5 ms·

Why is this worth $85mil? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprematist_Composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprematist_Composition Honestly looks like a pie

Why is this worth $85mil? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprematist_Composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprematist_Composition Honestly looks like a piece of shit to me, something my child could do. Value of art doesn't have to do with skill.

UncleMeat 6y ago
Sure. But usually a piece like this goes for 85m long after the artist has achieved major notoriety in the art community and their work has been a clear influence on later art. In this case the 85m sale was 100 years after the creation of this piece. That may be a stupid reason, but it isn't a circular reason. Beeple, on the other hand, appears to be famous for selling art at ridiculous prices through NFTs.
jbluepolarbear 6y ago
The value of art is dictated by only a few players (really rich people). Generally, expensive art is from an influential artist; specifically, the pieces that were atypical or experimental.
eutropia 6y ago
As someone who enjoys abstract art, I'd like to have a print of this. It's very pleasant. But I'm pretty sure most art dealings are just money laundering.
postalrat 6y ago
Is there a painting you think is worth 85 million?
- seibelj 6y ago
  Is there a reason why the painting I linked is $85mil, and the Beeple NFT isn't? My argument is that the value of a collectible (NFT, painting, baseball card) is actually because of what it represents, rather than the object itself.
  - nl 6y ago
    > My argument is that the value of a collectible (NFT, painting, baseball card) is actually because of what it represents, rather than the object itself. Well... yeah? Has anyone ever argued that the Mona Lisa is worth whatever its raw materials are worth? The real question is if the Beeple work is interesting as art or is if just a speculative bubble. https://www.ft.com/content/1563d643-332f-3887-8c6e-caf7435f396a https://www.ft.com/content/1563d643-332f-3887-8c6e-caf7435f3...
    - seibelj 6y ago
      Many would argue that the Mona Lisa required an immense amount of skill and technique, and is a very high quality piece of art. Modern art (squares and circles) that anyone can make, I just don't see why it has the same value. But it does! And that's my point about NFTs.
      - nl 6y ago
        > Many would argue that the Mona Lisa required an immense amount of skill and technique, and is a very high quality piece of art. Modern art (squares and circles) that anyone can make, I just don't see why it has the same value. No art critic or collector makes that argument, and it's an uniformed position to take. People don't pay for the skill - there is no shortage of (very poorly paid) people who can do a convincing forgery of a daVinci. Something to consider.
        seibelj 6y ago
        Just noting that someone on HN says that considering the Mona Lisa a better piece of art than squares-and-circles nonsense "an uniformed position to take". Art people have been a consistent source of absurdity in my life!
  - tablespoon 6y ago
    > Is there a reason why the painting I linked is $85mil, and the Beeple NFT isn't? My argument is that the value of a collectible (NFT, painting, baseball card) is actually because of what it represents, rather than the object itself. Probably because that artist and his work were actually influential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich When looked at as an artist, Beeple appears to be the digital art equivalent of some forgettable late-Rococo painter.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Anything Leonardo even touched should be worth at least that.

UncleMeat 6y ago

Sure. But usually a piece like this goes for 85m long after the artist has achieved major notoriety in the art community and their work has been a clear influence on later art. In this case the 85m sale was 100 years after the creation of this piece. That may be a stupid reason, but it isn't a circular reason. Beeple, on the other hand, appears to be famous for selling art at ridiculous prices through NFTs.

jbluepolarbear 6y ago

The value of art is dictated by only a few players (really rich people). Generally, expensive art is from an influential artist; specifically, the pieces that were atypical or experimental.

eutropia 6y ago

As someone who enjoys abstract art, I'd like to have a print of this. It's very pleasant. But I'm pretty sure most art dealings are just money laundering.

postalrat 6y ago

Is there a painting you think is worth 85 million?

seibelj 6y ago
Is there a reason why the painting I linked is $85mil, and the Beeple NFT isn't? My argument is that the value of a collectible (NFT, painting, baseball card) is actually because of what it represents, rather than the object itself.
- nl 6y ago
  > My argument is that the value of a collectible (NFT, painting, baseball card) is actually because of what it represents, rather than the object itself. Well... yeah? Has anyone ever argued that the Mona Lisa is worth whatever its raw materials are worth? The real question is if the Beeple work is interesting as art or is if just a speculative bubble. https://www.ft.com/content/1563d643-332f-3887-8c6e-caf7435f396a https://www.ft.com/content/1563d643-332f-3887-8c6e-caf7435f3...
  - seibelj 6y ago
    Many would argue that the Mona Lisa required an immense amount of skill and technique, and is a very high quality piece of art. Modern art (squares and circles) that anyone can make, I just don't see why it has the same value. But it does! And that's my point about NFTs.
    - nl 6y ago
      > Many would argue that the Mona Lisa required an immense amount of skill and technique, and is a very high quality piece of art. Modern art (squares and circles) that anyone can make, I just don't see why it has the same value. No art critic or collector makes that argument, and it's an uniformed position to take. People don't pay for the skill - there is no shortage of (very poorly paid) people who can do a convincing forgery of a daVinci. Something to consider.
      - seibelj 6y ago
        Just noting that someone on HN says that considering the Mona Lisa a better piece of art than squares-and-circles nonsense "an uniformed position to take". Art people have been a consistent source of absurdity in my life!
- tablespoon 6y ago
  > Is there a reason why the painting I linked is $85mil, and the Beeple NFT isn't? My argument is that the value of a collectible (NFT, painting, baseball card) is actually because of what it represents, rather than the object itself. Probably because that artist and his work were actually influential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich When looked at as an artist, Beeple appears to be the digital art equivalent of some forgettable late-Rococo painter.
Grustaf 6y ago
Anything Leonardo even touched should be worth at least that.