3 ms·

The problem with NFTs as “performance art” is that the bulk of the performances are zero-content, trivially reproducible exercises in pointing to something else

The problem with NFTs as “performance art” is that the bulk of the performances are zero-content, trivially reproducible exercises in pointing to something else, and that’s just not special. Such NFTs can be reissued by any one of thousands of off-brand NFT-minters, most of which will be just as good as the first to mint, which is to say, not good at all. The long run supply and demand picture suggest the outlook for those is pretty bleak. Compare another recent speculative craze: some rare Beanie Babies are still worth a lot! (Valentino the bear is $1900 on eBay.) But most aren’t worth more than their value as a toy, about $5. What do common NFTs have that give them value when they’re not part of an active hype machine process anymore?

thrashh 5y ago
I mean most art is like this. Most “common” art isn’t going to fetch millions, but a select few do. NFTs aren’t any different. As for “off brand minters,” some people care a lot about provenance. I don’t and you might not, but that’s also why we don’t buy art worth millions of dollars. But some people do care, just like how some people care about collecting stamps or playing basketball. Some people like different things and obviously if you don’t like a particular thing, you’re not going to “get it.”
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  > Most “common” art isn’t going to fetch millions, but a select few do. NFTs aren’t any different. Yeah, but set aside the million-dollar ones for a moment and imagine you found a new kind of art which consisted of the "artist" printing out a single copy of someone's work, and selling the printout for $150-$10,000 each. This copy has not been authorized by the person who made the work. The technology to make a functionally identical printout is readily available, though there's some ledger that tracks it and it won't be registered as the same object as the first printout. Would you say that the purchaser of this printout is investing money wisely, or foolishly? Would you say that "artist" is a legitimate actor, or some kind of scammer, thief, crook, or the like?

thrashh 5y ago

I mean most art is like this. Most “common” art isn’t going to fetch millions, but a select few do. NFTs aren’t any different. As for “off brand minters,” some people care a lot about provenance. I don’t and you might not, but that’s also why we don’t buy art worth millions of dollars. But some people do care, just like how some people care about collecting stamps or playing basketball. Some people like different things and obviously if you don’t like a particular thing, you’re not going to “get it.”

fennecfoxen 5y ago
> Most “common” art isn’t going to fetch millions, but a select few do. NFTs aren’t any different. Yeah, but set aside the million-dollar ones for a moment and imagine you found a new kind of art which consisted of the "artist" printing out a single copy of someone's work, and selling the printout for $150-$10,000 each. This copy has not been authorized by the person who made the work. The technology to make a functionally identical printout is readily available, though there's some ledger that tracks it and it won't be registered as the same object as the first printout. Would you say that the purchaser of this printout is investing money wisely, or foolishly? Would you say that "artist" is a legitimate actor, or some kind of scammer, thief, crook, or the like?