5 ms·

Yep - a side effect of this is that NFT art has a distinct aesthetic which is different from prior digital art. I am hoping that as the space settles down, less

Yep - a side effect of this is that NFT art has a distinct aesthetic which is different from prior digital art. I am hoping that as the space settles down, less "lazy" art and more thoughtful art can rise to the forefront again. NFTs are a useful mechanism for the digital art medium, I hope they come to be seen in that light a bit more and a bit less as valuable in and of themselves because of the mechanism.

GDC7 5y ago
The problem is that the mechanisms that regulate real art are clear. Take a painting. You have to stand in front of it to truly appreciate it. A pic won't do it. So the buyer of the painting has an exclusive asset which produces returns in terms of appreciation but also periodic fees when they lend it to museums. NFTs have nothing of the sort because the enjoyment is essentially the same between owning it and right clicking it. In order to mimic the real world enjoyment you'd have to find a way to immerse the asset in a virtual world in which avatars pay for the privilege of seeing/using that art content. The NFT maybe here, but the virtual world , not yet.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  Even then you can bootleg the virtual world, the real world not so much.
  - GDC7 5y ago
    You technically can do it in the real world! It's called stealing the painting lol. When buying an NFT you are essentially betting that society would come around to equate "right-clicking" with stealing. And that would employ the same social and technological resources to prevent right-clickers to do their bidding as it does today to prevent thief from stealing paintings from museums.
    - meheleventyone 5y ago
      I mean technically speaking IP laws mean that the image is protected and improper use of it can be challenged. It’s just the ownership on the blockchain doesn’t confer that usually.
      - GDC7 5y ago
        > I mean technically speaking IP laws mean that the image is protected and improper use of it can be challenged Let's be real. AP, AFP, Reuters and Getty try to protect their images by charging for the full resolution pics . People will gladly use the 580x830 instead of the pricy 5800x8300. Brands which have been fighting this fight since the 90s such as Ray-Ban, LVMH, Gucci...they all fail to block counterfit physical products from being shipped from China. What chances does one have to have IP laws be enforced on the internet....
        meheleventyone 5y ago
        Try playing music you don’t own a license to on YouTube or Twitch. IP enforcement on the Internet is having a Renaissance to the point of spuriously punishing people who aren’t violating anything. Fraudulently minted NFTs have been taken down (at least from marketplaces) as well.
    - moron4hire 5y ago
      But the NFT didn't give you ownership of the image, so what right do you have as the NFT owner to tell people not to right-click?
      - GDC7 5y ago
        As always with every social phenomenon, it's all about the social hatred they can manage to gather among the population and throw at right-clickers.
        moron4hire 5y ago
        I see. So you are advocating for property disputes to be settled by the mob. You're arguing for literal anarchy.
    - gruez 5y ago
      I don't fully agree with your characterization. I'm more in favor of: Stealing the painting = hacking the wallet/private key to transfer the NFT Taking a picture of the painting = right clicking
      - GDC7 5y ago
        > Taking a picture of the painting = right clicking Absolutely not. A pic won't ever provide you the same satisfaction as standing in front of a painting, that's an innate characteristic of paintings. Right clicking a JPG , saving it on your laptop and looking at whenever you want gives you the exact same satisfaction as paying 100k USD for the work of art. Matter of fact it gives you way more satisfaction, because you got for free what a fool paid 100K to obtain. The real world equivalent would be finding a perfectly conserved Banksy in an abandoned barn, keeping it for a while and then selling it. You get to enjoy it for free and the buyer has to pay you 6 figures. Thing is you don't have to be extremely lucky to right click, you only have to know how to use your thumb. In conclusion I'd point out that even without NFTs , there is no market for JPG pictures, exactly because they can be replicated very easily and potentially an infinite amount of times. The most famous JPG ever is "the Afghan girl" by McCurry. The original sold for 62,000 EUR. https://tvpworld.com/50367201/iconic-afghan-girl-photo-sold-for-record-price-at-polish-auction https://tvpworld.com/50367201/iconic-afghan-girl-photo-sold-... Nobody sane pays for JPGs because they are very easy to replicate. Paintings , on the other hand are not.
        gruez 5y ago
        >A pic won't ever provide you the same satisfaction as standing in front of a painting, that's an innate characteristic of paintings. That seems a bit handwavy to me. Apparently some museums don't even put originals on display, only a replica (due to conservation/vandalism concerns). Maybe that means that the "satisfaction" you get is purely placebo? In other words, it's the same painting for all intents and purposes (to your amateur eye), and the "satisfaction" you're getting is some vague notion that this particular painting is the original. Does this start sounding like NFTs to you?
        5y ago

