5 ms·

Prints are a near-perfect replica of any painting, and also professional forgers routinely copy works of, or create original works of, major artists in order to

Prints are a near-perfect replica of any painting, and also professional forgers routinely copy works of, or create original works of, major artists in order to make a lot of money. However prints are typically worth a fraction of the original work, and the moment a forged painting is discovered its value plummets. The value of the NFT is not primarily in how it looks. The value of the NFT is in the provenance, the history, the background of the creator, etc. This why Onement V, a blue background with a lighter blue vertical stripe, is worth $30 million https://www.wikiart.org/en/barnett-newman/onement-v-1952 https://www.wikiart.org/en/barnett-newman/onement-v-1952 The painting is something my toddler could create. The background of the artist and the piece's history is what gives it value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Newman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Newman

noutella 5y ago
Tbh, a large part of the art market can indeed be called a scam that only exists as a tax evasion opportunity. Maybe that shouldn’t be the template for the so called Web3.
- seibelj 5y ago
  However even HN must admit the art world is a real industry, with a lot of big money players, and the reason things have value is not in the quality of the art. I see the same argument rehashed over and over, and it's the same reason HN as a collective never understood or embraced crypto in general - a total lack of understanding combined with a total lack of imagination.
  - natechols 5y ago
    So you're telling me NFTs are exactly like an industry that exists almost entirely to service the ultra-wealthy looking for new ways to hide their assets and/or show off with conspicuous consumption? That's pretty much all I need to hear to decide it's a bunch of BS. Find a use for NFTs that affects those of us without massive disposable income, and maybe I'll be impressed.
    - miracle2k 5y ago
      I think if we can convince HN that NFTs are essentially the art market, then that would be a huge upgrade in the discourse here; no one needs to be impressed.
  - piaste 5y ago
    > However even HN must admit the art world is a real industry, with a lot of big money players, and the reason things have value is not in the quality of the art. If your standard is 'there is lots of money in it, therefore it is cool & good and should be embraced' then sure, I will freely admit that both contemporary art and NFTs pass that standard. So do televangelism, diamonds, and robocalls.
andybak 5y ago
Ah. The "NFTs are no more silly than the traditional art world" argument. ;-) Joking aside - NFTs have more in common with concepts of intellectual property than they do physical works of art. Physical objects have scarcity for mostly physical reasons. IP and NFTs have scarcity because we've decided they should.
jsjsbdkj 5y ago
Have you seen a Newman painting in person? The image of Voice of Fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire) on Wikipedia is completely unremarkable, but it's actually very impressive and powerful to see in person. One of my favourite pieces of visual art. A lot of people like to shit on abstract art and color fields as "a toddler could do it" but there is technical skill and artistry on display. Keith Haring's art is also very simple but powerful. Personally I don't get the same feeling from a shitty iPad drawing of a monkey with some photoshop layers swapped around.
- creeble 5y ago
  Additionally, I have seen quite a lot of actual toddler art, and even when that fact is initially hidden, I have yet to be impressed by any of it.
- seibelj 5y ago
  I simply disagree that 3 vertical bars are worth millions of dollars. But that's the point I'm making about art - it's subjective.
creeble 5y ago
>The background of the artist and the piece's history is what gives it value That, and the fact that there is only one, it's not digital, and it can be authenticated (and also the artist is dead, so it is guaranteed there won't be any more). The "value" of an NFT is that there is only one unique occurrance of it in a pile of bits called a blockchain. It is very hard to hang it on a wall. Web3: not satisfied with the fundamental principle of digital abundance, we invented digital scarcity.
- 0x500x79 5y ago
  In many ways it feels like we are recreating DRM, which was something that we weren't happy with as consumers, but this time: "It's different because it's crypto and I can make money on it".
- max48 5y ago
  >The "value" of an NFT is that there is only one unique occurrance of it in a pile of bits called a blockchain. It is very hard to hang it on a wall. It's worst than that because almost all NFTs are only an pointer/URL and the art itself is not on the chain.
  - bootlooped 5y ago
    And the provenance of which NFT is legitimate and/or original is not on the chain either. I create myartwork.jpeg. Somebody creates an NFT of it. Later, I create an NFT of it. Even later a bunch of people make NFT replicas of both. Which NFT is legitimate? The blockchain doesn't know.
    - seibelj 5y ago
      If you publicly state which smart contract is your NFT, then that would be the real one. Similarly someone could claim a physical painting is yours, but you could publicly say it isn't. The blockchain doesn't know anymore than a physical canvas "knows" what is real and what is fake. The blockchain is a tool, the artist is the creator and arbiter of what the real NFT is.

