17 ms·
I feel like I'm saying "the emperor has no clothes", but doesn't anyone else think this NFT art thing is bullshit? Everything about it screams "scam": they're a
by daenz 6y ago
I feel like I'm saying "the emperor has no clothes", but doesn't anyone else think this NFT art thing is bullshit? Everything about it screams "scam": they're asking you to spend your real, hard-earned money on some digital "asset", pumped by celebrity influencers and hype entrepreneurs. Everyone is drawn to the big multi-million dollar figures of these high profile artists, figures that you will never see for your "assets", and do nothing but serve as a siren's call to everyone around. These high profile sales are marketing, nothing more. They are serving their purpose to kick start the mainstream adoption of this scam, because everyone thinks they can make a quick buck buying some digital signature.
What's more is the pseudo-intellectual justifications for it all. As soon as you bring up value, proponents put on their philosophy hat and ponder "what is value? money is just paper, maaaaan, we just believe it has value." Or we hear that owning a digital "asset" is actually the same thing as a physical "asset" because they're both unique things that can't be copied. It's all smoke and mirrors, and you know that when you have to hide behind vague philosophical assertions about "well nothing really has any value", then you have no actual argument supporting the value of the thing you're defending. It's a new illusion, pumped by hype, and they're trying to justify its existence by pointing to other illusions.
Thanks but count me out.
- nerdponx 6y agoHuh? Buying art with an NFT is just a way to give artists and/or art auctioneers money for their art. That's it. Oh and it can be used for other things like event ticketing, software license keys, etc. An NFT is just a way to record (in an immutable distributed ledger) that a specific, uniquely-identifiable token was transferred from A to B. People have always paid stupid amounts of money for art, and in the last 100 years increasingly art that doesn't require years of training/practice and advanced craftsmanship. Why is this any different? It sounds like you just don't want to be involved in the art market, which nobody in their right mind wants to be involved in anyway. Complaining about NFTs is like complaining about "blockchain" or "the internet" or whatever.
- stickfigure 6y ago> Why is this any different? Because if you buy a painting, you can hang it on your wall.
- djitz 6y agoBuy an NFT and make it your desktop and mobile backgrounds. You’re welcome.
- andreilys 6y agoYou don’t need to buy an NFT to make it your desktop or mobile background.
- everly 6y agoRight and you can also buy a cheap print of an expensive, famous piece and hang it on your wall. In fact, people do it all the time! Doesn’t diminish the value of the original.
- finexplained 6y agoExcept that in this case the bits are literally identical.
- jackvezkovic 6y agoSo, if we in the future are able to clone a Mona Lisa perfectly, will it be as worth as the original? Does it decrease the value of the original?
- iamacyborg 6y agoNo, because the original was made hundreds of years ago by a now globally recognised artist. A jpg is just a jpg.
- mint2 6y ago
- maxerickson 6y agoDoes most of the money actually go to artists?
- cmrdsprklpny 6y agoIf the artist is themself selling the art as an NFT, I believe so.
- rodonn 6y agoYes, but there is a big problem of people other than the artist creating NFTs for other peoples art. There is nothing in the NFT process that guarantees the money is going to the "right" person.
- TigeriusKirk 6y agoFrom the original sale almost all of it goes to the person who minted it, minus a small fee (around 5%) for the platform. That should be the artist, but of course there are people minting art that isn't theirs. There's efforts to catch and remove that, but a lot slips through. From secondary market sales, the artist can get a royalty if they choose and the secondary transaction is on the same platform. Typically around 10%. The same platform requirement is an issue and hopefully a future NFT standard smart contract will build in a royalty option/.
- ALittleLight 6y agoHow do you remove tokens minted by people other than the artist? Who removes it, and what stops that person or those people from removing legitimate tokens?
- Rule35 6y agoEither you don't, and can't, or you build a special script with a revocation list run by trusted 'Oracles' who would essentially notarize a legal claim by the artist into a blocklist of image hashes, or a whitelist of who can mint NFTs for those hashes. Those Oracles would ideally be known parties who could be sued under the laws of their jurisdiction for lying.
- ahepp 6y agoHow is the token associated with the work?
