44 ms·
> I'm not sure I get this point of view. I think that Beeple is basically just a rando-tier DeviantArt/Tumblr artist, and much of his art is cringe to boot. S
by tablespoon 6y ago
> I'm not sure I get this point of view.
I think that Beeple is basically just a rando-tier DeviantArt/Tumblr artist, and much of his art is cringe to boot. Since someone purportedly paid the equivalent of $69 million in ETH for it, it's noteworthy that there's no there there.
- viraptor 6y agoCringe doesn't mean bad - I would say 90% of Jim'll paint it is cringe and awesome https://jimllpaintit.tumblr.com/ https://jimllpaintit.tumblr.com/ And having 5000 daily pieces is art by itself.
- ghego1 6y agoThanks for this! I really like his work, I think I'll buy a poster :-)
- tablespoon 6y ago> Cringe doesn't mean bad - I would say 90% of Jim'll paint it is cringe and awesome https://jimllpaintit.tumblr.com/ https://jimllpaintit.tumblr.com/ There are different kinds of cringe though. Also, Jim'll paint it definitely looks like he's more talented than Beeple. > And having 5000 daily pieces is art by itself. Quantity over quality?
- viraptor 6y ago> Quantity over quality? No, performance art. The act of creating that many not-terrible pieces is meaningful on its own.
- alpaca128 6y agoWell, "not-terrible" is not what I would use to describe this though. Then again I'm not a fan of "you just don't understand this random mix of poo and paint" kind of art. No, I don't get why for example 5000 digital scribbles are more valuable or meaningful than 5000 random posts from deviantart. Or Dilbert comic strips or most recent memes on Reddit, which at least are funny at times. How is this act of creating subpar images supposedly more meaningful than a hoarder's decades-long collection of stuff in their home? Am I wrong to find creations less valuable when I cannot enjoy them? Call it performance art or whatever else you like, it's still nothing more than an overpriced collection of an artist's shitposts. But alright, it's not my money.
- jjeaff 6y agoExcept they are all pretty terrible.
- flycaliguy 6y agoYes but they did grow into a hugely popular Instagram account so let’s let this age a bit. Frankly I find people with the assumption that it won’t age well to be the most pretentious in the room.
- yellowapple 6y agoBeauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whether I want to associate with said beholder is another question entirely.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago> Quantity over quality? Isn't focusing on quantity the only reliable way to improve quality? See also, the usual Ira Glass quote: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309485-nobody-tells-this-to-people-who-are-beginners-i-wish https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309485-nobody-tells-this-to....
- SiempreViernes 6y agoSure, but the point of the practice is to produce quality, and then display the good bits of your production because mixing the few good ones into the deludge of average works isn't very helpful for the audience.
- scsilver 6y agoLike no artists have released behind the scenes work or b-sides.
- SiempreViernes 6y agoNot as their main work no, the very concept of b-side implies there is an a-side that has been more carefully curated.
- perl4ever 6y agoIt's just a fact that people sometimes are interested in artists as well as or more than the art they make. The not-so-great art may not be of interest to you, or some particular artist may not want to release it, but it seems to me that probably some people want something more comprehensive for similar reasons that they may read biographies. I'm indifferent to Michelangelo's art, but I have read The Agony and the Ecstasy. In this particular case, a less filtered view of his art doesn't disillusion me because I'm not especially crazy about any of it. But he was famous, influential, and technically capable, so as a person was of interest to me.
- throwanem 6y agoFocusing on quality is the only reliable way to improve quality. The use of quantity, in the "10,000 hours" or "2000 words a day, every day" style of formulation, is to provide ample opportunity for practice and improvement, but quantity alone never can suffice. With no focus on quality, all it gets you is the same work over and over.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Cringe doesn't mean bad But “rando-tier” does; the description wasn't just “cringe”, but rando-tier and often cringe.
- camillomiller 6y agoThis is a great example showing what a coherent, relevant corpus of pop culture art is. Not Beeple’s.
- sneak 6y agoThey didn't buy the art, they bought an NFT that represents a hash of the file containing all of the art in question. This doesn't convey any property rights to the art's copyright, unless the purchase also included those separately from the NFT, which, of course, happens all of the time without the NFT silliness and doesn't require NFTs at all.
- tim333 6y agoI think in this case they did get property rights: >NFT carries no rights, express or implied, other than property rights for the lot (specifically, digital artwork tokenized by the NFT.. https://www.christies.com/pdf/onlineonly/ECOMMERCE%20CONDITIONS%20OF%20SALE%20-%20NEW%20YORK-8Mar21.pdf https://www.christies.com/pdf/onlineonly/ECOMMERCE%20CONDITI... So no rights apart from the property rights (Christies T&Cs)
- sneak 6y agoThe lot was the NFT. I don't believe that the text you quoted indicates that they get ownership of the copyright of the art. The art wasn't auctioned, the NFT was.
- tim333 6y agoThe catalogue says "EVERYDAYS: THE FIRST 5000 DAYS will be delivered directly from Beeple to the buyer, accompanied by a unique NFT" So presumably an image file and the NFT. Bit vague on copyright.
- techdragon 6y agoWait... the only way this NFT stuff made any sense to me was if they were actually selling the copyrights via NFT... this was actually just a $69 million version of calling “dibs” like some kind of schoolchild? WTF!
- Hjfrf 6y agoIt's more like buying a receipt, not the good itself. They can display the receipt but have no more right to the art than you or me.
- canadianfella 6y agoThat what?
- vagrantJin 6y agoBeeple is a modern master of his craft. He can host it on Deviant art, xvideos or bestgore if he so pleases. Doesn't take away the craft and the endless hours of sweat put into its mastery. Even picasso was alleged to have told a diner to pay him an absurd amount of money for his napkin sketch - because it took him a few decades to get to draw like he did. And I think Picasso's artworks are trash.
- swiley 6y agoPeople make a big deal about frames and galleries. Maybe the hosting service isn't quite so important but it's not irrelevant.
- vagrantJin 6y agoWhy yes ofcourse. Let's worry about the stuff that doesn't take years to master. Silly me.