7 ms·

> Do you think nobody wants the bragging rights of owning that? It would be nice to believe that eventually we evolve beyond bragging about being an idiot. >

by pmlnr 6y ago

> Do you think nobody wants the bragging rights of owning that? It would be nice to believe that eventually we evolve beyond bragging about being an idiot. > I certainly do ...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
leokennis 6y ago
Exactly. There’s little I’d like less than bragging about having spent my life savings on a JPEG that everyone has but that I “own”...
- koonsolo 6y ago
  I don't think the person spending $50k does it with his lifes saving. You don't buy a jpeg, you buy the unique item that John Cleese sold. Same for movie props. You can buy a nice lightsaber below $200. The ones that were used in the movies... a bit more.
  - AddisonRyan 6y ago
    "item"
  - Igelau 6y ago
    > You don't buy a jpeg, you buy the unique item that John Cleese sold. A NFT is not an item. > Same for movie props. You can buy a nice lightsaber below $200. The ones that were used in the movies... a bit more. Those are things. There is no correlation. NFT is selling you a pointer. It's a hash that on one software platform says "that thing over there". When Bob buys a NFT, he isn't buying a lightsaber that he can display, loan out, or hold . Bob is buying a number.
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      Right, but in this case, you're buying a number provably owned by John Cleese, as part of a performance piece where he sold a token representing the Brooklyn Bridge, as a commentary on the entire concept of selling numbers. It's meta, it's brilliant, it's popular, (it's absolutely going to devalue the other Brooklyn Bridge NFT I own because mine was minted first but this one's more popular), it's ART.
      - Igelau 6y ago
        That's a good point, and I think you're right for this one instance. It's an exceptional case and the artistic statement literally can't be made without NFT. He's telling a joke and the fact that someone will buy the NFT is itself the punchline.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      If Bob buys a movie prop lightsaber for $10,000 and a fully quality replica costs $200, then Bob has only bought $200 worth of something he can display, loan out, or hold. The remainder of the price is made up of the intangible connection to the film and artists.
      - Igelau 6y ago
        I see what you're saying that the authenticity and the connection have some value. That value is intrinsic to the object itself though. NFT is asking us to pretend that that "intangible connection" can be parceled out for speculators as collectible magic numbers while the real lightsaber hopefully sits in Lucasfilm's warehouse.
        somjeed 6y ago
        NFTs imply there is a platform which supports the contract and blocks all non-ownership AND people will use no other platforms
        basch 6y ago
        Not necessarily. It would be more impressive if Jack can sell his first tweet, once on each major platform. Now they are somewhat fungible, non fungible titles. If one is worth more than the other, why?
        Talanes 6y ago
        Sure, but this NFT was specifically valued for the interaction of the sale of this NFT. Just like buying Dorsey's Tweet is. It's just pure commoditized interaction without a base good under it. I do agree that it's completely ridiculous, but I feel that way about the stock market.
        Jetrel 6y ago
        The main (and dangerous) difference with the NFT stuff is that society doesn't agree any of this stuff is valuable. It's a bit like what happens when a conquering power comes in and existing land titles become meaningless. A good example of this was real estate moguls in prewar Japan, many of whom had spent centuries gradually accumulating land tenancy over tons of other people - but as soon as WW2 happened, one of the big changes that transformed that country was that all of those land titles were simply dissolved. Just, -poof-. Gone. Ownership of that land was simply taken from them, and evenly divided amongst their tenants. There's a very similar danger with i.e. property rights inside of videogames and stuff - until and unless there's case law about it, I can go into my buddy's proverbial minecraft server, wreck all of his (potentially months of) work, and there's really nothing he can do about it. I might lose a friend over it, but I won't lose a lawsuit. The illustrative bit about the minecraft server is I'm at the mercy of "the community of people who agrees that thing has value", and in this case, it's one person.
