, its reception, context, and cultural meaning cannot remain under the artist's control; that loss is part of what makes circulation interesting. MOOI NIET. is not an artist-rights advocacy project or a promise of control over creation. It is creativity- and artistry-first: creative labor should be compensated and value should flow back toward more making. The precise terms will emerge through actual curation rather than an abstract rights doctrine.

Resolved: enrichment and the first host posture#

Questions 11–15 were resolved on 1 September 2026. They establish a simple default for the first hosts while leaving later editions free to invent their own mechanics.

  1. Enrichment is an open curatorial medium. Mike and Karlie decide when and how to use it. It may be absent, artist-driven, or structurally provided through curation. Their experience encoding taste and judgment with AI can become part of the public structure: a rich process microsite, a published taste package related to the works, an ESP32-driven e-ink display that changes weekly, randomly, with light, or not at all, or something not yet imagined. A taste package may give hosts, visitors, and their agents an inspectable lens through which to compare their own observations; it does not tell them what to see. No medium or subject is rejected in advance. Mike and Karlie omit what they consider bad taste or wrong for the project, and otherwise keep the field open.
  2. Anyone can host. The first hosts will probably come from Mike and Karlie's immediate and extended network because that is where a small local experiment naturally starts, not because the network confers fitness. The basic arrangement should be as plain as SBK: pay monthly, care for the work, understand any work-specific conditions, and return it in good shape.
  3. There is no host-selection problem to dramatize yet. Demand is initially close to zero; scarcity is an optimistic hypothetical. If someone wants an available work and accepts the simple conditions, the default answer is yes, first come first served. No eligibility theatre or generic terms-and- conditions performance is needed. A later edition may make a lottery, reverse auction, absurd auction, or another allocation rule part of its creative mechanics.
  4. The host is responsible for placement, interpretation, and experience. Within the work's care conditions, MOOI NIET. may publish its lens and provide simple setup instructions, but should not push an interpretation or take responsibility for what the host sees. Practical installation or handyman-style help can be arranged when useful for an additional fee.
  5. Choice belongs to the edition. In the first, low-demand condition, hosts are served first come first served and may either select an available work or knowingly opt into an edition's authored selection, rotation, or chance mechanics. Later editions can change that relation when the proposition gives them a reason.

Resolved: commitment, edition briefs, and economic posture#

Questions 16–20 were resolved on 1 September 2026. They establish how MOOI NIET. approaches duration and money without pretending that an edition can be priced before its artists, works, and actual costs exist.

  1. Dislike is not harm, and joining includes the duration. A host is asked to let a work linger for the declared period even if they dislike it. When life requires an early end, MOOI NIET. can collect it for a stated early- pickup fee; the default is no additional discretionary refund beyond legal obligations. Breaking a required mechanic withdraws the host from that edition, after which MOOI NIET. authors a replacement, rerouting, or visible gap. Damage and unavoidable circumstances still require grounded care, insurance, and liability terms.
  2. Host and guest contributions belong to edition briefs. There is no universal participation layer to decide in advance. A contribution, or the absence of one, is composed with the artists, works, and proposition. The repository now carries an edition backlog for developing these creative briefs and their mechanics.
  3. Economics are worked backwards from a real edition. MOOI NIET. seeks best-in-class economics for everyone participating, especially creative practitioners, but does not yet know the right allocation. Its structural advantage over an incumbent such as SBK is a working hypothesis, not a proven claim. Actual costs and accounts must test it.
  4. Solvency serves the practice; it is not the proposition. This is Mike and Karlie's creative project for circulating art they care about—not a VC model, price-discovery exercise, or funnel optimized for click-through. The first editions will probably begin with personal collections, direct commissions, and artist friends. Prices, stays, and commissions should emerge from those editions instead of an abstract market target.
  5. A host-directed purchase amount expires into a slush fund. It is a contribution to future art, not a deposit, savings plan, or stored wealth. Before expiry a host can direct it within the declared purchase terms; afterward Mike and Karlie use it for commissions, experimental mechanics, acquisitions, field trips, or another creative intervention. This slush fund is editorial rather than fair, pro rata, or democratic: use it or lose it—and MOOI NIET. will use it. Exact expiry, accounting, and legal and tax treatment must be grounded before the mechanism is offered. See Economics.

Resolved: authorship, fossils, transparency, and enough apparatus#

Questions 21–25 were resolved on 1 September 2026. Their main effect is to stop the project from turning every future choice into a governance problem.

  1. Mike and Karlie decide. MOOI NIET. is anti-governance: no council, focus group, consensus ritual, fairness theatre, or abstract stakeholder process sits between their judgment and the work. They author the structure and change it when they find a more interesting or useful move. Artists and hosts decide whether to enter the offered terms; participation does not confer a vote over the gallery.
  2. Ownership and afterlife belong to the work and edition. MOOI NIET. should not prescribe what owning or previously hosting a work is supposed to mean. Each edition decides what persists, changes, or disappears. The default public residue is a digital fossil: durable enrichment that keeps the artist, work, edition, score, and permitted provenance encounterable by owners, former hosts, guests, and visitors to the digital property after the first-person experience has ended. A fossil is not a replay or an interpretation the host must adopt.
  3. Publish a transparent breakdown without turning it into virtue. At minimum, show what money entered, where it went, what MOOI NIET. retained, and what that funded. The point is to make the authored economic structure legible, not to signal purity, charity, fairness, or social good. Spending money on creative outlets Mike and Karlie find interesting is the stated purpose; the record is not social proof.
  4. Use the minimum apparatus legally required to move work and money. The target experience is closer to sending a Tikkie and walking out of a gallery with a painting, or receiving a plain monthly SBK invoice, than performing a contract ceremony. Required consumer, tax, insurance, custody, and liability details still have to be correct, but they are an operational launch check—not a creative-governance programme. Friction is a real cost.
  5. The first collection cannot be specified before it is found. Its proposition will emerge from the artists, works, encounters, and conditions Mike and Karlie find interesting, filtered through the tenets in this corpus. Asking for a complete thesis before those things exist would force a conclusion rather than support discovery. The answer belongs in the first real edition brief, not in this register.

Current state#

There are no active project-level questions ready to put to Mike and Karlie. The next useful input is an artist, a work, a collection impulse, a host, or an operational fact. That material can create a real brief and better questions. The corpus should not manufacture an abstract decision sequence merely to keep the process moving.

Audit of former questions 26–59#

The remaining list was removed from the active register for four reasons:

The register reopens when reality creates a consequential choice that is not already answered by the foundation, a relationship document, or an edition brief.