- Kiro 6y agoThe token (according to the ERC-721 standard) contains a URL to a hosted JSON which contains a URL to the hosted image. So to access the actual image you need to go through two different servers.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y agoSerious question: What happens in 20 years if the domain registration for that URL is not renewed, or the website hosting that JSON is gone?
- Rule35 6y agoWhat happens if you drop your print in a puddle and it's destroyed, but you still have the proof of authenticity in your pocket? While the artist is alive, they'll probably replace it at cost. But after the artist is gone the certificate does nothing. (It still proves your status, like the NFT, but otherwise is worthless.)
- nerdponx 6y agoUse IPFS.
- mrgordon 6y agoThis doesn’t solve the problem at all. Many of the NFT sites are hosting their own IPFS and many of the images have already gone missing from the IPFS because no one is hosting that file still. https://twitter.com/checkmynft/status/1371633090318249984?s=21 https://twitter.com/checkmynft/status/1371633090318249984?s=... https://twitter.com/scanlime/status/1371509988179464196?s=21 https://twitter.com/scanlime/status/1371509988179464196?s=21
- 6y ago
- palebluedot 6y agoHere is one thing I have a hard time wrapping my head around, and how I think it is fundamentally different from something like a painting: The thing that is "non-fungible" is the token, not the actual art. The underlying digital asset is actually fungible with copies of it. With a painting, there are prints and reproductions of the Mona Lisa, but they are all fundamentally different in some way - the exact brush stroke texture, etc. NFTs have this feeling of valuing the receipt, not the art. As if I walked into a gift shop at The Louvre and bought a Mona Lisa slick poster print, but then valued the gift store receipt more than the more-or-less completely replaceable poster.
- nerdponx 6y agoIt's like buying a piece of land. You don't physically take the land home, you just acquire new and specific rights depending on your legal jurisdiction. Are you buying the property, or just the deed to the property?
- mejutoco 6y agoAcquiring the land makes you the legal owner of it, backed by the law of the country and its military. Owning the nft has no legal consequence at the moment. Who will enforce any right on your behalf?
- miracle2k 6y agoWhich rights? Legal rights that the artist wants to sell alongside the token can be legally enforced. Beyond that, the ownership of the token is enforced by the blockchain, and that ownership token is the thing people value.
- sneak 6y ago> Legal rights that the artist wants to sell alongside the token can be legally enforced. For the first sale. I'm not sure current contract law permits any legal rights to follow the token in subsequent sales.
- Grustaf 6y agoBecause without NFTs there would be no way to give money to the original artist, right.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- weare138 6y ago>Buying art with an NFT is just a way to give artists and/or art auctioneers money for their art. That's it. But we could already do that. It's a solution to a problem no one had. A NFT would only be useful for proving ownership if it will hold up in court, which I doubt it would without accompanying proof of purchase.
- Rule35 6y agoIt's literally impossible for someone without the purchaser's key to pretend to be the purchaser. That's 1000x what a receipt proves. Whatever their flaws, NFTs are perfect proof of ownership of the token...
- sio8ohPi 6y agoNFTs provide proof of ownership of the token, but no guarantee the NFT wasn't issued "fraudulently". C.f.: https://www.reddit.com/r/NFT/comments/m3y4go/my_art_stolen_and_sold_as_nft_what_can_i_do/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NFT/comments/m3y4go/my_art_stolen_a...
- Rule35 6y agoSo? You can buy "counterfeit" or "stolen" art at many galleries. But if you care about the artist enough to want to donate I imagine you're more familiar with their work than all that.
- nerdponx 6y agoIsn't this literally the only thing an NFT guarantees anyway? It is precisely a "non-fungible token" and nothing more. Anything you can do with a non-fungible piece of paper, you can do with a non-fungible token. Anything you can't do with a non-fungible piece of paper, you can't do with a non-fungible token. I'm blown away by how many people are upset that other people are doing stupid things at the confluence of new technology and excessive spending money.
- Rule35 6y ago
- FridgeSeal 6y agoHow is an NFT in any way better than a signed proof-of-purchase?
- nerdponx 6y agoNot any better, unless you value having the exchange recorded in an immutable distributed ledger. Some people value that.
