3 ms·

Huh. I did not see this coming but I think this actually kind of makes sense. I think many people see being a "patron of the arts" as something very high status

Huh. I did not see this coming but I think this actually kind of makes sense. I think many people see being a "patron of the arts" as something very high status, and having your ownership encoded publicly seems much more status-enhancing than just having something hanging in your home. Sure, you could brag that you just bought a piece of physical art on Facebook or Instagram, but that seems a bit like showing off - maybe a difference here is that there is no escaping from the public element, so no-one can judge you for it. If a piece takes off in popularity, I can imagine that there is also extra status to being the first to own that particular piece, which will forever be visible on the blockchain. [Edit - it does seem kind of strange to be the second or later owner though, I wonder if that could actually hurt resale value.] Very curious to see how this develops. If it opens up new possibilities for artists to get their work funded and it can lead to a flourishing of the arts I'm all for it.

adamredwoods 6y ago
Maybe I'm missing the point, but doesn't this then only apply to the blockchain, and not necessarily the art? Therefore this status symbol can be applied to anything (supposedly) sacred: books, movies, sexual partners, etc. To me it may devalue art, seeing how I feel it's the NFT and not the art that people value.
- samvher 6y ago
  I'm not sure I see the same point as others. But the way I imagine it would work is that you buy art from the artist and the artist confirms (on the blockchain) that you bought it from them, thereby supporting them. So (a) you "own" it, (b) you signal being a patron of the arts and (c) the thing you paid for can be enjoyed right next to this confirmation. Yes I guess it can apply to other things as well. I would indeed expect books and movies to possibly fit the same pattern. And I guess you could set up a public sexual partners log as well where both participants can use their private key to sign a statement that they did indeed engage in intercourse but I'm not sure that that would take off :) I think the point is still being discovered and it also seems totally possible that this is just a fad. It's the first practical application of cryptocurrency that I can somehow see making sense (if I squint).
- projektfu 6y ago
  The "manuscript" of a novel these days is probably a computer file. NFTs would allow you to trade the original manuscript as an item, even though the bits of that manuscript could be reproduced with 100% fidelity. For me, that doesn't carry a lot of value, but, then again, aside from things like margin notes and what not, a paper manuscript that was merely a handwritten copy of what later became a published book wouldn't carry a lot of value either. Yet, if I owned it, there may be people who would want to look at it out of curiosity, or who wanted to know the story of how I came by it, etc.

adamredwoods 6y ago

Maybe I'm missing the point, but doesn't this then only apply to the blockchain, and not necessarily the art? Therefore this status symbol can be applied to anything (supposedly) sacred: books, movies, sexual partners, etc. To me it may devalue art, seeing how I feel it's the NFT and not the art that people value.

samvher 6y ago
I'm not sure I see the same point as others. But the way I imagine it would work is that you buy art from the artist and the artist confirms (on the blockchain) that you bought it from them, thereby supporting them. So (a) you "own" it, (b) you signal being a patron of the arts and (c) the thing you paid for can be enjoyed right next to this confirmation. Yes I guess it can apply to other things as well. I would indeed expect books and movies to possibly fit the same pattern. And I guess you could set up a public sexual partners log as well where both participants can use their private key to sign a statement that they did indeed engage in intercourse but I'm not sure that that would take off :) I think the point is still being discovered and it also seems totally possible that this is just a fad. It's the first practical application of cryptocurrency that I can somehow see making sense (if I squint).
projektfu 6y ago
The "manuscript" of a novel these days is probably a computer file. NFTs would allow you to trade the original manuscript as an item, even though the bits of that manuscript could be reproduced with 100% fidelity. For me, that doesn't carry a lot of value, but, then again, aside from things like margin notes and what not, a paper manuscript that was merely a handwritten copy of what later became a published book wouldn't carry a lot of value either. Yet, if I owned it, there may be people who would want to look at it out of curiosity, or who wanted to know the story of how I came by it, etc.