GDC7 5y ago

The problem is that the mechanisms that regulate real art are clear. Take a painting. You have to stand in front of it to truly appreciate it. A pic won't do it. So the buyer of the painting has an exclusive asset which produces returns in terms of appreciation but also periodic fees when they lend it to museums. NFTs have nothing of the sort because the enjoyment is essentially the same between owning it and right clicking it. In order to mimic the real world enjoyment you'd have to find a way to immerse the asset in a virtual world in which avatars pay for the privilege of seeing/using that art content. The NFT maybe here, but the virtual world , not yet.

meheleventyone 5y ago
Even then you can bootleg the virtual world, the real world not so much.
- GDC7 5y ago
  You technically can do it in the real world! It's called stealing the painting lol. When buying an NFT you are essentially betting that society would come around to equate "right-clicking" with stealing. And that would employ the same social and technological resources to prevent right-clickers to do their bidding as it does today to prevent thief from stealing paintings from museums.
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    I mean technically speaking IP laws mean that the image is protected and improper use of it can be challenged. It’s just the ownership on the blockchain doesn’t confer that usually.
    - GDC7 5y ago
      > I mean technically speaking IP laws mean that the image is protected and improper use of it can be challenged Let's be real. AP, AFP, Reuters and Getty try to protect their images by charging for the full resolution pics . People will gladly use the 580x830 instead of the pricy 5800x8300. Brands which have been fighting this fight since the 90s such as Ray-Ban, LVMH, Gucci...they all fail to block counterfit physical products from being shipped from China. What chances does one have to have IP laws be enforced on the internet....
      - meheleventyone 5y ago
        Try playing music you don’t own a license to on YouTube or Twitch. IP enforcement on the Internet is having a Renaissance to the point of spuriously punishing people who aren’t violating anything. Fraudulently minted NFTs have been taken down (at least from marketplaces) as well.
  - moron4hire 5y ago
    But the NFT didn't give you ownership of the image, so what right do you have as the NFT owner to tell people not to right-click?
    - GDC7 5y ago
      As always with every social phenomenon, it's all about the social hatred they can manage to gather among the population and throw at right-clickers.
      - moron4hire 5y ago
        I see. So you are advocating for property disputes to be settled by the mob. You're arguing for literal anarchy.
  - gruez 5y ago
    I don't fully agree with your characterization. I'm more in favor of: Stealing the painting = hacking the wallet/private key to transfer the NFT Taking a picture of the painting = right clicking
    - GDC7 5y ago
      > Taking a picture of the painting = right clicking Absolutely not. A pic won't ever provide you the same satisfaction as standing in front of a painting, that's an innate characteristic of paintings. Right clicking a JPG , saving it on your laptop and looking at whenever you want gives you the exact same satisfaction as paying 100k USD for the work of art. Matter of fact it gives you way more satisfaction, because you got for free what a fool paid 100K to obtain. The real world equivalent would be finding a perfectly conserved Banksy in an abandoned barn, keeping it for a while and then selling it. You get to enjoy it for free and the buyer has to pay you 6 figures. Thing is you don't have to be extremely lucky to right click, you only have to know how to use your thumb. In conclusion I'd point out that even without NFTs , there is no market for JPG pictures, exactly because they can be replicated very easily and potentially an infinite amount of times. The most famous JPG ever is "the Afghan girl" by McCurry. The original sold for 62,000 EUR. https://tvpworld.com/50367201/iconic-afghan-girl-photo-sold-for-record-price-at-polish-auction https://tvpworld.com/50367201/iconic-afghan-girl-photo-sold-... Nobody sane pays for JPGs because they are very easy to replicate. Paintings , on the other hand are not.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >A pic won't ever provide you the same satisfaction as standing in front of a painting, that's an innate characteristic of paintings. That seems a bit handwavy to me. Apparently some museums don't even put originals on display, only a replica (due to conservation/vandalism concerns). Maybe that means that the "satisfaction" you get is purely placebo? In other words, it's the same painting for all intents and purposes (to your amateur eye), and the "satisfaction" you're getting is some vague notion that this particular painting is the original. Does this start sounding like NFTs to you?
        5y ago