10 ms·
Digital-only artwork fetches nearly $70M at Christie's
- surround 6y agoAn NFT is like a piece of paper titled with the name of the artwork and signed by the artist. Meanwhile, the artwork hangs in a museum and you have no control over it. Imagine going to the museum and showing people this paper. “Look, I bought this piece of art!” But even though you bought it, you don’t own it, so you aren’t able to take it home or anything like that.
- Kiro 6y agoAt least the paper has their signature. This is like a paper with the artwork's name printed on it. The only value is that it was printed by the artist with the promise that they will not print any more. It's like buying useless memorabilias from celebrities. The only value is the fact that the item was used by the celebrity.
- jimkleiber 6y agoIt seems like a digital signature of the work. If the artist signs 100,000 copies of photographs, the signed versions are worth a lot less, but if they only sign 5 in their lifetime, then they have more value. At least this is how I'm going to currently reinterpret NFTs—as digitally signed artwork/merchandise—I may see it differently tomorrow.
- krrrh 6y agoThis is actually how lots of photographer artists operate. For instance it’s common for a piece to have 3 editions, and I don’t know of any cases where the artist just decided to produce extra copies after te original production, except for at cost to replace a damaged edition for a collector. It would be professional suicide to devalue work like that. The same goes for film, where a handful of editions may sell, and the collector essentially buys the right to display and loan the work in certain contexts. That is nominally dealing with physical world realities, and the complex social norms at work through networks of galleries, museums, and collectors is a big part of what drives and maintains value and there’s really no reason that the title and provenance systems that work for photographic prints can’t work for digital art in the same way. In fact it has for a couple of decades already without NFTs.
- Kiro 6y agoThat's still a physical copy. The token just contains an URL to the hosted image. What are they buying exactly?
- avian 6y ago> An NFT is like a piece of paper titled with the name of the artwork and signed by the artist. I know nothing about NFTs, but in the last few days I’ve seen a few people turn their Twitter accounts private where they previously posted their artworks. Supposedly to prevent sales of NFTs of their art without their approval. No idea if that’s a real issue or not. However there is another comment here saying they sold a NFT of Mona Lisa. It seems that a “piece of paper with a, possibly forged, signature” might be a better comparison.
- dividuum 6y ago> Supposedly to prevent sales of NFTs of their art without their approval. No idea if that’s a real issue or not. It is. I guess like with every new crypto pyramid scheme, a bunch of fraudsters show up trying to profit from the FOMO. Have a look at https://twitter.com/simonstalenhag https://twitter.com/simonstalenhag for some examples of what one artist is facing right now.
- bitbuilder 6y agoI'm having a hard time believing what I just read. Posting his work as an NFT without his permission is of course ridiculous, but then to viciously lash out at the artist not being ok with this? It's just unbelievable to me that people can think this way. These people sold someone else's art, and then called him a luddite for not being ok with it.
- deckard1 6y ago> then called him a luddite for not being ok with it. yeah, my jaw dropped. Holy shit. Every time I enter the crypto twittersphere, I'm more convinced it's all just a huge cult. Half zealots and true believers and half trolls. Much like QAnon. "You don't understand it's the future!" No, no I'm quite capable of understanding. The internet brought a lot of like-minded people together under a shared mass delusion.
- capableweb 6y ago> No idea if that’s a real issue or not. It is a real issue and the issue has nothing to do with NFTs. People been copying others art without their permission for as long as "art" has existed as a concept.
- dagmx 6y agoI liken it more to (over)paying for the rights to a specific print of the art. Much like prints, you don't own the art itself, or the rights to the image. The rarity of the print can change at any point. Like many prints, a lot are not even from the original artist and are instead stolen and resold on any number of markets. There's no real world value to a print, but in this case there's a significant real world environmental cost to acquiring it. It's sheer stupidity of the masses IMHO. Do cease and desists even apply here? For example could you tangibly ruin the market for a future NFT artist by flooding the market with their artwork before they get on it?
