5 ms·

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 ca

by 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.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >This is wrong. People (as in regular people) aren't willing to pay millions "regular people" aren't paying hundreds of thousands for NFTs either. >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. Are they really ascribing value to the remaining 0.0000000000001%, or just to the vague notion that the painting in the museum is the original? I alluded to this before, but the alternate explanation is that they're not going to the museum because it offers the best fidelity, they're doing so for other reasons (eg. social clout). See also: people going to concerts, even though listening at home has superior fidelity (for one, there aren't hundreds of people screaming in the crowd). >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. This totally fails to explain paintings that are in private collections. Why do rich people pay millions for original paintings, just to hang inside their house?
    - GDC7 5y ago
      > I alluded to this before, but the alternate explanation is that they're not going to the museum because it offers the best fidelity, they're doing so for other reasons (eg. social clout) What % of social media posts are museum oriented? We are talking 0 percent.... it's only a matter of seeing what's the first decimal point. Regardless, it seems to me that there is a lack of common sense among the NFT crowd, and you seem to be somehow on the same wavelenght. The vast majority of people who right-click an NFT image have subsequently no desire to acquire said NFT. And if a museum were to start charging for an NFT collections, people would not pay to get in. The vast majority of people who right-click an image of the Mona Lisa do have a desire to one day go out and see the painting in person as they think it would be a cool thing to do and would pay for it. There is a clear difference, at least for people who have common sense. Given that museums have existed for hundreds of years and have generated trillions of dollars in revenues, the burden of the proof is on NFTs, not the other way around. When NFTs museums (either virtual or real) will open up then it will be possible to make a comparison.

by GDC7 5y ago

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.
- gruez 5y ago
  >This is wrong. People (as in regular people) aren't willing to pay millions "regular people" aren't paying hundreds of thousands for NFTs either. >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. Are they really ascribing value to the remaining 0.0000000000001%, or just to the vague notion that the painting in the museum is the original? I alluded to this before, but the alternate explanation is that they're not going to the museum because it offers the best fidelity, they're doing so for other reasons (eg. social clout). See also: people going to concerts, even though listening at home has superior fidelity (for one, there aren't hundreds of people screaming in the crowd). >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. This totally fails to explain paintings that are in private collections. Why do rich people pay millions for original paintings, just to hang inside their house?
  - GDC7 5y ago
    > I alluded to this before, but the alternate explanation is that they're not going to the museum because it offers the best fidelity, they're doing so for other reasons (eg. social clout) What % of social media posts are museum oriented? We are talking 0 percent.... it's only a matter of seeing what's the first decimal point. Regardless, it seems to me that there is a lack of common sense among the NFT crowd, and you seem to be somehow on the same wavelenght. The vast majority of people who right-click an NFT image have subsequently no desire to acquire said NFT. And if a museum were to start charging for an NFT collections, people would not pay to get in. The vast majority of people who right-click an image of the Mona Lisa do have a desire to one day go out and see the painting in person as they think it would be a cool thing to do and would pay for it. There is a clear difference, at least for people who have common sense. Given that museums have existed for hundreds of years and have generated trillions of dollars in revenues, the burden of the proof is on NFTs, not the other way around. When NFTs museums (either virtual or real) will open up then it will be possible to make a comparison.