3 ms·

I just think it’s a way for people to show off their wealth. An NFT is pretty much a joke, “here’s the original” doesn’t really mean shit when I can quite liter

I just think it’s a way for people to show off their wealth. An NFT is pretty much a joke, “here’s the original” doesn’t really mean shit when I can quite literally have an exact and indistinguishable copy of the work. It honestly feels like insanity to me. Like, I can right now go set my avatar to the exact same Ape picture Curry purchased. It’s not even a replica, or recreation, it is literally the same exact image. The only real world analogy we kind of have is if we could freely “duplicate” physical goods with the press of a button. Would the Mona Lisa be valuable if DaVinci could have made 1000s of EXACT copies? I’m gonna say no, but that’s exactly where we are. It’s cute someone says they own something like an NFT, or that it’s the original, but it’s nothing more than an illusion of uniqueness. Edited: slight wording tweak for clarity.

midasuni 5y ago
If you need multiple art experts to decide which of two painting is real and which is the forgery, is there really a difference in the value other than the bragging rights of owning the original?
- soco 5y ago
  I think that's the entire point of NFTs: bragging rights. That and money laundering but the latter is not for everyone.
hk-im-ad 5y ago
Would the Mona Lisa be valuable if DaVinci made one but we could make exact molecular replicas now? I would still say it would be valuable. You can make nearly indistinguishable copies off the Mona Lisa now, but they aren’t worth anything. The pictorial content of the Mona Lisa is only a small part of its value.
- rubyn00bie 5y ago
  You’re sort of missing my point. An artist creating a similar work is not equivalent. If they were atomically identical copies, they would be literally the same. Any idea of “difference” would be completely false. That’s the difference here, these (NFTs) are by all means atomic copies. They aren’t close to the same, they ARE the same. If we could make atomic copies of the Mona Lisa it would surely drop in value… scarcity is what causes works like the Mona Lisa to be valuable. With an NFT there is no scarcity because unlimited duplicates, each as real as the original, can be produced for nearly free.
  - detaro 5y ago
    The "original" Mona Lisa, that's not a copy, would still be valued over the copies, even if the copies were perfect.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    Read this classic essay: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 The works are identical if bits don't have color (re linked essay above). We know they don't, but in the eyes of the law they definitely do, so an exact copy is still a copy in the eyes of the law.
- scyzoryk_xyz 5y ago
  What’s also usually difficult to keep in mind today is that before photography you had to physically go to visit a painting itself to see it. The Mona Lisa became famous partially also because once the painting was stolen, most people couldn’t actually find out what it looked like. This is something that we always miss with art - even on a digital screen you’re always only looking at a reproduction. But it makes sense that, like with paintings, NFT’s could gain or lose value with the story of who it belongs to and when and how it was purchased. It makes perfect sense for celebrities to be purchasing these things.
Ekaros 5y ago
Selling nearly exact copy of same art multiple times already happens, think of prints and etchings and so on. Though I don't think they will ever reach value of single art pieces, but there just being multiple copies does not make them not valuable. Overall this might even be preferable to unique art works. Lowers the barrier of access for one.
codetrotter 5y ago
> Would the Mona Lisa be valuable if DaVinci could have made 1000s of EXACT copies? I’m gonna say no, but that’s exactly where we are. It’s cute someone says they own something like an NFT, or that it’s the original, but it’s nothing more than an illusion of uniqueness. Munch made four versions of The Scream. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream#Versions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream#Versions Paul Cézanne made several variations of many of the same motifs, for example with his drawings and paintings of the skulls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_C%C3%A9zanne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_C%C3%A9zanne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Skulls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Skulls https://www.kesslerramirez.com/blog/art-history-101-pyramid-of-skulls-by-paul-czanne https://www.kesslerramirez.com/blog/art-history-101-pyramid-... And then there is Andy Warhol with his Campbell's Soup Cans and other works of art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans were produced by a screen printing process and he made 32 canvases. There is nothing that physically could have stopped Warhol from printing thousands of Campbell's Soup Cans instead of the 32. And in the same way, a digital artist can choose to mint any number of NFTs for a work of art or variations of a work of art. If a digital artist chooses to mint a limited number of NFTs on the blockchain and this run of NFTs gains traction then it's a similar situation to the Campbell's Soup Cans in my opinion. In both cases, the artist could choose to print more physical Campbell's Soup Cans after the fact or mint more NFTs after the fact, but the initial run will forever be the "original" run, and they will remain special because of this. Simply because we assign special meaning to that.
LMYahooTFY 5y ago
>I just think it’s a way for people to show off their wealth So is the Mona Lisa. So is a manuscript of The Tales of Beedle the Bard. The notion of NFTs is embedded in the idea of immutability. If unique strings of bits hold no value for you, that's your preference and nothing more. If you can only be sentimental about oil and canvas, or handwritten ink on leather bound paper, that's your preference and nothing more. I can destroy the wallet key somehow. I can destroy the book. I can destroy the painting. It's not an illusion of uniqueness at all, you just seem to be unwilling or unable to comprehend patronage.
- ykevinator3 5y ago
  I can make a hundred million replicas of the original for 10 cents, this is not a preference.
  - LMYahooTFY 5y ago
    You're stating the orders of magnitude as if they're significant. Can you explain how? What do you think patronage is?
John_Luck 5y ago
You can print an image of Peppa Pig on your own shirt for free but that doesn’t mean the rights holder wont make an obscene amount of money this year anyway. But, is there an NFT bubble? Dear god, YES!

