5 ms·

Many artists would disagree. The token is conceptually tied to the artwork. This is especially true with digital & software-driven work embedded within the blo

Many artists would disagree. The token is conceptually tied to the artwork. This is especially true with digital & software-driven work embedded within the blockchain, such as Deafbeef's tokens[1]. These issues are not new to crypto. Plenty of art is only 'conceptually' tied to their distributed editions. For example: an artist or photographer may own a digital master or photographic negative, and from that they may decide to produce and distribute 50 printed and signed editions. The distributed work is valued not because of the material (a piece of paper) or its contents (a rendered image), because it was distributed and signed by the artist's hand. Anybody could photocopy that print to produce the same rendered contents, or even print their own copy if they have access to a high resolution file and inkjet printer, but the copy would be worth no value, because it did not come from the artist's hand. [1] - https://www.deafbeef.com/ https://www.deafbeef.com/

lottin 5y ago
How do these 'conceptual ties' work? For example, suppose I create an NFT of the Eiffel Tower. When and how does that particular NFT become conceptually tied to the Eiffel Tower exactly? I don't understand.
- mattdesl 5y ago
  It comes through a combination of the artist's intent ("I am distributing this artwork in the form of a limited series of tokens") and social consensus ("We recognize that the artefact is an artwork, created by the artist"). What you are asking is similar to Found Art. A signed toilet is not "Art" until social consensus decides that it is. An blockchain-signed Eiffel Tower is also not art, unless society says it to be so. Perhaps that will happen at some point in the future (an artist's digital reinterpretation of Found Art) but at present the crypto artworks we are mostly regarding tend to have a more direct relationship with what the artist/creator is producing by hand (or via digital code/software). It is not much different than a print series, where the artist says the prints signed in pencil are "the artwork", and social consensus decides that only those pieces of paper with the artist's own pencil signature are valuable, instead of a reproduction by a machine or by a forger, even though the reproduction may have the same or similar material qualities.
  - lottin 5y ago
    Thanks for taking the time. My question was about the supposed connection between the NFT and the object of art. You're arguing about what constitutes art, but that wasn't the question. In fact, the object doesn't have to be artistic at all, it can be anything. At any rate, I'm not disputing that the object is "art". I'm questioning that there's a connection between the NFT and the object.
    - mattdesl 5y ago
      The connection at a technical level depends on the art project and token. For example ArtBlocks tokens are tied to a unique pseudorandom hash that is generated at the time of purchase, and that hash is used as input to the JavaScript software that is embedded within the smart contract in order to produce a matching visual. Autoglyphs does something like that directly in a smart contract without JS. Many 1/1 NFTs act more like hyperlinks to an IPFS hash with the media file for reference. Other art projects on the blockchain may use tokens and smart contracts in different ways. At a conceptual level, I think the connection is more to do with “this NFT was minted by the artist’s hand (wallet), the same hand that created the artwork it points to.”
      - lottin 5y ago
        So the alleged connection is a hyperlink (or something to the same effect). And in the case of a physical object, it could be GPS coordinates. Right... therefore the only tie between the NFT and the object it's allegedly tied to is that the NFT contains directions to find the object... but these directions can also be found elsewhere for free. I think it's clear that the only way NFTs can be sold for money is by misrepresenting what NFTs are. Selling NFTs under the pretence that they're more than just directions is dishonest at the very least, if not downright fraud.