- parhamn 6y agoI don’t part take. But I think you’re a bit too quick to dismiss the “social” part of economics, remember it’s a social science after all. Once you include that, your rational valuation frameworks start to erode as it becomes subjective (even worse, collectively subjective). Then the rest of the conversation is shouting over each other. Both sides are right, it is insane, but it’s insane because it wants to be insane. History will look at it positively if it crosses some threshold/tipping point of social acceptance. And negatively if it doesn’t. That’s all there is to it really. The lines between economies and schemes are blurry and hero’s and villains are only declared once the dust settles. We’re not there yet.
- chedine 6y agoWell said, this is exactly what it is
- UncleMeat 6y agoI think there are few things. 1. There are some people who struck it megarich with crypto and now have so much "f-u money" that they are willing to spend it on conspicuous consumption. It is the same sort of thing that comes from "look at how much money I lit on fire" posts being given social credit in places like WSB. 2. There are other people who already had a gazillion dollars and are also interested in conspicuous consumption. 3. NFTs are trendy and trends in the crypto space attract people seeking to make money on a trend. A bunch of people are surely buying these things hoping to leave somebody else holding the bag. 4. It is crypto, so some degree of fraud and crime is involved.
- spinny 6y ago> 4. It is crypto, so some degree of fraud and crime is involved. some degree of fraud and crime exists in regards to anything of value. Money laundering existed before cryptos. Most banks caught laundering money, did it at a massive scale in comparison to the value of the Bitcoin network. Fraud and crime are directly connected with value
- ahepp 6y agoIf my bank has insider fraud, I usually don't lose my deposits
- dgellow 6y agoIt's bullshit (in the sense "absurd and meaningless") but I wouldn't call it a scam. Something I wrote yesterday[0] that I think is relevant here: > I'm not sure I understand the hate for NFTs. Don't get me wrong, the concept of NFT as currently used is completely absurd and definitely overhyped. But what is bad about it? People who spend their money on NFTs mostly do it because they got rich in the past few years gambling on BTC or ETH, and now use that money to basically tip the artists they like. Or they plan to resell the token at some point, which is pure speculation, but nobody other than themselves risk to get burn. Minting and selling NFTs is almost zero work and effort for artists, all the risks are on the buyers side, and only if they buy them as speculative assets. > It still make no sense to me, but if rich people want to gamble their money and by doing so support some artists, that doesn't sound too bad IMHO. > I would be more cautious if retail investors would start to gamble in this market, but that's not what I've seen so far. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26448481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26448481
- 542458 6y agoAnecdotally, I’ve seen a large number of retail-ish early adopters jumping into NFTs on Twitter. And I can’t help but wonder if it is a true scam - you could do some massive early transactions to pump of perceived values and create get-rich-quick hype (optimally, these should mostly be left-hand-to-right-hand transactions), then go ahead and make money as an NFT marketplace. Or by selling other works from the artists that you just pumped to the moon (which you had purchased before the pump operation).
- swayvil 6y agoI think that you underestimate the power of bullshit. We can create reality out of nothing but talk now. If enough people assert a story as real then it is indeed real. Social media is wonderful for this. Yes, it's basically 1984 with some extra steps.
- Angostura 6y agoI think of them like paying for a signed, numbered print. On that left it seems reasonable. The prices, seem less reasonable.
- NelsonMinar 6y agoOnly you set a whole forest on fire every time you buy a print.
- kevinwang 6y agoSource?
- Hjfrf 6y agoForest is a clear exagerration, but this article goes over numbers. A few weeks of ordinary household energy usage per NFT is realistic. https://www.loop-news.com/p/the-big-problem-with-nfts-energy https://www.loop-news.com/p/the-big-problem-with-nfts-energy
- NelsonMinar 6y agoNo source but my poetic heart. But perhaps you've heard about the massive energy consumption of these magic bean systems?
- grey-area 6y agoAnd you don’t actually get the print, you get a number. People are buying a number here which has no relation for he actual artwork. You own nothing but the number.
- SwimSwimHungry 6y agoWe truly are in the era of more money than sense. I get that people want put their money into something other than virtually-worthless low-interest savings accounts, but where will we all be once the musical chairs stops?
