4 ms·

> 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, tha

by 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?
- GDC7 5y ago
  A painting is different than a picture, also the volume of copies matter. Say a museum has one original and 4 copies of a painting. That's 1:4. With JPG it can potentially be 1:∞ In other words you have to go to that particular museum to see the painting , and everybody knows that you have to go there, there is a bottleneck in the both the quantity and quality of copies of the original, and it's very tight, matter of fact social, logistical and common sense factors limit the capability of copying the painting in 1:1 fashion just to the museum . That's in order to protect from vandalism and theft. And the beauty of the physical world is that the copy is never 1:1 It's 1:0,9999999999999 and maybe cannot be picked up, but again: common sense. As a matter of common sense everybody knows that the physical world can NEVER be exactly replicated in a 1:1 fashion. With JPG pictures instead everybody knows that they can be copied at will, there is no bottleneck and also for pics (unlike painting) it makes no difference if they are visualized on screens or printed. Finally everybody can make their 1:1 copy and it's identical . And the whole process can be repeated an infinite amount of times and it will ALWAYS be exactly as the original.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >In other words you have to go to that particular museum to see the painting , and everybody knows that you have to go there, there is a bottleneck in the both the quantity and quality of copies of the original, and it's very tight, matter of fact social, logistical and common sense factors limit the capability of copying the painting in 1:1 fashion just to the museum . That sounds like a lot of words to justify why viewing that particular painting has value, even though you can see a replica and probably wouldn't notice the difference. All the value of viewing the original in the museum comes from the social clout that you get from being a cultured person that can afford an european vacation to visit the louvre. That sounds a lot like NFTs. Here's a quote from another NFT article: >“This is a great example of right-clicker mentality,” Midwit Milhouse said on Twitter. “Sure, you can make your own gold-coated steak for 65GBP, but then you don’t have the satisfaction, flex, clout that comes from having eaten at Salt Bae’s restaurant. The value is not in the cost of the steak. Go ahead, make yourself a gold-coated steak at home. Post a picture of it on Instagram. See how much clout it gets you. Salt Bae’s dish costs around 1500GBP because people want to pay 1500 GBP to show off that they can afford to pay that much. It’s all about the flex.” https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dgzed/what-the-hell-is-right-clicker-mentality https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dgzed/what-the-hell-is-righ... >It's 1:0,9999999999999 and maybe cannot be picked up, but again: common sense. >As a matter of common sense everybody knows that the physical world can NEVER be exactly replicated in a 1:1 fashion. Sounds like you're trying to hide behind the 0.00000000001%. In other words, the replica might be 0.99999999999% similar, but people are apparently willing to pay millions for the remaining 0.00000000001%. To me, that's as irrational as placing value in the remaining 0% that NFTs represent.
    - GDC7 5y ago
      > In other words, the replica might be 0.99999999999% similar, but people are apparently willing to pay millions for the remaining 0.00000000001% This is wrong. People (as in regular people) aren't willing to pay millions, they are willing however to spend 20/50/100 dollars to go an see it in person at the museum vs. googling an image of it. All for that 0.0000000000001% Consumers decided that for some pieces of art it is worth to spend some amount of dollars to go and see it once, in person and get that final 10th decimal place. This is what in turn gives the painting value , and then wealthy individuals and institutions are willing to pay millions, because the painting produces revenues for the museum. Sometimes it's owned directly by the museum, while sometimes it has a private owner who lends it to the museum and takes a cut.
smoldesu 5y ago
Listen, I despise NFTs as much as the next guy but this is a pretty gross mischaracterization of what these people are buying into. You're not buying a raster graphic, you're buying a hash that points to your wallet on the blockchain. Yes, both are equally as asinine in the grand scheme of things, but conflating them is just outright wrong. Paintings are trivial to replicate, people don't buy them though because it's not "the original". With NFTs, that concept of having the "master copy" is what drives their entire economy.
- GDC7 5y ago
  > Paintings are trivial to replicate The physical world simply cannot be replicated 1:1 . It can be 1:0,99999999999 but it cannot ever be 1:1 Also it very costly to replicate a painting, whereas saving a JPG is essentially free and can be done infinite amount of times.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by GDC7 5y ago

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?