        mattdesl 5y ago
        A token could be boiled down to a secured record in a distributed ledger ("X wallet owns Y token"). Most artists & collectors in the space understand this; but the mainstream media often mischaracterizes it as "buying JPGs." Nobody who purchases a CryptoPunk today would expect to receive a JPG or media file of a pixelated avatar in return for their purchase. Rather, they would expect to receive ownership over the token (i.e. record in a distributed ledger). In the case of CryptoPunks, there is not even any "hyperlink" in the NFT – it is just an integer from 0 to 9999, stored within the state of the CryptoPunks contract.[1] Do they hold ownership over the media file, or pixel artwork? No. Do they hold ownership over a digital token that (according to the project's creator, and according to social consensus) represents part of the CryptoPunks art project? Yes. [1] - https://etherscan.io/token/0xb47e3cd837ddf8e4c57f05d70ab865de6e193bbb https://etherscan.io/token/0xb47e3cd837ddf8e4c57f05d70ab865d...
GDC7 5y ago
> The distributed work is valued not because of the material (a piece of paper) or its contents (a rendered image), because it was distributed and signed by the artist's hand. Anybody could photocopy that print to produce the same rendered contents, or even print their own copy if they have access to a high resolution file and inkjet printer, but the copy would be worth no value, because it did not come from the artist's hand. But that would require a distribution of NFT in excess of 1. People are not minting 50 or 500 NFTs which are all the same as in your example. People are minting 1 NFT and selling it . At that point one person (the buyer) has the original and the rest of people on the internet just screenshots it to have a 1:1 identical piece of art, which are all just the same as the original. Plus your example also forgets one important element: the scarcity of the time and the social relationships of the artist. The 50 printed and signed editions are considered worthy because the artist had to subtract time from whatever other activity they had planned in order to sign the copies. Once you make the process of "signing NFTs" automatized (like for example making a transaction on the blockchain via smart contract) the whole magic and scarcity of it disappears. Maybe you could secure the scarcity by making it expensive for the artist to mint the NFT, but then they'd be the ones protesting and not adopting the tech.
- mattdesl 5y ago
  Some NFTs are distributed as 1/1 (like a single-edition print of a photographic negative), while others are distributed as an edition of 50 or 1000. In the case of platforms like ArtBlocks[1], each edition is itself unique and tied to the transaction hash, hence their tagline "1 of 1 of X." The buyer holds the token (cryptographically secured to their wallet). Any person can save the JPG that is conceptually tied to the token, but that does not give them ownership over the artistic token (i.e. they cannot transfer it to another wallet). Part of the challenge here is that it gets to the question of "art ownership" in a digital domain. If you own a JPG, do you own the artwork? According to the artist who is distributing the work as a token, and also according the social consensus of others who are collecting art in this way, the answer is no. It does take time and fees to deploy to the blockchain, in the same way that it takes time and fees to produce a series of print artworks. My own project (Subscapes[2]) required a significant investment, to upload 17kb of generative art code onto the blockchain. [1] - https://artblocks.wiki/ https://artblocks.wiki/ [2] - https://mattdesl.substack.com/p/subscapes-part-1-preface https://mattdesl.substack.com/p/subscapes-part-1-preface