- egypturnash 6y agoIMHO, it's just the same game as with the gallery art scheme, except on top of cryptocurrencies. As a broke artist, if I can get some rich assholes to start convincing each other that my art has ludicrous amounts of money, then I will happily let them pay me for it, and let the gallery owner who was instrumental in convincing them of this value have a healthy cut. If the gallery owner wants to arrange a money-laundering kickback to the rich assholes that's their own business, personally I feel like I'd rather avoid it but who knows how I'll feel when I'm being offered a price with enough zeros at the end of its number?
- numbsafari 6y agoCheesy police procedural plot line... Create a bunch of art, put the ownership into a decentralized autonomous organization with 51% held by the artist and the other 49% held by a bunch of random, anonymous "owners". Start the hype train with a loud, crazy scandal that results in the "death" of the artist. The artist's estate leaves their stake to the gallery owner who starts to sell off the stake at stupid prices following the death of the artist. Secretly, you've faked your death and also were in control of the "anonymous" ownership stake. You can launder the increased value of that part of the stake and recombine it through a bunch of shells and mixers. Who knows, maybe this was "Satoshi"'s plan all along. That "unclaimed" stake was just there to increase the mystery and the hype, meanwhile "he" actually had control of a bunch of other coin that "he" was able to launder at a later date.
- tim333 6y agoI imagine Satoshi, if not dumb, which I doubt he was, had other bitcoins apart from the publicly held ones.
- fastball 6y agoAll bitcoins are publicly held.
- vmception 6y agoFunny, but the actual plot of this timeline is to support living artists, and we've collectively leveraged that sentiment to create entirely new infrastructure to support that. This is the beginning of it.
- bradleyjg 6y agoA few fairly disconnected thoughts: 1) It could be a scam of sorts, but one that the parties are in on. For example tax fraud or an attempt evade capital controls. 2) Leave aside digital anything, art has gotten really weird lately. The self destructing Banksy thing, the banana duct tape thing—-I could see being knowingly, publicly scammed as some kind of bizarre performance art. I guess the super rich are really bored. 3) The most reasonable spin on it I could think of is what if there was a limited edition print where the print itself wasn’t limited edition. There were as many prints as anyone wanted to buy for the cost of production, but the artist sold a small number of certificates of authenticity. It still seems kind of pointless and scammy to me but it’s at least closer to understandable.
- formerly_proven 6y agoCrypto IFF: It's a scam unless there's compelling evidence to the contrary.
- stelonix 6y agoIt's pretty obvious any why I look at it. The resemblances with MLM are staggering and the late-stage capitalism arguments for NFTs are baffling. It makes me see bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies as not so fun anymore and just a big capitalist scam.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dqpb 6y agoMost people on HN are (rightly so) calling bullshit on the technology. I think it's worth noting though that there does seem to be a legit market for it, so it's probably worth considering what it would take to make the technology not bullshit.
- iamacyborg 6y agoI guess the challenge is separating the bullshit from the technology. Right now they’re joined at the hip.
- clairity 6y agoit's the same kind of financial intermediation to extract wealth without providing value that underlies ponzi schemes and the derivatives that got us the 2008 crisis. it's a lot of wealth accumulation for its own sake detached from its real basis as a claim on (someone else's) productivity. in short, it's bullshit, but for the tech crowd rather than wall streeters.
- carver 6y agoYeah, digital-only NFTs will likely be a fad. I'll be interested again when the trend moves toward deeds. A title for a physical work could have staying power. Even potentially an iou from an artist for a one of a kind (physical) piece.
- vmception 6y agoNot quite. People are using NFTs as stores of value. Despite spending, the owners are not illiquid and are much more liquid than fine art collectors, as borrowing at decently high Loan to Value ratios against the NFT can happen in the subsequent block. Given your existing predilection, knowing that probably also just moves the goal post for why you think there is something wrong with it "omg, now there's leverage!?". But its just an efficiency on the existing art world which has all the same stuff just much slower due to poor data and information, and nothing to do with the pseudo-intellection abstraction of value. In a single protocol (standardized class with a set of standardized functions), art provenance has been disrupted, art appraisal has been disrupted, art insurance has been disrupted, art lending has been disrupted, and art royalties have been disrupted. You will just be seeing more participants in the collectors market because of it, and a market that moves faster and can attract more capital globally, instantly, during a period of massive currency creation. Its not anybody's problem that new galleries/marketplaces have fees for the artists. Its not anybody's problem that there will still be a ton of starving artists that will never get bids on these platforms. Its not anybody's problem that a buyer ends up with an asset that might not be valued the same or higher or ever get a bid again. Its not anybody's problem that a lender winds up with an illiquid asset. Buy art you like and from creators you like to support, maybe some times you won't get outbid.