GDC7 5y ago
A painting is different than a picture, also the volume of copies matter. Say a museum has one original and 4 copies of a painting. That's 1:4. With JPG it can potentially be 1:∞ In other words you have to go to that particular museum to see the painting , and everybody knows that you have to go there, there is a bottleneck in the both the quantity and quality of copies of the original, and it's very tight, matter of fact social, logistical and common sense factors limit the capability of copying the painting in 1:1 fashion just to the museum . That's in order to protect from vandalism and theft. And the beauty of the physical world is that the copy is never 1:1 It's 1:0,9999999999999 and maybe cannot be picked up, but again: common sense. As a matter of common sense everybody knows that the physical world can NEVER be exactly replicated in a 1:1 fashion. With JPG pictures instead everybody knows that they can be copied at will, there is no bottleneck and also for pics (unlike painting) it makes no difference if they are visualized on screens or printed. Finally everybody can make their 1:1 copy and it's identical . And the whole process can be repeated an infinite amount of times and it will ALWAYS be exactly as the original.
- gruez 5y ago
  >In other words you have to go to that particular museum to see the painting , and everybody knows that you have to go there, there is a bottleneck in the both the quantity and quality of copies of the original, and it's very tight, matter of fact social, logistical and common sense factors limit the capability of copying the painting in 1:1 fashion just to the museum . That sounds like a lot of words to justify why viewing that particular painting has value, even though you can see a replica and probably wouldn't notice the difference. All the value of viewing the original in the museum comes from the social clout that you get from being a cultured person that can afford an european vacation to visit the louvre. That sounds a lot like NFTs. Here's a quote from another NFT article: >“This is a great example of right-clicker mentality,” Midwit Milhouse said on Twitter. “Sure, you can make your own gold-coated steak for 65GBP, but then you don’t have the satisfaction, flex, clout that comes from having eaten at Salt Bae’s restaurant. The value is not in the cost of the steak. Go ahead, make yourself a gold-coated steak at home. Post a picture of it on Instagram. See how much clout it gets you. Salt Bae’s dish costs around 1500GBP because people want to pay 1500 GBP to show off that they can afford to pay that much. It’s all about the flex.” https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dgzed/what-the-hell-is-right-clicker-mentality https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dgzed/what-the-hell-is-righ... >It's 1:0,9999999999999 and maybe cannot be picked up, but again: common sense. >As a matter of common sense everybody knows that the physical world can NEVER be exactly replicated in a 1:1 fashion. Sounds like you're trying to hide behind the 0.00000000001%. In other words, the replica might be 0.99999999999% similar, but people are apparently willing to pay millions for the remaining 0.00000000001%. To me, that's as irrational as placing value in the remaining 0% that NFTs represent.
  - GDC7 5y ago
    > In other words, the replica might be 0.99999999999% similar, but people are apparently willing to pay millions for the remaining 0.00000000001% This is wrong. People (as in regular people) aren't willing to pay millions, they are willing however to spend 20/50/100 dollars to go an see it in person at the museum vs. googling an image of it. All for that 0.0000000000001% Consumers decided that for some pieces of art it is worth to spend some amount of dollars to go and see it once, in person and get that final 10th decimal place. This is what in turn gives the painting value , and then wealthy individuals and institutions are willing to pay millions, because the painting produces revenues for the museum. Sometimes it's owned directly by the museum, while sometimes it has a private owner who lends it to the museum and takes a cut.

smoldesu 5y ago

Listen, I despise NFTs as much as the next guy but this is a pretty gross mischaracterization of what these people are buying into. You're not buying a raster graphic, you're buying a hash that points to your wallet on the blockchain. Yes, both are equally as asinine in the grand scheme of things, but conflating them is just outright wrong. Paintings are trivial to replicate, people don't buy them though because it's not "the original". With NFTs, that concept of having the "master copy" is what drives their entire economy.

GDC7 5y ago
> Paintings are trivial to replicate The physical world simply cannot be replicated 1:1 . It can be 1:0,99999999999 but it cannot ever be 1:1 Also it very costly to replicate a painting, whereas saving a JPG is essentially free and can be done infinite amount of times.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]