noutella 5y ago

Tbh, a large part of the art market can indeed be called a scam that only exists as a tax evasion opportunity. Maybe that shouldn’t be the template for the so called Web3.

seibelj 5y ago
However even HN must admit the art world is a real industry, with a lot of big money players, and the reason things have value is not in the quality of the art. I see the same argument rehashed over and over, and it's the same reason HN as a collective never understood or embraced crypto in general - a total lack of understanding combined with a total lack of imagination.
- natechols 5y ago
  So you're telling me NFTs are exactly like an industry that exists almost entirely to service the ultra-wealthy looking for new ways to hide their assets and/or show off with conspicuous consumption? That's pretty much all I need to hear to decide it's a bunch of BS. Find a use for NFTs that affects those of us without massive disposable income, and maybe I'll be impressed.
  - miracle2k 5y ago
    I think if we can convince HN that NFTs are essentially the art market, then that would be a huge upgrade in the discourse here; no one needs to be impressed.
- piaste 5y ago
  > However even HN must admit the art world is a real industry, with a lot of big money players, and the reason things have value is not in the quality of the art. If your standard is 'there is lots of money in it, therefore it is cool & good and should be embraced' then sure, I will freely admit that both contemporary art and NFTs pass that standard. So do televangelism, diamonds, and robocalls.

andybak 5y ago

Ah. The "NFTs are no more silly than the traditional art world" argument. ;-) Joking aside - NFTs have more in common with concepts of intellectual property than they do physical works of art. Physical objects have scarcity for mostly physical reasons. IP and NFTs have scarcity because we've decided they should.

jsjsbdkj 5y ago

Have you seen a Newman painting in person? The image of Voice of Fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire) on Wikipedia is completely unremarkable, but it's actually very impressive and powerful to see in person. One of my favourite pieces of visual art. A lot of people like to shit on abstract art and color fields as "a toddler could do it" but there is technical skill and artistry on display. Keith Haring's art is also very simple but powerful. Personally I don't get the same feeling from a shitty iPad drawing of a monkey with some photoshop layers swapped around.

creeble 5y ago
Additionally, I have seen quite a lot of actual toddler art, and even when that fact is initially hidden, I have yet to be impressed by any of it.
seibelj 5y ago
I simply disagree that 3 vertical bars are worth millions of dollars. But that's the point I'm making about art - it's subjective.

creeble 5y ago

>The background of the artist and the piece's history is what gives it value That, and the fact that there is only one, it's not digital, and it can be authenticated (and also the artist is dead, so it is guaranteed there won't be any more). The "value" of an NFT is that there is only one unique occurrance of it in a pile of bits called a blockchain. It is very hard to hang it on a wall. Web3: not satisfied with the fundamental principle of digital abundance, we invented digital scarcity.

0x500x79 5y ago
In many ways it feels like we are recreating DRM, which was something that we weren't happy with as consumers, but this time: "It's different because it's crypto and I can make money on it".
max48 5y ago
>The "value" of an NFT is that there is only one unique occurrance of it in a pile of bits called a blockchain. It is very hard to hang it on a wall. It's worst than that because almost all NFTs are only an pointer/URL and the art itself is not on the chain.
- bootlooped 5y ago
  And the provenance of which NFT is legitimate and/or original is not on the chain either. I create myartwork.jpeg. Somebody creates an NFT of it. Later, I create an NFT of it. Even later a bunch of people make NFT replicas of both. Which NFT is legitimate? The blockchain doesn't know.
  - seibelj 5y ago
    If you publicly state which smart contract is your NFT, then that would be the real one. Similarly someone could claim a physical painting is yours, but you could publicly say it isn't. The blockchain doesn't know anymore than a physical canvas "knows" what is real and what is fake. The blockchain is a tool, the artist is the creator and arbiter of what the real NFT is.