4 ms·

I think what both your replies are trying to point out is that "X conceived, produced, and realized Y" where Y is something of innate value is a vastly more in

I think what both your replies are trying to point out is that "X conceived, produced, and realized Y" where Y is something of innate value is a vastly more interesting, useful, and value-holding relation than "X gave approval to the creation of Y" where Y is something that is the mere result of a technical process that can be recreated easily by anyone. The reason that the talented art counterfeiter doesn't bear that same relation is that they are not the person we have immense respect for the artistic talents of. True artists gain notoriety precisely by the fact that they first conceive of their works, because they are original. That is (in part, in addition to the inherent artistic value) what gives works by these artists such value. A counterfeiter only produces copies (by definition), not originals, and so what you are seeing is not the output of the strikingly creative mind that we cherish as human beings. With an NFT you don't get any of that. The work has no inherent beauty (it's a piece of data), so the only thing that could give it value is the fact that its creation had the approval of creator X. But this fact is uninteresting precisely because there's no artistic value in the creation of meaningless interchangeable bits of technical data (there is no "conceiving" step to distinguish between original and counterfeit). At best it ought to have the value of an autograph, which most celebrities already give away for free.

tshaddox 5y ago
> "X conceived, produced, and realized Y" where Y is something of innate value is a vastly more interesting, useful, and value-holding relation than "X gave approval to the creation of Y" where Y is something that is the mere result of a technical process that can be recreated easily by anyone. I'm not making any points about "value" and certainly not about "innate value." I'm only talking about whether basic claims about the origin of a thing are true or false. It's up to everyone to determine how much they value the thing. I am trying to make precise points without devolving into "well I don't think NFTs have any value at all." That's a perfectly fine opinion, but it's totally independent from claims about the origin of something. > With an NFT you don't get any of that. The work has no inherent beauty (it's a piece of data), so the only thing that could give it value is the fact that its creation had the approval of creator X. Okay, since you do seem very interested in theories of why people value certain things, I'll address this. I think that the vast majority of the value of very expensive paintings by famous painters has very little to do with the "inherent" beauty of the work, and almost everything to do with facts about the actual origin of the object. I think that very skilled counterfeits deliver the overwhelming majority of aesthetic value, and I would argue this is provably the case for anyone except the very tiny group of people who are skilled enough to determine the authenticity of the painting.
- bscphil 5y ago
  > I think that the vast majority of the value of very expensive paintings by famous painters has very little to do with the "inherent" beauty of the work, and almost everything to do with facts about the actual origin of the object. I agree! In fact, let's take as an example a perfectly executed counterfeit, in fact one executed so well that it matches the original on the atomic level. The equivalent of a perfect digital copy in the analog world. I'm fully willing to admit that it is intelligible that this copy does not have the same value as the original work of art. The question, though, is why it doesn't have this value. The reason, I claim, is that the significant thing we humans value when we value art is the expression of an original act of creation, comprised by individual acts of conception, production, and realization accomplished by some ingenious mind. The reason we do not value counterfeits, even perfect ones, is that they are mere technical marvels. If they have any value at all it is due to their innate artistic merit, and not the fact that they are the expression of an act of creation. For this reason, I claim, NFTs do not possess any of this "originality" value. There is no act of artistic creation as I defined it above. For this reason it becomes very difficult to distinguish between a "real" NFT and a counterfeit one, or say why we should value one more than another. At best, it becomes akin to an autograph or some ephemera that retains value only because of its connection to a celebrity. > It's up to everyone to determine how much they value the thing. What you are pointing out, of course, is that NFTs demonstrably do have exchange value. This is something that indeed demands an explanation, if I'm going to reject the view that they have value in the same way that an original work of art has value (and I do). My view is simple: the vast majority of the exchange value of NFTs comes from a combination of their value as (a) novelty, (b) supposed investment vehicles, and (c) currency. I believe (b) deserves the most credit; most of the value in the NFT market comes from people convinced that the NFTs they buy will increase in value in the future. Any of these is very different than valuing the physical expression of the creativity of an artistic genius, however.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    > The reason, I claim, is that the significant thing we humans value when we value art is the expression of an original act of creation, comprised by individual acts of conception, production, and realization accomplished by some ingenious mind. I completely agree with this, and I think the experiment with NFTs is that perhaps a significant portion of humans will come to consider an NFT issued by an artist as an expression of the the original act of creation of a work, particularly for works that are not inherently instantiated in a unique physical object the way a painting is. It really is that simple: just like monetary valuations of famous paintings, there's no "inherent" correct answer to whether a particular NFT "counts" as a unique representation of the original act of creation of a work. It's just up to people. Remember, even copies of physical works (like lithographs) can command high valuations based on their perceived originality, despite everyone agreeing that they are copies.

