5 ms·

Why is an original Picasso worth millions when I can download a picture of one and print it out for free?

by Sevii 6y ago

vorpalhex 6y ago
The picture of the picasso is not identical to the original. A jpeg is bit for bit identical when copied.
- iamwil 6y ago
  It's not considered original, if you don't own the NFT. Like money, it's a social contract. For the longest time, in order to enjoy something, you had to own it. Because physically, there was no way to enjoy it unless you were in its physical presence. Then we had analog tech like photography, and for a little while, people wrestled with who owned what. But we decided that the original physical painting is proof of ownership, and a photograph of it can still be enjoyed, but is worth less, and not actually owned. This makes sense, because the physical copy is less easy to reproduce. And now, we've figured out how to make digital things scarce. Now, the ownership of something is indicated by ownership of the NFT, not of the physical original work of something. The tie between the NFT and the digital image is largely a social contract, in the same way that money is a social contract.
  - robbiep 6y ago
    You’ve made the same point about scarcity here but i think most people just can’t buy it. It is literally not scarce
    - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
      NFTs are artificially scarce. There are limited numbers of each token that can be bought.
    - iamwil 6y ago
      The enjoyment of the piece is not scarce. The ownership of it is not. They use to be one in the same. Today, they are not.
      - AndrewKemendo 6y ago
        Ownership of what? https://superrare.co/artwork-v2/bloodsculpt-20261 https://superrare.co/artwork-v2/bloodsculpt-20261 https://kemendo.com/Images/bloodsculpt.jpg https://kemendo.com/Images/bloodsculpt.jpg Which one is the real one?
        iamwil 6y ago
        Each link you posted points to two separate digital objects both for the "enjoyment of a piece", not the "ownership of the piece". Think of ownership of a piece as the certificate of authenticity. The first link is on superrare. The superrare image can also be enjoyed by anyone. However, the (very small) link (https://etherscan.io/tx/0xd9e4971bef6d37807605e0eb635eb4b6d9e3487d2c4fc2c30751472312f75270 https://etherscan.io/tx/0xd9e4971bef6d37807605e0eb635eb4b6d9...) to the transaction on the page, tells me the owner of the art piece is 0x053e84e80cfb38d672d53394de3dade1fbbacd25. The second link is on your own homepage. You can claim ownership on the image (since it's on your homepage), which gives you the enjoyment of the piece. But you don't claim ownership of the art piece. Now, who determines which one is the real one? Depends on the counter-party you're transacting with, and what they're willing to honor. If I as the counter-party, am being sold ownership of the art piece from both you and 0x053e84e, I'd take it from 0x053e84e, for the same reason you tried to make: digital images are exact copies. He own the non-duplicable NFT and provably so, and can transfer that NFT to me. If I as the counter-party is the creator of the piece, I can give certificate owners extra VIP features for the art piece, like a chance to meet me, or a one time delivery of a look-book of the making-of of the piece, I can do that, and be sure that it's not fake owners. The pleasure of ownership is different than the pleasure of enjoyment of the piece. So what links the NFT (the certificate) to that particular image? Well, right now, it's conferred by Superrare. If this is turns out to be an issue, I can see ways around it. One option is to use procedurally generated art, where the parameters are stored in the NFT. I think there may be others.
  - tolmasky 6y ago
    The question is whether anyone cares about the scarcity. I think the more complicated the item, the less it makes sense perhaps. The more utility in the item, the less I care about a separate ID number associated to it, I would think. For example, let’s move away from pictures momentarily and instead think of lossless music files. You consume music more “actively” than an image, and a literally identical music file seems weirder to pay more for. Or perhaps a movie. “An original pressing” NFT movie that has the same content as the $5 version. To some extent it feels that the Napster revolution proved the opposite: people are willing to take a hit on quality for price, and I would have hoped once upon a time that the response would have been to go more physical. People like plastic, so include trinkets you can do things with when you sell a digital thing because the trinkets can’t be downloaded (until we figure out crazy 3D printing of arbitrary materials I guess). In some respects, blockchain currencies make the most sense precisely because they aren’t bound to some fictionally scarce “physical analogue” to remind you that it’s just a number. The currency says “the number has value, that is the one axiom you must believe”. An NFT muddies this by saying “the number has value BECAUSE it is tied to this unique thing that actually isn’t unique.” Edit: One added point: if the scarcity is “real” due to some outside constraint (a card that can be used in a game, and thus it’s not yet copyable asset that people are buying but the unique ability to use it), then the above does not apply and NFTs seem like a fine way to standardize a cheating proof way of handling this.
    - raghavtoshniwal 6y ago
      > The more utility in the item, the less I care about a separate ID number associated to it I completed agreed to the point you were making and then I got reminded of sneakers. They are supposed to be of high utility and yet 'limited edition sneakers' command a high price and are never used (in fact they lose value on being used). I think other threads in the discussion point out the difference between the price people pay for 'owning' an artefact versus 'enjoying' an artefact. In the music case also, I can totally imagine a successful artist taking out limited NFTs on their music and their super fans buying it, trading it amongst themselves. Most people who want to 'enjoy' it won't care but I guess a case can be made for die-hard fans wanting to own it.
    - iamwil 6y ago