    - newswasboring 6y ago
      While I agree with you on the surface, it not being able to be displayed is not really true. Bob may not hang it up on their wall or hold but they can put it on their website. Bob can make a dedicated personal museum showing their ownership live streamed in vrchat and altspacevr. Bob can constantly talk about it on their social media. Bob can be an equally big asshole about this as if they could hold it physically.
  - AshWolfy 6y ago
    Thats not something that translates into digital content. That original lightsaber is valuable because it is unique, it can never be recreated, a jpeg is infinitely reproducible, thus less valuable
- patcon 6y ago
  This is just giving regular ppl like you (or any meme culture creator) a similar sort of markup that was reserved for the Ralph Lauren's or any stupid designer item whose raw materials were mostly just vapor. Luxury and self-image and [silent] bragging rights were always part of the economy, now it just also includes lulz, which happen to be much more accessible to create :)
barry-cotter 6y ago
> Maybe NFTs will not endure, which is a risk for anyone playing a pioneering role in a new genre. That is why the price was not $200 million or more. In any case, this is a world in which Marcel Duchamp’s urinal sculpture still is exhibited in major museums, regarded by many critics as a masterpiece of the 20th century, and it sold at auction for $1.6 million in 2002. Canvases painted a single color, and other forms of abstract and conceptual art, remain a major part of recent art history and can sell for tens of millions. > The point is not to argue over what qualifies as “art.” It is simply that it is a mistake to assume that NFTs will fail in the art world. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-17/the-nft-craze-actually-does-make-sense?sref=htOHjx5Y https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-17/the-nf...
- xyzzy123 6y ago
  People doubting that a thing is actually art at all seems to be a fairly consistent marker of something being good art. It's fresh, it's pushing boundaries, it's making people think and wonder, it's generating snark and discussion. If readymades are art, if a blank canvas is art, then art is just a scam! Not sure if it will stand the test of time though (I mean technically in terms of the artifacts persisting, and conceptually, aka whether it will still be interesting in 10 years or seen as a fad).
  - Igelau 6y ago
    > People doubting that a thing is actually art at all seems to be a fairly consistent marker of something being good art. Survivorship bias. The successes are highly visible, and we never hear of the failures. > If readymades are art, if a blank canvas is art, then art is just a scam! Ceci n'est pas une pipe. All art is a kind of deception.
    - tinco 6y ago
      The success is part of the art. A highschool kid scribbling "this is not a pipe" next to a pipe in his notebook is not the same as an accomplished artist convincing a gallery to feature it in an exhibition.
asiachick 6y ago
I don't like NFTs but your comment triggered a counter argument in my head. People buy and collect all kinds of worthless tuff. I know several people that spent between $3k and $10k on Magic the Gathering cards. From a non-player's perspective it's ridiculous. The cards are worthless and you could just print out images of the cards on a printer or copy machine if all you cared about was playing the game itself. And yet people do it. Is a NFT really any different? Is it wrong for people to spend their money on whatever they want?
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  Wizards of the Coast are making a game. I don’t doubt that the secondary market eventually changed how they operated but at base, they are a game company. That’s ethically different from someone that sets out to create a Ponzi scheme.
- ilikehurdles 6y ago
  I don’t think anyone will disagree that money will be made by keen NFT creators and collectors, much like money is made by anyone peddling collectibles. The part of the argument where I depart is when proponents argue that this is somehow a transformative technology. It’s digital baseball cards and pet rocks, “but crypto”. I also remain convinced that NFTs are a fad in their current iteration. To use a rough analogy, NFTs are taking the record store into crypto when the future lies in building Spotify/Netflix in crypto.
- pmlnr 6y ago
  Collecting is fine, buying is fine - as long as the goal is not bragging. The problem is bragging.