tshaddox 5y ago

> "X conceived, produced, and realized Y" where Y is something of innate value is a vastly more interesting, useful, and value-holding relation than "X gave approval to the creation of Y" where Y is something that is the mere result of a technical process that can be recreated easily by anyone. I'm not making any points about "value" and certainly not about "innate value." I'm only talking about whether basic claims about the origin of a thing are true or false. It's up to everyone to determine how much they value the thing. I am trying to make precise points without devolving into "well I don't think NFTs have any value at all." That's a perfectly fine opinion, but it's totally independent from claims about the origin of something. > With an NFT you don't get any of that. The work has no inherent beauty (it's a piece of data), so the only thing that could give it value is the fact that its creation had the approval of creator X. Okay, since you do seem very interested in theories of why people value certain things, I'll address this. I think that the vast majority of the value of very expensive paintings by famous painters has very little to do with the "inherent" beauty of the work, and almost everything to do with facts about the actual origin of the object. I think that very skilled counterfeits deliver the overwhelming majority of aesthetic value, and I would argue this is provably the case for anyone except the very tiny group of people who are skilled enough to determine the authenticity of the painting.

bscphil 5y ago
> I think that the vast majority of the value of very expensive paintings by famous painters has very little to do with the "inherent" beauty of the work, and almost everything to do with facts about the actual origin of the object. I agree! In fact, let's take as an example a perfectly executed counterfeit, in fact one executed so well that it matches the original on the atomic level. The equivalent of a perfect digital copy in the analog world. I'm fully willing to admit that it is intelligible that this copy does not have the same value as the original work of art. The question, though, is why it doesn't have this value. The reason, I claim, is that the significant thing we humans value when we value art is the expression of an original act of creation, comprised by individual acts of conception, production, and realization accomplished by some ingenious mind. The reason we do not value counterfeits, even perfect ones, is that they are mere technical marvels. If they have any value at all it is due to their innate artistic merit, and not the fact that they are the expression of an act of creation. For this reason, I claim, NFTs do not possess any of this "originality" value. There is no act of artistic creation as I defined it above. For this reason it becomes very difficult to distinguish between a "real" NFT and a counterfeit one, or say why we should value one more than another. At best, it becomes akin to an autograph or some ephemera that retains value only because of its connection to a celebrity. > It's up to everyone to determine how much they value the thing. What you are pointing out, of course, is that NFTs demonstrably do have exchange value. This is something that indeed demands an explanation, if I'm going to reject the view that they have value in the same way that an original work of art has value (and I do). My view is simple: the vast majority of the exchange value of NFTs comes from a combination of their value as (a) novelty, (b) supposed investment vehicles, and (c) currency. I believe (b) deserves the most credit; most of the value in the NFT market comes from people convinced that the NFTs they buy will increase in value in the future. Any of these is very different than valuing the physical expression of the creativity of an artistic genius, however.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  > The reason, I claim, is that the significant thing we humans value when we value art is the expression of an original act of creation, comprised by individual acts of conception, production, and realization accomplished by some ingenious mind. I completely agree with this, and I think the experiment with NFTs is that perhaps a significant portion of humans will come to consider an NFT issued by an artist as an expression of the the original act of creation of a work, particularly for works that are not inherently instantiated in a unique physical object the way a painting is. It really is that simple: just like monetary valuations of famous paintings, there's no "inherent" correct answer to whether a particular NFT "counts" as a unique representation of the original act of creation of a work. It's just up to people. Remember, even copies of physical works (like lithographs) can command high valuations based on their perceived originality, despite everyone agreeing that they are copies.