- ecommerceguy 6y ago>>Meanwhile, the artwork hangs in a museum and you have no control over it. One can most certainly remove their artwork from museums pretty much as they please or at the very least according to terms of a loan contract. Not to mention special access and privileges loaned artwork bestows upon the owner...
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y agoExactly. There is no element of conspicuous consumption here to signal to others you own this expensive, one-of-a-kind thing. No, you bought a JPEG file and millions of it exist and you have no legal control of its usage by possessing the NFT.
- krrrh 6y agoTraditionally collectors do have legal control over the display of a work even if it is digital. For instance a film artist may sell three editions of a short film and keep an artists edition for loaning to museums. If one of the copies is loaned to a gallery for a show then the owner might send a DVD or a digital file to the gallery. A gallery assistant might make a copy of the file, and watch it on their laptop. But they can’t show the film in public and doing so outside of the social and institutional context where it establishes its value would be 100% verboten. There would also be strong social norms against sharing the file online or with friends. It’s false scarcity but it’s maintained by everyone involved because it’s part of the ruleset that creates a functioning economy. Anyone who exhibited a work they didn’t own or have loaned to them would be an instant pariah in the art world. All of this has worked reasonably well for years without NFTs. It wouldn’t be uncommon for Jeff Wall to mail high resolution images of his work to a magazine and even though the art director that received them could go out and print a copy that would look like one of the three legal editions, it wouldn’t allow them to participate in the work. But they would get to hang a nice photo on their wall even though they would pay the cost of all their artist and artist adjacent friends would considering them a philistine. It’s possible that what we’re witnessing now is a true disintermediation of the institutions that make up the art world and the creation of independent pathways for meaning to be discovered and valuation to be determined. Is the art world changing or being disrupted by NFTs? Probably not really, they may be incorporated into art collecting in some limited way over time once the hype dies down. The social context is still missing in the idea of pure NFT collecting and is missing engaging with or recreating a culture of art appreciation and patronage. Beeple aside, 99% of the NFT stuff out there is much more of a mix of speculation, consumption, and more appropriate for collectibles than art. A lot of the content is basic meme stuff, and memes derive their value from ubiquity, and democratization. The ethos of Reddit where people won’t even repost stuff that has a small watermark on it is more appropriate for this sort of consumable than anything you’d apply the word art to. But I could be totally wrong, I definitely never anticipated what is happening now back in 2013 when bitcoin folks were going on about “coloured coins”.
- jiofih 6y agoAren’t many artworks on loan to a museum? Not much different. Being the owner, you can take your painting or NFT home by not giving permission for any exhibitions.
- DethNinja 6y agoSo could someone explain how NFTs can be used to launder money? Because otherwise they seems pretty useless with the exception that these can be used to access decentralised software as a license key.
- NoOneNew 6y agoNow theres going to be a gold rush of anyone and everyone trying to capitalize on this. Also, am I the only one that feels this is a new level of bonkers?
- simplecto 6y agoI would say there was a frenzy equal in magnitude around the 2000s dot-com. Yes, this looks crazy because we have never seen it. Then again, who would have thought we would get diapers and dog food delivered to our home the same day we order it? Or that mini-flying machines would bring me a Big Mac? The future is a very weird place, but the winners will be the ones who embrace the crazy. Jason Calicanis has a good story about when he met the founder of Robinhood (The trading app). The idea sounded so nuts that it was worth a bet.
- tyre 6y agoOk but all of those examples have real world uses. Getting diapers or dog food delivered, buying stocks for free, big mac delivery — these are all improvements on what existed before. NFTs have…???
- simplecto 6y agoGo back to 1999, and diaper delivery via fedex was as useless as a digital token.
- vishnugupta 6y agoThe useless part was “....delivery via fedex” because of high cost, unreliability etc. The diaper in itself was and is used by hundreds of millions of people all over the world day in and day out. In fact once even the “delivery” part is very useful at a certain price point. I’m struggling to connect NFT as a solution for addressing a need in a similar way. Is it something niche like a high end art that earns a few million ultra rich people the bragging rights?
