8 ms·

Buy an NFT and make it your desktop and mobile backgrounds. You’re welcome.

• andreilys 6y ago
  You don’t need to buy an NFT to make it your desktop or mobile background.
  • everly 6y ago
    Right 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 ago
      Except that in this case the bits are literally identical.
      • jackvezkovic 6y ago
        So, 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 ago
          No, because the original was made hundreds of years ago by a now globally recognised artist. A jpg is just a jpg.
        • mint2 6y ago
          Perfectly as in the exact paint compounds, the effect of that order of brush strokes and timing, and then aging. Such that no art expert or chemical/forensic analysis can tell them apart other than the label saying which is which? That doesn’t not sound at all feasible. But if it were, then sure the prices would have to be close for the original and new one. It sounds impossible to do, and extremely easy expensive to make a copy like that of a real painting. It’s stupidly easy and simple to do with a digital work.
          • miracle2k 6y ago
            Any number of artworks are being sold which allow for reproducibility, say photographs. Expensive limited edition prints are a thing. In most of those cases the particular physical manifestation you acquire is entirely a construct. Even for an original painting, the fact that you desire that particular manifestation (over say an improved one which the original artist may now be able to do) is a construct. If a painting needs restoration, you may find that some elements are no longer original; this will not diminish its value. If over the years we replace all the parts of the Mona Lisa, it will still be the Mona Lisa (see also: the Ship of Theseus).
            • nwienert 6y ago
              Even the photos that sell are scarcer than digital photos - the only people who could reproduce it are the original artist, or an owner of the photo who made a perfect scan, and the owners of the photo likely aren’t going to distribute scans of their own art.
              • miracle2k 6y ago
                But that is entirely artificial scarcity. The fact is that they could be produced perfectly; the physical prints need physical security, because if copies were allowed to be made, it would be difficult to know who owns the original. If the provenance of the real item could be guaranteed, the fact that you have a really good copy wouldn't matter; people would still pay to own the original. That's exactly what an NFT is; digital security for a digital print. People who buy NFTs don't care that someone else has a copy, they value the artificial scarcity provided by the NFT. Look, the fact is that if you like a Picasso, you can have a perfect copy made, and you won't be able to tell the difference between the two. In fact, in a blind test, you may end up liking the copy more. The fact that you value the original more because Picasso touched it is totally, absolutely in your head. Empirically, there is no reason why this should make a difference to you. And then you have a digital token that Picasso personally signed with his private key. There are a lot of examples at the intersection of this. If you buy a Damien Hirst, the artist may well never have touched the piece - these are being produced by staff. Sol LeWitt's Wall Paintings exist as instructions that different artists re-execute over an over again. In all these cases, enjoyment of the art is available to everyone; you can have a really good copy. It is totally disconnected with what people value when they pay large sums of money, which is entirely artificial.
        • Grustaf 6y ago
          Even if that were possible, it wouldn't BE the original. Digital bits, unlike physical matter, has no identity, so the concept of "original" makes no sense.
        • stickfigure 6y ago
          If anyone could instantly make perfect clones of the Mona Lisa anywhere, at any time, then yes in fact the original would lose its value. By definition, it would be impossible to tell which is the original, and anyone could replace it the moment nobody is looking. You'll have to assume it's already happened countless times. In real life you cannot make perfect molecule-for-molecule clones of physical objects, so what's your point?
    • tantalor 6y ago
      It diminishes you, it's tacky.
      • Rule35 6y ago
        Right, art is only for the rich who can experience the original in person. My evil school with that art history textbook...
        • foobar33333 6y ago
          No but getting an obvious replication is just a little weird. There is plenty of art of identical and higher quality than the famous pieces within affordable prices.
          • Rule35 6y ago
            You seriously think so? Or is that for the uncanny valley where it's obviously just a replica, but not just a poster? A lot of art, for many, is that others see the same thing through different eyes. Looking at the Mona Lisa or a Rembrandt, means that I'm experiencing what millions have but uniquely. Shared experiences create bonds, even across time and space. It's also perhaps a bit humbling in a way another similarly good painting from now wouldn't be because of the temporal distance it comes from.
• rodonn 6y ago
  You can do this without buying the NFT also.