3 ms·
I 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 develo
by atleta 6y ago
I 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.
- Rule35 6y agoInteresting, uncopyrightable art. As a product of slavishly following directions it by definition isn't creative. The directions are, but the directions can be rewritten and still produce the same product.
- ahepp 6y agoThere's an interesting series of videos from the BBC called "ways of seeing", narrated by John Berger. The series is based on Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", which also seems relevant to the phenomena you're describing.