3 ms·
> "I'm the owner of this one number, which someone decided is related to that digital piece of art for which there can exist infinitely many copies that are per
by qqii 6y ago
> "I'm the owner of this one number, which someone decided is related to that digital piece of art for which there can exist infinitely many copies that are perfectly identical".
Which the ARTIST has decided is a digital certificate for the price of art.
Just I could make a duplicate of the supreme brick, my duplicate wouldn't have as nearly much value if I tell people it is a duplicate. Supreme could sell bricks again but they probably won't. There's nothing physical that's stops them but there's still an implicit agreement between artist and buyer.
I may not wish to buy own a supreme brick, but I can at least understand why people find it valuable.
- kgwgk 6y agoThe all-caps "artist" brought this to my mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit
- NoOneNew 6y agoA can of old shit sold for €275,000??? Jesus Christ Mary and Joesph, what is the name of all things pure and holy... Look, I get it outside of the money laundering scheme to modern art, throwing around how rich you are by buying "stuff". I get it. Tiny pecker syndrome. But let's stop and remember that Rockefeller and Carnegie, the OG capitalist titans, were dick measuring by donating their money. Sure "to the arts"... at least they were building halls and museums. They participated in some solid currency velocity that helped pay the wages to construction contractors. Still, they were assholes, but a lot better than just shoveling money between other rich cunts as a form of showing off.