5 ms·

> 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 w

by GDC7 5y ago

> 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. But according to the rest of the world the answer is 'Yes' The rest of the world thinks that in order for something to be considered original that thing has to be hard to replicate Replicating an NFT is as easy as doing a screenshot or Right clic > 'Save as' . And any random internet user stumbling upon that NFT can do it. In order to replicate a painting such as the Mona Lisa you need millions of dollars of equipment and millions of dollars to pay experts who'd do so without ruining the sole original, and still won't be the same as the original. Maybe subtle nuances not even discernible by the human eye, but still after millions of dollars of equipment, millions of man hours you don't have something which is 1:1 as the original Mona Lisa. With NFTs is again as easy as screenshots or Right clic > 'Save as'

mattdesl 5y ago
> But according to the rest of the world the answer is 'Yes' It depends who you ask, and when you ask it. The understanding of 'digital ownership' may be shifting, as we can see in real-time with the OP thread, where Visa is making a claim that their ownership over the digital token is distinctly different than their ownership over the digital JPG file (and, apparently, distinct enough that they felt it worth paying a large sum to acquire). Indeed, anybody can reproduce a JPG by right clicking and saving the image, and there are many valuable artworks in art history that can be reproduced with seemingly little effort — such as all white canvases (Malevich), splashes of paint (Pollock), and handwritten instructions on scrap paper (LeWitt). And I do not think anybody previous to NFTs would make a claim that they "own" an artist's work because they captured it via "Right Click > Save As." Another way to view this is: ownership of digital art is not a notion that had much social consensus around it before the advent of NFTs.
- GDC7 5y ago
  > ownership of digital art is not a notion that had much social consensus around it before the advent of NFTs. I don't mean to disrespect artists but when all is said and done the only question that matters is: "Will a museum pay me, the owner of the piece of art to have it in their collection, so I can generate passive income from it?" In the case of real pieces of art the answer is positive. If this critical component is missing then you are left with a market where you can only sell for profit to an individual bigger fool. 2-D NFTs won't ever pass this test, 3-D NFTs are also in bad shape because museums are a social activity, something the regular person does to shield themselves from the summer heat while at the park with their SO. Nobody dreams of logging into a 3-D museum , alone in their living while wearing an Oculus. Art is a real world, social activity. The process of distributing art is a real world, social activity. Blockchain won't change this.
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    It sounds like you have decided what you think the future will look like based on your own narrow experience of technology, and are not open to alternative viewpoints. And to answer your question: museums and institutions have been collecting 2D and 3D digital art, VR, code based art, etc for years. The NFT space provides new technologies that can be used here, and an alternative distribution channel & market for this type of work.

by GDC7 5y ago

mattdesl 5y ago

> But according to the rest of the world the answer is 'Yes' It depends who you ask, and when you ask it. The understanding of 'digital ownership' may be shifting, as we can see in real-time with the OP thread, where Visa is making a claim that their ownership over the digital token is distinctly different than their ownership over the digital JPG file (and, apparently, distinct enough that they felt it worth paying a large sum to acquire). Indeed, anybody can reproduce a JPG by right clicking and saving the image, and there are many valuable artworks in art history that can be reproduced with seemingly little effort — such as all white canvases (Malevich), splashes of paint (Pollock), and handwritten instructions on scrap paper (LeWitt). And I do not think anybody previous to NFTs would make a claim that they "own" an artist's work because they captured it via "Right Click > Save As." Another way to view this is: ownership of digital art is not a notion that had much social consensus around it before the advent of NFTs.

GDC7 5y ago
> ownership of digital art is not a notion that had much social consensus around it before the advent of NFTs. I don't mean to disrespect artists but when all is said and done the only question that matters is: "Will a museum pay me, the owner of the piece of art to have it in their collection, so I can generate passive income from it?" In the case of real pieces of art the answer is positive. If this critical component is missing then you are left with a market where you can only sell for profit to an individual bigger fool. 2-D NFTs won't ever pass this test, 3-D NFTs are also in bad shape because museums are a social activity, something the regular person does to shield themselves from the summer heat while at the park with their SO. Nobody dreams of logging into a 3-D museum , alone in their living while wearing an Oculus. Art is a real world, social activity. The process of distributing art is a real world, social activity. Blockchain won't change this.
- mattdesl 5y ago
  It sounds like you have decided what you think the future will look like based on your own narrow experience of technology, and are not open to alternative viewpoints. And to answer your question: museums and institutions have been collecting 2D and 3D digital art, VR, code based art, etc for years. The NFT space provides new technologies that can be used here, and an alternative distribution channel & market for this type of work.