- lm28469 6y ago
- sk5t 6y agoIs this high-class money laundering, or something else?
- gruez 6y agoIf you wanted to launder money there surely has to be more discreet ways than making a highly unusual sale worth millions?
- themanmaran 6y agoArtwork has always been a popular way to launder money. Since its value is entirely subjective.
- criddell 6y agoHow does it work? Say I have $1 million dollars I need to launder. How does me buying or selling some artwork at an inflated value clean the money?
- dagmx 6y agoBecause it obfuscates the purpose of your money.
- themanmaran 6y agoSo say you have $1MM of dirty money. You go pick up a random painting, or scribble on some canvas yourself. Then get your art appraiser friend to say your painting is worth $1MM. You then sell that painting at auction to another friend for $1MM. Cash only. Private transaction. But the cash never actually changes hands. Your friend gets the painting, and you claim that the $1MM of dirty cash you had laying around was instead proceeds from the art sale. Now there are tons of other examples out there with different methods. But it generally all comes down to selling an object that cannot be objectively valued for an all cash price.
- gruez 6y ago
- cj 6y agoHere's a direct link to Christie's which has a photo of the artwork: https://onlineonly.christies.com/s/beeple-first-5000-days/beeple-b-1981-1/112924 https://onlineonly.christies.com/s/beeple-first-5000-days/be...
- cybert00th 6y agoSeriously!? They don't discuss the artwork; what file format, if any, that the artist used; how it was stored; how it's accessed, nothing! While the concept sounds very interesting, the reporting leaves much to be desired!
- LegitShady 6y agoIt's an NFT. It's one etherium coin being flipped over and over again to more ridiculous speculators or the losers who end up holding the bag in exchange for a non fungible digital token. It doesn't come with art, rights to publish, rights to copy, etc. It's just an etherium coin the original artist minted that no one else can copy, that they named after some work of art and sold. NFTs don't make any sense without associated rights or goods they would represent, and even then they do the same thing as contracts without any legal enforce ability - you'd need a contract to enforce any rights sold with an NFT. The NFT would just act as a 'proof' token. I don't get it. Where's the value?
- genericacct 6y agoIt could be used as a way of tax-optimization in some countries I guess..
- LegitShady 6y agoPlease explain.
- Kiro 6y agoIt's an NFT. There's nothing stored. They bought a token with a string saying "this is an NFT of artwork.jpg by Beeple" more or less.
- martin_a 6y ago> non-fungible token (jpg) > 21,069 x 21,069 pixels (319,168,313 bytes) I think this is the information you are looking for? It's somewhat hidden at the top under the hashes
- KaiserPro 6y agobut it doesn't come with any rights. You don't get the copyright for this artwork, you own the token, not the art it's self. its sheer lunacy.
- KaiserPro 6y agonot to mention that the art its self is cheap, derivative and with no inherent meaning, unless you count the act of getting $70m for not actually selling the work as actual art.
- bitminer 6y ago21.7 cents per pixel. Stock photos cost $5 to $100 and come with distribution rights. Somebody paid a lot of money for bragging rights.
- deckard1 6y agoWho are they bragging to? Are they going to print out the crypto hash and hang it on a wall in their mega mansion? And think that actually impresses anyone that doesn't already know what crypto art is? At least with a painting the rich can lay tenuous claim to a cultured pedigree or background. Imagine having visitors scanning your crypto QR code to confirm that you do, in fact, own those internet bits you claim and that you did, in fact, pay silly amounts of money for. What a club of true assholes...
- Accujack 6y agoTo someone with a technical bent, it (NFT creation and sales) seems pointless and crazy, but it's no more so than things like fiat currencies or stock shorting. Essentially, people are gaming human psychology to trigger the desire to "own" something and creating an artificially limited supply of that something using crypto (which may as well be a cut and paste replacement for magic as far as most people are concerned). Limited supply + desire = high prices for acquiring whatever is desired. High prices plus near zero production cost for the "item" means lots of profit for little effort, hence all the interest in this right now.