Why is an original Picasso worth millions when I can download a picture of one and print it out for free?

by Sevii 6y ago

Why is an original Picasso worth millions when I can download a picture of one and print it out for free?

vorpalhex 6y ago

The picture of the picasso is not identical to the original. A jpeg is bit for bit identical when copied.

iamwil 6y ago
It's not considered original, if you don't own the NFT. Like money, it's a social contract. For the longest time, in order to enjoy something, you had to own it. Because physically, there was no way to enjoy it unless you were in its physical presence. Then we had analog tech like photography, and for a little while, people wrestled with who owned what. But we decided that the original physical painting is proof of ownership, and a photograph of it can still be enjoyed, but is worth less, and not actually owned. This makes sense, because the physical copy is less easy to reproduce. And now, we've figured out how to make digital things scarce. Now, the ownership of something is indicated by ownership of the NFT, not of the physical original work of something. The tie between the NFT and the digital image is largely a social contract, in the same way that money is a social contract.
- robbiep 6y ago
  You’ve made the same point about scarcity here but i think most people just can’t buy it. It is literally not scarce
  - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
    NFTs are artificially scarce. There are limited numbers of each token that can be bought.
  - iamwil 6y ago
    The enjoyment of the piece is not scarce. The ownership of it is not. They use to be one in the same. Today, they are not.
    - AndrewKemendo 6y ago
      Ownership of what? https://superrare.co/artwork-v2/bloodsculpt-20261 https://superrare.co/artwork-v2/bloodsculpt-20261 https://kemendo.com/Images/bloodsculpt.jpg https://kemendo.com/Images/bloodsculpt.jpg Which one is the real one?
      - iamwil 6y ago
        Each link you posted points to two separate digital objects both for the "enjoyment of a piece", not the "ownership of the piece". Think of ownership of a piece as the certificate of authenticity. The first link is on superrare. The superrare image can also be enjoyed by anyone. However, the (very small) link (https://etherscan.io/tx/0xd9e4971bef6d37807605e0eb635eb4b6d9e3487d2c4fc2c30751472312f75270 https://etherscan.io/tx/0xd9e4971bef6d37807605e0eb635eb4b6d9...) to the transaction on the page, tells me the owner of the art piece is 0x053e84e80cfb38d672d53394de3dade1fbbacd25. The second link is on your own homepage. You can claim ownership on the image (since it's on your homepage), which gives you the enjoyment of the piece. But you don't claim ownership of the art piece. Now, who determines which one is the real one? Depends on the counter-party you're transacting with, and what they're willing to honor. If I as the counter-party, am being sold ownership of the art piece from both you and 0x053e84e, I'd take it from 0x053e84e, for the same reason you tried to make: digital images are exact copies. He own the non-duplicable NFT and provably so, and can transfer that NFT to me. If I as the counter-party is the creator of the piece, I can give certificate owners extra VIP features for the art piece, like a chance to meet me, or a one time delivery of a look-book of the making-of of the piece, I can do that, and be sure that it's not fake owners. The pleasure of ownership is different than the pleasure of enjoyment of the piece. So what links the NFT (the certificate) to that particular image? Well, right now, it's conferred by Superrare. If this is turns out to be an issue, I can see ways around it. One option is to use procedurally generated art, where the parameters are stored in the NFT. I think there may be others.
- tolmasky 6y ago
  The question is whether anyone cares about the scarcity. I think the more complicated the item, the less it makes sense perhaps. The more utility in the item, the less I care about a separate ID number associated to it, I would think. For example, let’s move away from pictures momentarily and instead think of lossless music files. You consume music more “actively” than an image, and a literally identical music file seems weirder to pay more for. Or perhaps a movie. “An original pressing” NFT movie that has the same content as the $5 version. To some extent it feels that the Napster revolution proved the opposite: people are willing to take a hit on quality for price, and I would have hoped once upon a time that the response would have been to go more physical. People like plastic, so include trinkets you can do things with when you sell a digital thing because the trinkets can’t be downloaded (until we figure out crazy 3D printing of arbitrary materials I guess). In some respects, blockchain currencies make the most sense precisely because they aren’t bound to some fictionally scarce “physical analogue” to remind you that it’s just a number. The currency says “the number has value, that is the one axiom you must believe”. An NFT muddies this by saying “the number has value BECAUSE it is tied to this unique thing that actually isn’t unique.” Edit: One added point: if the scarcity is “real” due to some outside constraint (a card that can be used in a game, and thus it’s not yet copyable asset that people are buying but the unique ability to use it), then the above does not apply and NFTs seem like a fine way to standardize a cheating proof way of handling this.
  - raghavtoshniwal 6y ago
    > The more utility in the item, the less I care about a separate ID number associated to it I completed agreed to the point you were making and then I got reminded of sneakers. They are supposed to be of high utility and yet 'limited edition sneakers' command a high price and are never used (in fact they lose value on being used). I think other threads in the discussion point out the difference between the price people pay for 'owning' an artefact versus 'enjoying' an artefact. In the music case also, I can totally imagine a successful artist taking out limited NFTs on their music and their super fans buying it, trading it amongst themselves. Most people who want to 'enjoy' it won't care but I guess a case can be made for die-hard fans wanting to own it.
  - iamwil 6y ago