6 ms·

That is only true at a superficial level. In terms of high-quality art, the Picasso is artificially scarce in the sense that there are reproductions so high-qua

That is only true at a superficial level. In terms of high-quality art, the Picasso is artificially scarce in the sense that there are reproductions so high-quality that only experts can tell the original apart from the reproduction. Clearly it's no longer the quality of the art that matters, because the reproduction visually looks just as appealing as the originally, but the provenance. There are only so many "original" Picassos because Picasso is dead, but if we consider artwork that looks just as good as Picasso's, then the scarcity is entirely artificial and caused by provenance. NFTs from a particular source will similarly become "truly" scarce once that source is dead. There may be a difference in degree, in how hard it is to recreate a physical work versus a digital one. But it is not a difference in kind.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
If you're buying a $100M painting like Guernica - you should probably be an expert...
- selestify 5y ago
  No, because you're rich as hell and will hire an actual expert to validate the origin of the painting. Come on, you think art history experts are the ones actually buying these paintings, as opposed to rich folk with too much money?
  - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
    You think just because you're rich you can't have any taste in art? Look - MBS bought that fake Da Vinci for $450M or whatever. I don't think the majority of people buying $50M+ paintings are complete morons. Maybe they are.
    - selestify 5y ago
      When did I say the rich don't have taste in art? I said the rich won't know whether they bought an original or a fake, because the fakes are high quality enough to pass as the real thing to the untrained eye. The art is worth that much not because of the aesthetics qualities, but because of the provenance and the high-status signaling and bragging rights that come with said provenance. > Look - MBS bought that fake Da Vinci for $450M or whatever. Case in point. That's why you hire an expert (or perhaps even a team of experts) to help you out.
      - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
        No - it's worth that much because of who painted it. There are shitty drafts of Guernica that Picasso did that sell for hundreds of thousands. There are infinitely better drawings that one could not sell for a single penny. The artist is what gives it value. It's truly scarce because only so much work came from that artist - who people are obsessed with. I will 100% grant that it's mostly about signaling and bragging rights. But NFTs are artificially scarce. Original work from Picasso is truly scarce.
        selestify 5y ago
        It's most definitely not worth as much as MBS paid for it now that it's known to be a reproduction. > But NFTs are artificially scarce. We're just going in circles now. Reread my previous response to why they're no more artificially scarce than Picassos.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> In terms of high-quality art, the Picasso is artificially scarce in the sense that there are reproductions so high-quality that only experts can tell the original apart from the reproduction. Except that those are also scarce because they take the labor of expert hands to make too. People actually would pay money for known forgeries because of it. Absent copyright law and a desire to fund the artist, no one would pay for digital art because copies are as close to free as makes no difference.
- selestify 5y ago
  Sure, but we were talking about spending money on NFTs versus spend it on (original) Picassos. Now you're talking about spending money copying a Picasso versus (not) spending money copying the digital artwork that an NFT was minted for, which is distinct from the NFT itself and worth approximately zero, as you say.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    That's a distinction without a difference. I'm saying the forged art is valuable because there is a cost to produce it, and the JPG isn't because there effectively isn't a cost to produce it. The NFT took work to produce, sure, but it's just a number with some mathematical relationship to other numbers and means absolutely nothing without other systems agreeing that it means something. It creates work to be done where none needs to be done solely for the purpose of trying to fit a square peg (post-scarcity information) into a round hole (scarcity-based markets).
    - selestify 5y ago
      > That's a distinction without a difference. That's where you're mistaken. An NFT is distinct from the work that the NFT is tied to, which might not necessarily be digital. You can copy a Picasso, but no matter how good your copy is, you can't copy the "original" quality of a Picasso. That's all an NFT is, representing the "originaL" quality of something. The worth (or lack thereof) of copies is completely irrelevant.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

If you're buying a $100M painting like Guernica - you should probably be an expert...

selestify 5y ago
No, because you're rich as hell and will hire an actual expert to validate the origin of the painting. Come on, you think art history experts are the ones actually buying these paintings, as opposed to rich folk with too much money?
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  You think just because you're rich you can't have any taste in art? Look - MBS bought that fake Da Vinci for $450M or whatever. I don't think the majority of people buying $50M+ paintings are complete morons. Maybe they are.
  - selestify 5y ago
    When did I say the rich don't have taste in art? I said the rich won't know whether they bought an original or a fake, because the fakes are high quality enough to pass as the real thing to the untrained eye. The art is worth that much not because of the aesthetics qualities, but because of the provenance and the high-status signaling and bragging rights that come with said provenance. > Look - MBS bought that fake Da Vinci for $450M or whatever. Case in point. That's why you hire an expert (or perhaps even a team of experts) to help you out.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
      No - it's worth that much because of who painted it. There are shitty drafts of Guernica that Picasso did that sell for hundreds of thousands. There are infinitely better drawings that one could not sell for a single penny. The artist is what gives it value. It's truly scarce because only so much work came from that artist - who people are obsessed with. I will 100% grant that it's mostly about signaling and bragging rights. But NFTs are artificially scarce. Original work from Picasso is truly scarce.
      - selestify 5y ago
        It's most definitely not worth as much as MBS paid for it now that it's known to be a reproduction. > But NFTs are artificially scarce. We're just going in circles now. Reread my previous response to why they're no more artificially scarce than Picassos.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> In terms of high-quality art, the Picasso is artificially scarce in the sense that there are reproductions so high-quality that only experts can tell the original apart from the reproduction. Except that those are also scarce because they take the labor of expert hands to make too. People actually would pay money for known forgeries because of it. Absent copyright law and a desire to fund the artist, no one would pay for digital art because copies are as close to free as makes no difference.

selestify 5y ago
Sure, but we were talking about spending money on NFTs versus spend it on (original) Picassos. Now you're talking about spending money copying a Picasso versus (not) spending money copying the digital artwork that an NFT was minted for, which is distinct from the NFT itself and worth approximately zero, as you say.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  That's a distinction without a difference. I'm saying the forged art is valuable because there is a cost to produce it, and the JPG isn't because there effectively isn't a cost to produce it. The NFT took work to produce, sure, but it's just a number with some mathematical relationship to other numbers and means absolutely nothing without other systems agreeing that it means something. It creates work to be done where none needs to be done solely for the purpose of trying to fit a square peg (post-scarcity information) into a round hole (scarcity-based markets).
  - selestify 5y ago
    > That's a distinction without a difference. That's where you're mistaken. An NFT is distinct from the work that the NFT is tied to, which might not necessarily be digital. You can copy a Picasso, but no matter how good your copy is, you can't copy the "original" quality of a Picasso. That's all an NFT is, representing the "originaL" quality of something. The worth (or lack thereof) of copies is completely irrelevant.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]