3 ms·

"I still cannot fathom why people think buying a certificate of authenticity authenticated by nobody, whose supply can be arbitrarily increased by the seller at

"I still cannot fathom why people think buying a certificate of authenticity authenticated by nobody, whose supply can be arbitrarily increased by the seller at any time, is an interesting exercise." This is what I was responding to. Here is a photograph by Andy Warhol for $95,000: https://www.artsy.net/artwork/andy-warhol-marisa-berenson-and-young-man https://www.artsy.net/artwork/andy-warhol-marisa-berenson-an... The website states that: Signature: Stamped by artist's estate, Stamped on the verso by the Estate of the Artist and The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts. Foundation … Certificate of authenticity: Included What is to prevent the artist (other than the fact this one is dead) from "arbitrarily increasing" supply, other than the fact that he has committed not to? Let's compare this with a unique audiovisual NFT: http://deafbeef.com http://deafbeef.com Here, you have a work limited to 128 pieces, which the artist has committed to cap the series at. The work can be authenticated as an original based on the blockchain, and the NFT proves the provenance. The crowd here may intuitively dislike NFTs, but it's arguments are trivially applicable to may other kinds of traditional art.

arcticbull 6y ago
> The crowd here may intuitively dislike NFTs, but it's arguments are trivially applicable to may other kinds of traditional art. Your example isn't the same thing - you're buying the photograph and the certificate of authenticity. An authentic photograph. With NFTs, you're only buying the certificate of authenticity. Literally nothing else. I don't believe there's anywhere on earth a certificate of authenticity in isolation is worth more than the paper its printed on. Nobody's paying anything for a certificate of authenticity that says the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo da Vinci - alongside a museum map with a big red circle around where you can find it - when the art itself remains firmly in the Louvre. The NFT doesn't prove provenance of the art, only of itself. It has no connection to the art other than the connection you ascribe to it. Remember, blockchains only meaningfully encapsulate concepts wholly represented on the blockchain. Art is not such a concept. NFTs are. But they're not connected to the art in any way.
- berberous 6y ago
  And what if the media is stored on chain as part of the NFT? How is that different than buying a photo?
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Barrier to entry for duplication, honestly. Anyone can copy-paste a JPEG. Duplicating a Da Vinci requires time, money and skill. Further, digital art is reproducible at 100% fidelity, whereas any duplicates of physical art will be distinctive not just in their provenance but also in their physical characteristics. I guess my question to you is: how is this any different than a watermarked JPEG signed with a PGP key?

arcticbull 6y ago

> The crowd here may intuitively dislike NFTs, but it's arguments are trivially applicable to may other kinds of traditional art. Your example isn't the same thing - you're buying the photograph and the certificate of authenticity. An authentic photograph. With NFTs, you're only buying the certificate of authenticity. Literally nothing else. I don't believe there's anywhere on earth a certificate of authenticity in isolation is worth more than the paper its printed on. Nobody's paying anything for a certificate of authenticity that says the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo da Vinci - alongside a museum map with a big red circle around where you can find it - when the art itself remains firmly in the Louvre. The NFT doesn't prove provenance of the art, only of itself. It has no connection to the art other than the connection you ascribe to it. Remember, blockchains only meaningfully encapsulate concepts wholly represented on the blockchain. Art is not such a concept. NFTs are. But they're not connected to the art in any way.

berberous 6y ago
And what if the media is stored on chain as part of the NFT? How is that different than buying a photo?
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Barrier to entry for duplication, honestly. Anyone can copy-paste a JPEG. Duplicating a Da Vinci requires time, money and skill. Further, digital art is reproducible at 100% fidelity, whereas any duplicates of physical art will be distinctive not just in their provenance but also in their physical characteristics. I guess my question to you is: how is this any different than a watermarked JPEG signed with a PGP key?