3 ms·

There are a lot of people promoting NFTs as the solution to problems digital artists have, so it's worth spending some time talking about how that's not true, a

There are a lot of people promoting NFTs as the solution to problems digital artists have, so it's worth spending some time talking about how that's not true, and how, in fact, many digital artists have been getting paid for their work ever since stuff like PayPal existed. Myself included, digital art's my job. Your point that they are status markers has something, though! Especially given how most of the successful work seems to be operating under completely different aesthetics than those non-filthy-rich people enjoy looking at and funding (seriously all these randomly-generated things are ugly); the "fine art" world has had increasing amounts of work that you have to be trained to see as "good art" ever since photography made accurate depictions of a scene something everyone could have for very little effort.

sanderjd 5y ago
Ignoring the NFT aspect of it, I disagree that all of the randomly generated art pieces are ugly. I think the vast majority are, but that some turn out great, and that this is the main reason it's an interesting medium. The artists who are the best at this are successful at upping the rate of outputs that look good, and that makes them good artists. It's very similar to how anyone can throw paint splatters on a canvas, but not everyone who does so is Jackson Pollack. And many of the individual pieces even from the most successful (artistically I mean) projects still aren't nearly as good as the best pieces, similar to how most Pollacks are not as good as his best. This was long-winded, but all I'm saying is that I think generated art is an interesting medium, with both good and bad artists and good and bad pieces, like every other artistic medium. (Again, completely without taking a position on whether NFTs are the right way to create / sell these!)
- egypturnash 5y ago
  The intent of my statement "all these randomly-generated things are ugly" was not "all aleatoric art is ugly", it was that all of the randomly-generated NFTs I've seen look like the results of hitting "randomize" on a mediocre Picrew except for the part where someone's trying to convince people it's worth more than I pay for rent in three years.

sanderjd 5y ago

Ignoring the NFT aspect of it, I disagree that all of the randomly generated art pieces are ugly. I think the vast majority are, but that some turn out great, and that this is the main reason it's an interesting medium. The artists who are the best at this are successful at upping the rate of outputs that look good, and that makes them good artists. It's very similar to how anyone can throw paint splatters on a canvas, but not everyone who does so is Jackson Pollack. And many of the individual pieces even from the most successful (artistically I mean) projects still aren't nearly as good as the best pieces, similar to how most Pollacks are not as good as his best. This was long-winded, but all I'm saying is that I think generated art is an interesting medium, with both good and bad artists and good and bad pieces, like every other artistic medium. (Again, completely without taking a position on whether NFTs are the right way to create / sell these!)

egypturnash 5y ago
The intent of my statement "all these randomly-generated things are ugly" was not "all aleatoric art is ugly", it was that all of the randomly-generated NFTs I've seen look like the results of hitting "randomize" on a mediocre Picrew except for the part where someone's trying to convince people it's worth more than I pay for rent in three years.