6 ms·

I can get a super zoomed in high-res version of the Mona Lisa, print it out with the highest quality, and mount it on my wall, but I don't own the Mona Lisa.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
The only reason there is any value at all in owning the Mona Lisa is that it is a physical object that cannot be perfectly duplicated. Even then, only status-wankers would care to. NFTs aren't the Mona Lisa, they're a Certificate of Ownership for a digital Mona Lisa that entitles the owner to nothing. Everyone and their mother can already have an indistinguishable duplicate of digital Mona Lisa for free.
- seibelj 5y ago
  You admit that art can be high value - and everyone who believes art can be worth millions is a "status-wanker" apparently - so therefore NFTs can be high value. Or is it only physical art that can have worth, but digital images cannot? This is what drives everyone crazy - the art market itself is irrational. NFTs are the same thing, but digitized and hyper efficient.
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    I can Ctrl-C Ctrl-V bits that will resolve to the exact same MD5. I cant do that with the physical Mona Lisa. I agree the art world is stupid, but using that as a justification for NFTs is also, exactly if not more stupid
    - cinntaile 5y ago
      It doesn't really matter if it's exact or not. People know that some NFT that cost $$$ can be copied, they don't care. I don't think he meant is as a justification, just that the phenomenon is similar.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Of course art has value... to society. That isn't the same thing as it being "worth $x", a statement that only makes sense in the context of scarcity economics. In that sense yes, only physical[0] art has a dollar value determined by supply and demand because the supply is infinite when we're talking about information. An NFT's supposed "value" comes from the perversion of a post-scarcity space by artificially introducing scarcity in the form of cryptographic certificates. NFT proponents tell you that cryptographic certificate is somehow related to the art, but it isn't. That's an illusion. I can create an NFT that also points to the same art your NFT points to and we'd need non-cryptographically-secure non-decentralized context to know which one is legit, so even the point of selling to status-wankers doesn't make sense to me. [0] if we ever get some kind of replicator technology that can perfectly duplicate a physical object, then that all goes away. Hell, I don't even personally really believe in it because I've spent a lot of time thinking about the Ship of Theseus and what it means.
whateveracct 5y ago
You only technically "own" art with an NFT. The Mona Lisa is actual oil laid down on canvas hundreds of years ago by a foundational artist. I suppose it's a philosophical difference, but pretty much everything about art is gonna be. I guess NFTs are fun if you're crypto-drunk?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

The only reason there is any value at all in owning the Mona Lisa is that it is a physical object that cannot be perfectly duplicated. Even then, only status-wankers would care to. NFTs aren't the Mona Lisa, they're a Certificate of Ownership for a digital Mona Lisa that entitles the owner to nothing. Everyone and their mother can already have an indistinguishable duplicate of digital Mona Lisa for free.

seibelj 5y ago
You admit that art can be high value - and everyone who believes art can be worth millions is a "status-wanker" apparently - so therefore NFTs can be high value. Or is it only physical art that can have worth, but digital images cannot? This is what drives everyone crazy - the art market itself is irrational. NFTs are the same thing, but digitized and hyper efficient.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  I can Ctrl-C Ctrl-V bits that will resolve to the exact same MD5. I cant do that with the physical Mona Lisa. I agree the art world is stupid, but using that as a justification for NFTs is also, exactly if not more stupid
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    It doesn't really matter if it's exact or not. People know that some NFT that cost $$$ can be copied, they don't care. I don't think he meant is as a justification, just that the phenomenon is similar.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Of course art has value... to society. That isn't the same thing as it being "worth $x", a statement that only makes sense in the context of scarcity economics. In that sense yes, only physical[0] art has a dollar value determined by supply and demand because the supply is infinite when we're talking about information. An NFT's supposed "value" comes from the perversion of a post-scarcity space by artificially introducing scarcity in the form of cryptographic certificates. NFT proponents tell you that cryptographic certificate is somehow related to the art, but it isn't. That's an illusion. I can create an NFT that also points to the same art your NFT points to and we'd need non-cryptographically-secure non-decentralized context to know which one is legit, so even the point of selling to status-wankers doesn't make sense to me. [0] if we ever get some kind of replicator technology that can perfectly duplicate a physical object, then that all goes away. Hell, I don't even personally really believe in it because I've spent a lot of time thinking about the Ship of Theseus and what it means.

whateveracct 5y ago

You only technically "own" art with an NFT. The Mona Lisa is actual oil laid down on canvas hundreds of years ago by a foundational artist. I suppose it's a philosophical difference, but pretty much everything about art is gonna be. I guess NFTs are fun if you're crypto-drunk?