- themanmaran 6y agoA little more info from an NPR article on the sale: "That is, until about four months ago. That's when Mike found out about a new kind of blockchain technology that has been rippling through the digital economy: NFTs, or non-fungible tokens. NFTs are like certificates of ownership — unique barcodes that can't be duplicated — that can be attached to all sorts of digital files and make them into exchangeable assets. Mike's story offers a window into how NFTs are on track to dramatically reshape the art market." (https://www.npr.org/2021/03/10/975782582/market-power-to-the-beeple https://www.npr.org/2021/03/10/975782582/market-power-to-the...) So NFTs are the new DRM?
- koolba 6y agoNot even. They’re the new digital beanie babies.
- Kiro 6y agoNo, it has nothing to do with copyright. You own a token where the only proof that it has anything to do with the artwork is the fact that the creator said so.
- jiofih 6y agoLike.. a painter claiming that he painted what he is selling?
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago> So NFTs are the new DRM? NFTs are in a weird state right now because they generally don’t give the holder any real rights or abilities. It’s basically proof that you for and control a cryptographically signed link to something else. Like buying a link to a digital artwork, which is often available for free anyway.
- vuciv1 6y agoWanna talk about NFT lunacy? I was able to sell an NFT of Mona Lisa. Granted, I only got $5 out of it, but the fact that I can make any profit off it is ridiculous. https://jerseyfonseca.com/blogs/nft https://jerseyfonseca.com/blogs/nft
- arbuge 6y agoAnd what were the fees you incurred to sell that? Most NFT marketplaces won't let you list anything for less than about $100 USD equivalent last time I checked (a few days ago).
- vuciv1 6y agoMintable.app is actually gasless. There were no fees.
- jiofih 6y agoThat’s plain copyright infringement. You can do it without NFTs just as easily. EDIT: forgery.
- bhouston 6y agoPeople buy cheap prints of the Mona Lisa all the time. I think that is just what you did.
- vuciv1 6y agoGood point. The internet is weird.
- yepthatsreality 6y agoHow much does it cost for an NFT of a photo of a Beanie Baby?
- websites2323 6y agoStupid question time. Apologies in advance. Could the buyer print it out and put it on their wall?
- yepthatsreality 6y agoI imagine as long as you have the data and call `.toString()` on it, then yes.
- shawabawa3 6y agoYes. So could literally anyone else though.
- PragmaticPulp 6y agoYou could, too. No NFT purchase required: https://onlineonly.christies.com/s/beeple-first-5000-days/beeple-b-1981-1/112924 https://onlineonly.christies.com/s/beeple-first-5000-days/be... Presumably the buyer gets a higher resolution copy that isn’t available elsewhere, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the NFT. The NFT is just proof of a transaction taking place. It doesn’t actually transfer anything other than the token, though. The actual legalities are still handled through real-world contracts. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some sort of clause in the sales contracts that render the NFT null and void for the purposes of the contract if it’s stolen or lost or something. The NFT is basically along for the ride.
- websites2323 6y agoI guess I’m trying to figure out how rich people brag about their wealth. They can’t put this in a museum(?) and hanging it on your wall in your dining room isn’t particularly impressive either. I suppose there’s lots of art just sitting in storage because it’s an investment medium, and this isn’t different?
- kibwen 6y agoArt auctions, the favorite money laundering scheme of the rich, meets cryptocurrency, the second-favorite money laundering scheme of the rich. A match made in heaven.
- bronak1 6y agoTheres way better ways to launder money...I think you might be thinking of tax evasion.
- jl2718 6y agoI don’t see how this could work, at least with US tax law.
- kkielhofner 6y agoWhen it comes to tax evasion ("avoision") there is no limit of creativity.
- DamnYuppie 6y agoBut tax avoidance isn't illegal, this has been tested many times in the US courts.
