3 ms·
It’s hard to say that this a way for meme stars to cash in when it’s not exactly clear why in the hell someone would pay $500K for the meme. Not “I hate it pers
by ashtonkem 6y ago
It’s hard to say that this a way for meme stars to cash in when it’s not exactly clear why in the hell someone would pay $500K for the meme. Not “I hate it personally, but I understand someone would like it”, but more “oh, it’s tulips again”.
- e-clinton 6y agoIt’s art. More so than a lot of the pieces at The Whitney who haven’t had an ounce of the cultural impact that this image has. I don’t fault you though, the one constant in the art world throughout time is contemporary work being thought of as unworthy.
- ashtonkem 6y agoThe issue here isn’t whether or not the meme is art, I genuinely don’t care about that, it’s whether or not the NFT represents ownership in a way that should convert to a currency value. Given that NFTs give you literally no ownership over the thing, it strikes me less as a tulip and more of a paper tulip being bid up to stratospheric prices. > I don’t fault you though Spare me the patronizing attitude, thanks.
- samstave 6y agoI dont get it at all, but thats because it has always been claimed that a digital copy is not the same as stealing, say an originally hand painted - not exactly reproducable oil painting... So exactly, aside from may bragging rights, does a tokenized digital "original" mean. Are they checking the file creation date? Must the original be in the original file-format it was created in (meaning a .psd, .ai, .dwg etc) file? I just dont understand the value.