4 ms·

Then why do people buy paintings? They could just own a photograph. Don't tell me it's because they appreciate the subtle brush strokes or the smell of the oil

by jcfrei 6y ago

Then why do people buy paintings? They could just own a photograph. Don't tell me it's because they appreciate the subtle brush strokes or the smell of the oil paint. It's because they want their name to be associated with a great artist. Because in the halls of MoMA in New York it will say painting by Jackson Pollock on permanent loan by <insert name of your foundation>.

paul_f 6y ago
Comparing an original painting to a photograph of the painting is the exact issue the OP is making. They are asking why people would pay for a photo, when anyone could have the same photo. There is no original, scarce painting to own. Just all identical copies.
- pxue 6y ago
  "Original" doesn't really exist in the digital native world. Data is literally copied when it gets distributed. Maybe think of NFT as a pointer to the head of a link list, the start of the data distribution chain. And we assign some arbitrary monetary value to that pointer, because, well, there's only 1 head of a link list.
Qworg 6y ago
Yes! Currently, NFTs lack a stage - I can't imagine deriving the same level of MoMA association with "Owned by jcfrei (0x859128479178571823784)" when I got to a webpage.
- vmception 6y ago
  I can. And that already happens. When prestigious institutions are involved you'll be able to check their addresses and signatures too. It is more about the transfer and hypothecation of value, which this scarcity and transparency allows. If it doesn't catch on it doesn't catch on. Right now people are clamoring for this future.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  The stage is the community which the NFT is related to.
bastawhiz 6y ago
The "original" digital work is identical in fidelity, form, and use to any reproduction. Your metaphor is wrong because in an NFT system, you don't get a photograph, you get a molecule for molecule identical replica of the original painting. In that case, yeah? Why buy art if you can get a copy that's literally an identical clone of the original? If anyone could, at no meaningful cost, download a physically identical replica of a Jackson Pollock and have it, you can be sure the price of art would suffer quite a bit. Your ability to prove that you are the person who owns the work is meaningless if anyone can just also freely have the exact work itself.
biztos 6y ago
Well, that or people might actually like the artworks. With a few exceptions, a photograph of a painting is not going to give you even an approximation of the experience of the real thing. Start with scale, and use your imagination from there.
ckozlowski 6y ago
There's a lot of original art that's purchased that will never appear in a museum or have someone's name attached to be shown to the general public. While I'm sure there are some who do so for the reasons you describe, they're far from the only one. There are people who buy originals because they truly like the work, and they appreciate and enjoy seeing the original, physical piece that you don't get with even the finest print. You also have collectors who, in addition to the above, also buy art as an investment. Say you buy a piece at a small art show from a new artist. You pay a few thousand for it. They keep painting, and years later, are appearing in larger shows, or may have created a piece or two that generated a lot of attention. Now those early works you have from them could be worth a lot more as they're indicative of that person's earlier period. There are forums, exchanges, and shows exclusively for this sort of trading. (Source: Married to a (digital) fantasy illustrator, attend a lot of art shows, and talk with artists and collectors. I hope to own an original or two from some of my favorite artists in the coming years. And no, it won't be an investment. =)
kybernetikos 6y ago
The artist should probably create a license for the use of their artwork that includes crediting both themselves and the NFT holder when the artwork is used. Effectively the NFT should be a delegation of some of the IP ownership rights.

by jcfrei 6y ago

paul_f 6y ago

Comparing an original painting to a photograph of the painting is the exact issue the OP is making. They are asking why people would pay for a photo, when anyone could have the same photo. There is no original, scarce painting to own. Just all identical copies.

pxue 6y ago
"Original" doesn't really exist in the digital native world. Data is literally copied when it gets distributed. Maybe think of NFT as a pointer to the head of a link list, the start of the data distribution chain. And we assign some arbitrary monetary value to that pointer, because, well, there's only 1 head of a link list.

Qworg 6y ago

Yes! Currently, NFTs lack a stage - I can't imagine deriving the same level of MoMA association with "Owned by jcfrei (0x859128479178571823784)" when I got to a webpage.

vmception 6y ago
I can. And that already happens. When prestigious institutions are involved you'll be able to check their addresses and signatures too. It is more about the transfer and hypothecation of value, which this scarcity and transparency allows. If it doesn't catch on it doesn't catch on. Right now people are clamoring for this future.
ZephyrBlu 6y ago
The stage is the community which the NFT is related to.

bastawhiz 6y ago

The "original" digital work is identical in fidelity, form, and use to any reproduction. Your metaphor is wrong because in an NFT system, you don't get a photograph, you get a molecule for molecule identical replica of the original painting. In that case, yeah? Why buy art if you can get a copy that's literally an identical clone of the original? If anyone could, at no meaningful cost, download a physically identical replica of a Jackson Pollock and have it, you can be sure the price of art would suffer quite a bit. Your ability to prove that you are the person who owns the work is meaningless if anyone can just also freely have the exact work itself.

biztos 6y ago

Well, that or people might actually like the artworks. With a few exceptions, a photograph of a painting is not going to give you even an approximation of the experience of the real thing. Start with scale, and use your imagination from there.

ckozlowski 6y ago

There's a lot of original art that's purchased that will never appear in a museum or have someone's name attached to be shown to the general public. While I'm sure there are some who do so for the reasons you describe, they're far from the only one. There are people who buy originals because they truly like the work, and they appreciate and enjoy seeing the original, physical piece that you don't get with even the finest print. You also have collectors who, in addition to the above, also buy art as an investment. Say you buy a piece at a small art show from a new artist. You pay a few thousand for it. They keep painting, and years later, are appearing in larger shows, or may have created a piece or two that generated a lot of attention. Now those early works you have from them could be worth a lot more as they're indicative of that person's earlier period. There are forums, exchanges, and shows exclusively for this sort of trading. (Source: Married to a (digital) fantasy illustrator, attend a lot of art shows, and talk with artists and collectors. I hope to own an original or two from some of my favorite artists in the coming years. And no, it won't be an investment. =)

kybernetikos 6y ago

The artist should probably create a license for the use of their artwork that includes crediting both themselves and the NFT holder when the artwork is used. Effectively the NFT should be a delegation of some of the IP ownership rights.