- atleta 6y agoI talked to a guy a few weeks ago. He needed help with his art related NFT project. Basically he was looking for a CTO because he had no idea whether his developers were doing a good job (and, I'd also add, what he built wasn't necessarily what he needed to build). I have a pretty good understanding of block chain technologies but didn't hear about NFTs before, so like you, I started to challenge his ideas. Partly to understand what he was building. Because at first I tried to find real and practical applications for the platform that somehow connect to physical things, works of art. But what he said was pretty interesting. The guy had a background in art management and, I think, trade. He said that art collection has always been about being able to say that you have the original piece. And that it's not rational anyway, not even for physical works of art, like paintings. It's not that you like the actual picture on the actual canvas so much that you want to buy it for say $1M and if you just had a copy you'd notice the difference and that wouldn't give you as much pleasure. It's simply about having the original. And also collecting related originals. Now it's easy to trace it back to real, actual scarcity, where indeed there weren't many e.g. paintings (or books, etc.) and there was a big difference between the paintings of different artists (both in style and quality) and you had no way of looking at these other than having the originals probably. I guess the big question here is whether this phenomenon is strong enough on its own to transfer to purely digital assets or whether this is really rooted and tied to that original scarcity that we kept changing the story around. (I.e. while it's not about being able to enjoy and look at the piece anymore, now it's tied to the knowledge that that specific piece of canvas was painted on by that specific very talented guy X hundred years ago, and he was standing in front, etc.) One hint might be those 'limited edition' sport cards that some people seem to collect, as well as 'limited edition' e.g. CD or vinyl albums from the past millenium. (I never understood those, but I had a friend who did get a very obvious joy out of being able to buy those. For me, these were always just delivery mediums and I only cared about the music.) Honestly, I have no idea, but that call was definitely interesting.
- miracle2k 6y agoBravo. Also consider for example Sol LeWitts Wall Drawings, which can be sold as a set of drawing instructions, and need not exist in physical form: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lewitt-wall-drawing-1136-ar00165 https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lewitt-wall-drawing-113... In that sense, this is ownership over something intangible very much like NFTs.
- Moodles 6y agoI'm surprised blockchains are still being hyped even though they have practically no useful applications for business. Of all buzzwords, blockchain must surely have the worst hype-to-usefulness ratio of all-time. Having said that, even though paying for a digital signature on a blockchain is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion, if people know what they're buying then I don't really care what they choose to waste their money on.
- SwimSwimHungry 6y agoMoodles, never underestimate rich people with too much uninvested capital on their hands.
- hshshs2 6y agoso it’s just like most other art then
- NoOneNew 6y agoI'm going to disagree with you. Pseudo-intellectual gives the "justifications" far too much credit. What I also find hilarious, folks who love this NFT "can't be copied" are great are the same people who hate DRM. While I'm not a fan of intrusive DRM, I'm going to side with paying what folks deserve for putting time into coding/art/planning for a game/movie/whatever. I get something from their effort, they deserve something in return. That and I'd rather buy a $20 poster of art from my real life wall than over glorified digital wallpaper.
- Animats 6y agoHenry Ford got this. He was once pitched by some art dealers, who gave him a big book of prints of artworks they had for sale. He then asked, now that I have this book, why would I want the original?
- Rule35 6y agoDRM keeps people from viewing/using something, and can (often does) keep a legitimate owner from using it. And NFT does not, it only lets you prove (to anyone who cares) that you have a granted right to the product. You should appreciate this, it lets you support the creator with zero risk of locking out a legitimate viewer. Also, you realize that you could print the digital artwork and have a poster, right? Personally I've got more than enough posters, too many to put up in ten houses, and would actually rather have high quality scans of them so I can still enjoy them.