- kkielhofner 6y agoI'm aware of that (hence the parens and quotes) but I was more referring to what could probably best be understood as "common understanding", that is to say that a large portion of the population would probably be shocked at the kind of sophisticated avoision strategies that have been deployed to minimize tax liability. The average Joe doesn't declare $100 in income - evasion. The ultra wealthy don't get taxed on $100,000,000 in income - avoision.
- weaksauce 6y agoArt is a great way to launder money for the ultra rich. It's a pretty widely known scheme covered over and over again. here's one sample: https://www.forbes.com/2003/04/08/cx_0408hot.html https://www.forbes.com/2003/04/08/cx_0408hot.html
- bondarchuk 6y agoAnyone have the full-size image?
- mattowen_uk 6y agoIt's yours for $71M.
- antoniuschan99 6y agoHere's a video about Beeples Everydays. I'm not a fan of NFTs (at least yet), but the video does mention Beeple's years of work as an artist. Whatever you think of the technology, it's really good to see artists getting paid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zTpJJoHmnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zTpJJoHmnE
- joshspankit 6y agoBeeple is the real deal.
- antoniuschan99 6y agoAlso here’s an unboxing of one of his NFT artwork https://youtu.be/PSm1rdd1ywc https://youtu.be/PSm1rdd1ywc
- johnyzee 6y agoBlah blah money laundering blah blah beanie babies. This is getting old, it's like when Google launches a service and comments are "So when will this be shut down?". It's lazy and brings nothing to the table. On the topic, can anyone explain how the 'official' Beeple entry is identified on the blockchain? As opposed to any other address that claims to be the "Official Beeple '5000 days' NFT ownership token". My understanding of this is sketchy at best.
- Leader2light 6y agoI don't understand this either. Who is actually making sure all this stuff is owned by the correct person before it goes on the blockchain. can't a 5001 Days version just come out next? This honestly seems so stupid, but maybe its the future of humanity. Lord knows we earned it.
- bondarchuk 6y agoWhile I completely agree that this here collective aneurysm (or shall we call it "cryptocurrency derangement syndrome") is painful to see, your lack of understanding can only be explained by the fact that NFTs of digital images don't work on a technical level. There is really not much else to discuss.
- johnyzee 6y agoI was thinking if it could not be made to work with certificates. Like the artist signs a message handing over the ownership using his private key, which can be verified by his certificate from a trusted certificate authority, then commits that message to the blockchain.
- bondarchuk 6y agoThen you have a trusted certificate authority, so you don't need a trustless decentralized blockchain anymore.
- johnyzee 6y ago
- nancy99 6y agoWhy can't I create an MTF that looks identical to a popular one that has already been sold? I can sell that fake NTF to myself for the same price the real one sold (so it looks like it has value and is real). Then I can market mine as the real one and sell it to someone for a profit.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- CPLX 6y agoOK HN help me out on this one. This whole NFT phenomenon just has to be primarily driven by money laundering right? Like there's no possible way a person, who is in possession of $69 million dollars, has decided that they'd rather have this image file right? It's impossible. So we must conclude that what's actually happened is they have $69MM in gains, and they're a known entity, and they'd like to offset that with $69MM in loss somehow and transfer the gain to an unknown or untraceable entity. Or whatever the more accurate version of that basic dynamic is. Am I wrong?
- jl2718 6y agoPump-and-dump should be the first assumption. I think we get a bit fantastical to assume we live in a high-crime spy novel.
- sktrdie 6y agoIsn't this how the entire field of "collectibles" works? Makes total sense to me. Why do people think this is lunacy and selling music isn't? (just curious)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- anm89 6y agoGood grief
- sktrdie 6y agoWhat if the artist himself had all the crypto? Created hundreds of fake personas (addresses) and took part of the auctions to create hype on what essentially is buying his own work? Catching a few gullible people on the way.
- xtiansimon 6y agoI think we need a strong wealth tax here in the US. It would take Emoji domain guy 70,000 years to make this auction price.