lottin 5y ago

How do these 'conceptual ties' work? For example, suppose I create an NFT of the Eiffel Tower. When and how does that particular NFT become conceptually tied to the Eiffel Tower exactly? I don't understand.

mattdesl 5y ago
It comes through a combination of the artist's intent ("I am distributing this artwork in the form of a limited series of tokens") and social consensus ("We recognize that the artefact is an artwork, created by the artist"). What you are asking is similar to Found Art. A signed toilet is not "Art" until social consensus decides that it is. An blockchain-signed Eiffel Tower is also not art, unless society says it to be so. Perhaps that will happen at some point in the future (an artist's digital reinterpretation of Found Art) but at present the crypto artworks we are mostly regarding tend to have a more direct relationship with what the artist/creator is producing by hand (or via digital code/software). It is not much different than a print series, where the artist says the prints signed in pencil are "the artwork", and social consensus decides that only those pieces of paper with the artist's own pencil signature are valuable, instead of a reproduction by a machine or by a forger, even though the reproduction may have the same or similar material qualities.
- lottin 5y ago
  Thanks for taking the time. My question was about the supposed connection between the NFT and the object of art. You're arguing about what constitutes art, but that wasn't the question. In fact, the object doesn't have to be artistic at all, it can be anything. At any rate, I'm not disputing that the object is "art". I'm questioning that there's a connection between the NFT and the object.
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    The connection at a technical level depends on the art project and token. For example ArtBlocks tokens are tied to a unique pseudorandom hash that is generated at the time of purchase, and that hash is used as input to the JavaScript software that is embedded within the smart contract in order to produce a matching visual. Autoglyphs does something like that directly in a smart contract without JS. Many 1/1 NFTs act more like hyperlinks to an IPFS hash with the media file for reference. Other art projects on the blockchain may use tokens and smart contracts in different ways. At a conceptual level, I think the connection is more to do with “this NFT was minted by the artist’s hand (wallet), the same hand that created the artwork it points to.”
    - lottin 5y ago
      So the alleged connection is a hyperlink (or something to the same effect). And in the case of a physical object, it could be GPS coordinates. Right... therefore the only tie between the NFT and the object it's allegedly tied to is that the NFT contains directions to find the object... but these directions can also be found elsewhere for free. I think it's clear that the only way NFTs can be sold for money is by misrepresenting what NFTs are. Selling NFTs under the pretence that they're more than just directions is dishonest at the very least, if not downright fraud.
      - mattdesl 5y ago
        A token could be boiled down to a secured record in a distributed ledger ("X wallet owns Y token"). Most artists & collectors in the space understand this; but the mainstream media often mischaracterizes it as "buying JPGs." Nobody who purchases a CryptoPunk today would expect to receive a JPG or media file of a pixelated avatar in return for their purchase. Rather, they would expect to receive ownership over the token (i.e. record in a distributed ledger). In the case of CryptoPunks, there is not even any "hyperlink" in the NFT – it is just an integer from 0 to 9999, stored within the state of the CryptoPunks contract.[1] Do they hold ownership over the media file, or pixel artwork? No. Do they hold ownership over a digital token that (according to the project's creator, and according to social consensus) represents part of the CryptoPunks art project? Yes. [1] - https://etherscan.io/token/0xb47e3cd837ddf8e4c57f05d70ab865de6e193bbb https://etherscan.io/token/0xb47e3cd837ddf8e4c57f05d70ab865d...

GDC7 5y ago

> The distributed work is valued not because of the material (a piece of paper) or its contents (a rendered image), because it was distributed and signed by the artist's hand. Anybody could photocopy that print to produce the same rendered contents, or even print their own copy if they have access to a high resolution file and inkjet printer, but the copy would be worth no value, because it did not come from the artist's hand. But that would require a distribution of NFT in excess of 1. People are not minting 50 or 500 NFTs which are all the same as in your example. People are minting 1 NFT and selling it . At that point one person (the buyer) has the original and the rest of people on the internet just screenshots it to have a 1:1 identical piece of art, which are all just the same as the original. Plus your example also forgets one important element: the scarcity of the time and the social relationships of the artist. The 50 printed and signed editions are considered worthy because the artist had to subtract time from whatever other activity they had planned in order to sign the copies. Once you make the process of "signing NFTs" automatized (like for example making a transaction on the blockchain via smart contract) the whole magic and scarcity of it disappears. Maybe you could secure the scarcity by making it expensive for the artist to mint the NFT, but then they'd be the ones protesting and not adopting the tech.

mattdesl 5y ago
Some NFTs are distributed as 1/1 (like a single-edition print of a photographic negative), while others are distributed as an edition of 50 or 1000. In the case of platforms like ArtBlocks[1], each edition is itself unique and tied to the transaction hash, hence their tagline "1 of 1 of X." The buyer holds the token (cryptographically secured to their wallet). Any person can save the JPG that is conceptually tied to the token, but that does not give them ownership over the artistic token (i.e. they cannot transfer it to another wallet). Part of the challenge here is that it gets to the question of "art ownership" in a digital domain. If you own a JPG, do you own the artwork? According to the artist who is distributing the work as a token, and also according the social consensus of others who are collecting art in this way, the answer is no. It does take time and fees to deploy to the blockchain, in the same way that it takes time and fees to produce a series of print artworks. My own project (Subscapes[2]) required a significant investment, to upload 17kb of generative art code onto the blockchain. [1] - https://artblocks.wiki/ https://artblocks.wiki/ [2] - https://mattdesl.substack.com/p/subscapes-part-1-preface https://mattdesl.substack.com/p/subscapes-part-1-preface