midasuni 5y ago

If you need multiple art experts to decide which of two painting is real and which is the forgery, is there really a difference in the value other than the bragging rights of owning the original?

soco 5y ago
I think that's the entire point of NFTs: bragging rights. That and money laundering but the latter is not for everyone.

hk-im-ad 5y ago

Would the Mona Lisa be valuable if DaVinci made one but we could make exact molecular replicas now? I would still say it would be valuable. You can make nearly indistinguishable copies off the Mona Lisa now, but they aren’t worth anything. The pictorial content of the Mona Lisa is only a small part of its value.

rubyn00bie 5y ago
You’re sort of missing my point. An artist creating a similar work is not equivalent. If they were atomically identical copies, they would be literally the same. Any idea of “difference” would be completely false. That’s the difference here, these (NFTs) are by all means atomic copies. They aren’t close to the same, they ARE the same. If we could make atomic copies of the Mona Lisa it would surely drop in value… scarcity is what causes works like the Mona Lisa to be valuable. With an NFT there is no scarcity because unlimited duplicates, each as real as the original, can be produced for nearly free.
- detaro 5y ago
  The "original" Mona Lisa, that's not a copy, would still be valued over the copies, even if the copies were perfect.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  Read this classic essay: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 The works are identical if bits don't have color (re linked essay above). We know they don't, but in the eyes of the law they definitely do, so an exact copy is still a copy in the eyes of the law.
scyzoryk_xyz 5y ago
What’s also usually difficult to keep in mind today is that before photography you had to physically go to visit a painting itself to see it. The Mona Lisa became famous partially also because once the painting was stolen, most people couldn’t actually find out what it looked like. This is something that we always miss with art - even on a digital screen you’re always only looking at a reproduction. But it makes sense that, like with paintings, NFT’s could gain or lose value with the story of who it belongs to and when and how it was purchased. It makes perfect sense for celebrities to be purchasing these things.

Ekaros 5y ago

Selling nearly exact copy of same art multiple times already happens, think of prints and etchings and so on. Though I don't think they will ever reach value of single art pieces, but there just being multiple copies does not make them not valuable. Overall this might even be preferable to unique art works. Lowers the barrier of access for one.

codetrotter 5y ago

> Would the Mona Lisa be valuable if DaVinci could have made 1000s of EXACT copies? I’m gonna say no, but that’s exactly where we are. It’s cute someone says they own something like an NFT, or that it’s the original, but it’s nothing more than an illusion of uniqueness. Munch made four versions of The Scream. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream#Versions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream#Versions Paul Cézanne made several variations of many of the same motifs, for example with his drawings and paintings of the skulls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_C%C3%A9zanne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_C%C3%A9zanne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Skulls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Skulls https://www.kesslerramirez.com/blog/art-history-101-pyramid-of-skulls-by-paul-czanne https://www.kesslerramirez.com/blog/art-history-101-pyramid-... And then there is Andy Warhol with his Campbell's Soup Cans and other works of art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans were produced by a screen printing process and he made 32 canvases. There is nothing that physically could have stopped Warhol from printing thousands of Campbell's Soup Cans instead of the 32. And in the same way, a digital artist can choose to mint any number of NFTs for a work of art or variations of a work of art. If a digital artist chooses to mint a limited number of NFTs on the blockchain and this run of NFTs gains traction then it's a similar situation to the Campbell's Soup Cans in my opinion. In both cases, the artist could choose to print more physical Campbell's Soup Cans after the fact or mint more NFTs after the fact, but the initial run will forever be the "original" run, and they will remain special because of this. Simply because we assign special meaning to that.

LMYahooTFY 5y ago

>I just think it’s a way for people to show off their wealth So is the Mona Lisa. So is a manuscript of The Tales of Beedle the Bard. The notion of NFTs is embedded in the idea of immutability. If unique strings of bits hold no value for you, that's your preference and nothing more. If you can only be sentimental about oil and canvas, or handwritten ink on leather bound paper, that's your preference and nothing more. I can destroy the wallet key somehow. I can destroy the book. I can destroy the painting. It's not an illusion of uniqueness at all, you just seem to be unwilling or unable to comprehend patronage.

ykevinator3 5y ago
I can make a hundred million replicas of the original for 10 cents, this is not a preference.
- LMYahooTFY 5y ago
  You're stating the orders of magnitude as if they're significant. Can you explain how? What do you think patronage is?

John_Luck 5y ago

You can print an image of Peppa Pig on your own shirt for free but that doesn’t mean the rights holder wont make an obscene amount of money this year anyway. But, is there an NFT bubble? Dear god, YES!