- SwimSwimHungry 6y agoYou misunderstand. NFTs grant you absolutely no rights to anything. You simply were fooled into buying a token which points to a resource. That's it. It bestows no additional rights to the content itself. For instance, Jack Dorsey could delete that one tweet he sold an NFT against and... you're essentially left with a useless and worthless token to show off to very few people who probably barely care. You have no recourse or a leg to stand on. Good luck getting a refund. As far as supporting artists goes, doesn't Patreon kind of already do this? Or what about cutting a check directly to the author? NFTs seem like "supporting" artists with extra steps. Plus, the middle-men always win on this with all the silly gas fees. I'd argue NFTs are extremely inefficient when those fees are taken into consideration.
- bouncycastle 6y agoNot everyone. Personally I'm buying only stuff that resonates with me. I do not plan to flip it for a quick profit. In fact, my.taste is sometimes so eccentric that I doubt anyone else will want to buy them from me. However, I must say that owning a NFT to an artwork, gives you a stronger connection to it, even if it is digital. The artist also appreciate that you support their work. That's the way you should go about this too. If you see anything promoted by celebrities, run, run away. Also avoid corporations caching in on it like the NBA. Only buy from Artists directly, and if you must, then trade only peer-to-peer.
- sneak 6y agoBuying an NFT from anyone other than the original artist does not support the artist in any way.
- aspenmayer 6y agoArtists are able to determine the cut of resale profits they receive, aren’t they?
- sneak 6y agoThere is nothing in ERC-721 to permit such a requirement. Centralized marketplaces for the resale of 721s (NFTs) can enforce this for sales they arrange, but there's nothing inherent to the blockchain or NFT to require it, which means that sales bypassing such centralized marketplaces would not be subject to those conventions.
- bouncycastle 6y agoOh, you're wrong. It does! That's because if the price appreciates on the 2nd market, then it gives the artist an ability to sell new works for a higher price, as there is more demand for them. Sales drive more sales. Btw. I meant, only buy NFTs that were produced directly by the artists themselves, and the artists have rights to their work. Basically, avoid middlemen. That's what crypto is for.
- timnetworks 6y agoImagine if instead of a piece of art, it were your orange juice pint that came with a token. You could check it to see where that batch of oranges came from, if there are any FDA recalls on it, or whether your religious certification was reversed due to a hilarious but tragic cheese danish accident. Other people can also see this information, but it isn't as useful to them.
- Rule35 6y ago> we hear that owning a digital "asset" is actually the same thing as a physical "asset" because What's the difference between paying 100x for a purse, etc, and a digital status symbol? It's not bought as a good, it's bought as a symbol. Yeah, it does seem wasteful, and I generally think "spending Dad's money" when I see it, but it doesn't offend me. > but doesn't anyone else think this NFT art thing is bullshit? Yeah. Because it's not clear that it's just a prestige way to sponsor someone. Non-techies may not understand that the NFT offers no control over the art, the way that owning an original allows you to lock it in a vault or burn it.
- monkeydreams 6y ago> I feel like I'm saying "the emperor has no clothes", but doesn't anyone else think this NFT art thing is bullshit? I don't think the implementation is interesting. I don't think the technology is interesting. I think the concept is extremely interesting, though not in the context of the NFT linking a user to a digital artwork. If people believe a product has value, then the product has value. If consumers are willing to pay money for it, then the product has value. People are willing to exert considerable effort to submitting the first comment on a popular youtuber's latest video. People are willing to spend considerable money in order to "own" unique items on roblox. None of these items have any marginal cost to the creator, the hard work has been done, but they are an interesting auxiliary product to the creator's product. I think an interesting intersection lies between the thinking that lead to NFT, the idea of community and the implementation of smart contracts. Being part of a community, with bragging rights and smart contracts and agreements and sanctions and a culture and so on, becomes much more interesting if people are willing to take the leap to believe that the investment is worth the value they get in return. I think NFT is the proof of this, and the implications of this worry me deeply.
- riffraff 6y agoI think the first NFT asset might have had a value, much like Maurizio Cattelan's banana[0], where the actual bit of art is the certificate of owning the work, and not the perishable banana. It is a sort of performance art. Beyond that, I literally see no reason to buy these things, but they don't seem that different from physical collectibles, and most art pieces in general, where the concept of "original" is just as "irrelevant" in a world where we can duplicate things relatively easily. [0] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/2019/12/09/banana-priced-120000-exhibit-art-basel-eaten/2628306001/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/2019/12/09/banana-priced-...