by pmlnr 6y ago

> Do you think nobody wants the bragging rights of owning that? It would be nice to believe that eventually we evolve beyond bragging about being an idiot. > I certainly do ...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

leokennis 6y ago

Exactly. There’s little I’d like less than bragging about having spent my life savings on a JPEG that everyone has but that I “own”...

koonsolo 6y ago
I don't think the person spending $50k does it with his lifes saving. You don't buy a jpeg, you buy the unique item that John Cleese sold. Same for movie props. You can buy a nice lightsaber below $200. The ones that were used in the movies... a bit more.
- AddisonRyan 6y ago
  "item"
- Igelau 6y ago
  > You don't buy a jpeg, you buy the unique item that John Cleese sold. A NFT is not an item. > Same for movie props. You can buy a nice lightsaber below $200. The ones that were used in the movies... a bit more. Those are things. There is no correlation. NFT is selling you a pointer. It's a hash that on one software platform says "that thing over there". When Bob buys a NFT, he isn't buying a lightsaber that he can display, loan out, or hold . Bob is buying a number.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Right, but in this case, you're buying a number provably owned by John Cleese, as part of a performance piece where he sold a token representing the Brooklyn Bridge, as a commentary on the entire concept of selling numbers. It's meta, it's brilliant, it's popular, (it's absolutely going to devalue the other Brooklyn Bridge NFT I own because mine was minted first but this one's more popular), it's ART.
    - Igelau 6y ago
      That's a good point, and I think you're right for this one instance. It's an exceptional case and the artistic statement literally can't be made without NFT. He's telling a joke and the fact that someone will buy the NFT is itself the punchline.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    If Bob buys a movie prop lightsaber for $10,000 and a fully quality replica costs $200, then Bob has only bought $200 worth of something he can display, loan out, or hold. The remainder of the price is made up of the intangible connection to the film and artists.
    - Igelau 6y ago
      I see what you're saying that the authenticity and the connection have some value. That value is intrinsic to the object itself though. NFT is asking us to pretend that that "intangible connection" can be parceled out for speculators as collectible magic numbers while the real lightsaber hopefully sits in Lucasfilm's warehouse.
      - somjeed 6y ago
        NFTs imply there is a platform which supports the contract and blocks all non-ownership AND people will use no other platforms
        basch 6y ago
        Not necessarily. It would be more impressive if Jack can sell his first tweet, once on each major platform. Now they are somewhat fungible, non fungible titles. If one is worth more than the other, why?
      - Talanes 6y ago
        Sure, but this NFT was specifically valued for the interaction of the sale of this NFT. Just like buying Dorsey's Tweet is. It's just pure commoditized interaction without a base good under it. I do agree that it's completely ridiculous, but I feel that way about the stock market.
        Jetrel 6y ago
        The main (and dangerous) difference with the NFT stuff is that society doesn't agree any of this stuff is valuable. It's a bit like what happens when a conquering power comes in and existing land titles become meaningless. A good example of this was real estate moguls in prewar Japan, many of whom had spent centuries gradually accumulating land tenancy over tons of other people - but as soon as WW2 happened, one of the big changes that transformed that country was that all of those land titles were simply dissolved. Just, -poof-. Gone. Ownership of that land was simply taken from them, and evenly divided amongst their tenants. There's a very similar danger with i.e. property rights inside of videogames and stuff - until and unless there's case law about it, I can go into my buddy's proverbial minecraft server, wreck all of his (potentially months of) work, and there's really nothing he can do about it. I might lose a friend over it, but I won't lose a lawsuit. The illustrative bit about the minecraft server is I'm at the mercy of "the community of people who agrees that thing has value", and in this case, it's one person.
  - newswasboring 6y ago
    While I agree with you on the surface, it not being able to be displayed is not really true. Bob may not hang it up on their wall or hold but they can put it on their website. Bob can make a dedicated personal museum showing their ownership live streamed in vrchat and altspacevr. Bob can constantly talk about it on their social media. Bob can be an equally big asshole about this as if they could hold it physically.
- AshWolfy 6y ago
  Thats not something that translates into digital content. That original lightsaber is valuable because it is unique, it can never be recreated, a jpeg is infinitely reproducible, thus less valuable
patcon 6y ago
This is just giving regular ppl like you (or any meme culture creator) a similar sort of markup that was reserved for the Ralph Lauren's or any stupid designer item whose raw materials were mostly just vapor. Luxury and self-image and [silent] bragging rights were always part of the economy, now it just also includes lulz, which happen to be much more accessible to create :)

barry-cotter 6y ago

> Maybe NFTs will not endure, which is a risk for anyone playing a pioneering role in a new genre. That is why the price was not $200 million or more. In any case, this is a world in which Marcel Duchamp’s urinal sculpture still is exhibited in major museums, regarded by many critics as a masterpiece of the 20th century, and it sold at auction for $1.6 million in 2002. Canvases painted a single color, and other forms of abstract and conceptual art, remain a major part of recent art history and can sell for tens of millions. > The point is not to argue over what qualifies as “art.” It is simply that it is a mistake to assume that NFTs will fail in the art world. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-17/the-nft-craze-actually-does-make-sense?sref=htOHjx5Y https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-17/the-nf...

xyzzy123 6y ago
People doubting that a thing is actually art at all seems to be a fairly consistent marker of something being good art. It's fresh, it's pushing boundaries, it's making people think and wonder, it's generating snark and discussion. If readymades are art, if a blank canvas is art, then art is just a scam! Not sure if it will stand the test of time though (I mean technically in terms of the artifacts persisting, and conceptually, aka whether it will still be interesting in 10 years or seen as a fad).
- Igelau 6y ago
  > People doubting that a thing is actually art at all seems to be a fairly consistent marker of something being good art. Survivorship bias. The successes are highly visible, and we never hear of the failures. > If readymades are art, if a blank canvas is art, then art is just a scam! Ceci n'est pas une pipe. All art is a kind of deception.
  - tinco 6y ago
    The success is part of the art. A highschool kid scribbling "this is not a pipe" next to a pipe in his notebook is not the same as an accomplished artist convincing a gallery to feature it in an exhibition.

asiachick 6y ago

I don't like NFTs but your comment triggered a counter argument in my head. People buy and collect all kinds of worthless tuff. I know several people that spent between $3k and $10k on Magic the Gathering cards. From a non-player's perspective it's ridiculous. The cards are worthless and you could just print out images of the cards on a printer or copy machine if all you cared about was playing the game itself. And yet people do it. Is a NFT really any different? Is it wrong for people to spend their money on whatever they want?

bradleyjg 6y ago
Wizards of the Coast are making a game. I don’t doubt that the secondary market eventually changed how they operated but at base, they are a game company. That’s ethically different from someone that sets out to create a Ponzi scheme.
ilikehurdles 6y ago
I don’t think anyone will disagree that money will be made by keen NFT creators and collectors, much like money is made by anyone peddling collectibles. The part of the argument where I depart is when proponents argue that this is somehow a transformative technology. It’s digital baseball cards and pet rocks, “but crypto”. I also remain convinced that NFTs are a fad in their current iteration. To use a rough analogy, NFTs are taking the record store into crypto when the future lies in building Spotify/Netflix in crypto.
pmlnr 6y ago
Collecting is fine, buying is fine - as long as the goal is not bragging. The problem is bragging.