4 ms·
At 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
by Kiro 6y ago
At 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?