11 ms·

None. You buy a collectible because you like it (hopefully), and you are “safekeeping” for the next buyer. The original owners of the Mona Lisa don’t really mat

None. You buy a collectible because you like it (hopefully), and you are “safekeeping” for the next buyer. The original owners of the Mona Lisa don’t really matter.

ceejayoz 5y ago
The current owner of the Mona Lisa matters, though. Which gives it a big leg up over NFTs.
- Normille 5y ago
  DISCLAIMER: I'm a graphic artist / cartoonist, who has dabbled in posting a few NFTs on OpenSea and sold absolutely nothing, even when I've pitched pieces at the equivalent of £10 or £20. So my comments are most likely flavoured with a healthy pinch of 'begrudgery'. What I can't understand about the NFTs that seem hugely popular [Crypto Punks being a fine example] is that: A: There is often little or no artistic talent involved in making them. I mean Crypto Punks are just sub- 1980s Sinclair Spectrum level pixel art B: The collections are huge [10.000 for Crypto Punks, I've read]. So where's the exclusivity in owning one? C: Such huge collections cannot be hand-made so are obviously churned out by some automated computer process. So where does the feeling you own a piece of 'art' created by an 'artist' come in? Yet Crypto Punks and their ilk sell in massive numbers for insane amounts of [albeit virtual] money. Whilst actual real artwork, produced individually [as opposed to being spat out by an automated script] by real talented artists [and yes, I do modestly include myself in that number!] garner nor interest whatsoever.
grey-area 5y ago
People value the Mona Lisa over time because it is beautiful, many people want to see it, and therefore it has use-value. Pet rocks like this have zero interest or beauty, still less the digital receipt attached to them by an NFT: https://twitter.com/etherrockprice/status/1431641800431714313 https://twitter.com/etherrockprice/status/143164180043171431... They'll be remembered as an interesting footnote to the everything bubble that we're now seeing due to massive production of USD and other currencies. As the currencies devalue, asset prices (and later consumer prices and wage prices) rise in concert and all sorts of scams proliferate as people try to cash in - I'd count most NFTs as part of those scams - scam artists painting the tape and purchasing nominally worthless items at inflated prices, in the hope of drawing in other suckers who want to get rich quick and selling the worthless assets to them. I don't think they have long term value, the concept is not useful because there is no jurisdiction and no enforcement, NFTs and the digital art associated have far more in common with tulip bulbs or beanie babies than works of art, and as with beanie babies, they'll crash when other assets associated with them crash, but not before a mania which has everyone questioning whether they truly are worth what people say they are worth, and not before a lot of people lose an awful lot of money. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/03/02/beanie-baby-bubble https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/03/02/beanie-baby-bubbl...
EamonnMR 5y ago
If it wasn't owned by a king and then a national museum and (for a while) a theif it's unlikely that it would be famous now.
nkrisc 5y ago
I don’t mean original owners, but current owner versus non-owners. The current owner of the Mina Lisa, or any physical work of art essentially has exclusive viewing privileges if they like. They can choose to hide it away. They can hold it. They could even destroy it if yet wanted to. You can’t do any of those things with a NFT, so I was wondering if there was actually anything to distinguish an owner from a non-owner apart from classification as “owner” and the right to sell it.

None. You buy a collectible because you like it (hopefully), and you are “safekeeping” for the next buyer. The original owners of the Mona Lisa don’t really matter.

ceejayoz 5y ago

The current owner of the Mona Lisa matters, though. Which gives it a big leg up over NFTs.

Normille 5y ago
DISCLAIMER: I'm a graphic artist / cartoonist, who has dabbled in posting a few NFTs on OpenSea and sold absolutely nothing, even when I've pitched pieces at the equivalent of £10 or £20. So my comments are most likely flavoured with a healthy pinch of 'begrudgery'. What I can't understand about the NFTs that seem hugely popular [Crypto Punks being a fine example] is that: A: There is often little or no artistic talent involved in making them. I mean Crypto Punks are just sub- 1980s Sinclair Spectrum level pixel art B: The collections are huge [10.000 for Crypto Punks, I've read]. So where's the exclusivity in owning one? C: Such huge collections cannot be hand-made so are obviously churned out by some automated computer process. So where does the feeling you own a piece of 'art' created by an 'artist' come in? Yet Crypto Punks and their ilk sell in massive numbers for insane amounts of [albeit virtual] money. Whilst actual real artwork, produced individually [as opposed to being spat out by an automated script] by real talented artists [and yes, I do modestly include myself in that number!] garner nor interest whatsoever.

grey-area 5y ago

People value the Mona Lisa over time because it is beautiful, many people want to see it, and therefore it has use-value. Pet rocks like this have zero interest or beauty, still less the digital receipt attached to them by an NFT: https://twitter.com/etherrockprice/status/1431641800431714313 https://twitter.com/etherrockprice/status/143164180043171431... They'll be remembered as an interesting footnote to the everything bubble that we're now seeing due to massive production of USD and other currencies. As the currencies devalue, asset prices (and later consumer prices and wage prices) rise in concert and all sorts of scams proliferate as people try to cash in - I'd count most NFTs as part of those scams - scam artists painting the tape and purchasing nominally worthless items at inflated prices, in the hope of drawing in other suckers who want to get rich quick and selling the worthless assets to them. I don't think they have long term value, the concept is not useful because there is no jurisdiction and no enforcement, NFTs and the digital art associated have far more in common with tulip bulbs or beanie babies than works of art, and as with beanie babies, they'll crash when other assets associated with them crash, but not before a mania which has everyone questioning whether they truly are worth what people say they are worth, and not before a lot of people lose an awful lot of money. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/03/02/beanie-baby-bubble https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/03/02/beanie-baby-bubbl...

EamonnMR 5y ago

If it wasn't owned by a king and then a national museum and (for a while) a theif it's unlikely that it would be famous now.

nkrisc 5y ago

I don’t mean original owners, but current owner versus non-owners. The current owner of the Mina Lisa, or any physical work of art essentially has exclusive viewing privileges if they like. They can choose to hide it away. They can hold it. They could even destroy it if yet wanted to. You can’t do any of those things with a NFT, so I was wondering if there was actually anything to distinguish an owner from a non-owner apart from classification as “owner” and the right to sell it.