5 ms·

How is that different from the current art market where you can already buy some painting with a high degree of confidence that it's an original, numbered, sign

by 255kb 4y ago

How is that different from the current art market where you can already buy some painting with a high degree of confidence that it's an original, numbered, signed by the artist, etc. Blockchain does not add more confidence to these kind of transactions. You still need middleman to authenticate the art, that it wasn't stolen or whatever. Writing ownership in a blockchain, why not, but for all the famous crypto use cases (real estate, concert tickets, art, etc.) these only solve a very small part of the problem (if there is one to solve...) and I don't see how you can cut all the middleman that are always here for a reason.

donatj 4y ago
With a good quality physical fake it can be hard for even the artist themselves to know if they made it. An NFT, they know for certain without question if they minted it or not. That’s the whole schtick. You have a jpeg or whatever provable signed by the artist. Sure you can make copies, but those copies are provably not signed by the artist.
- account-5 4y ago
  For me the main issue is do I care? Leaving aside the: "which Blockchain/NTF represents the real image" issue, you actually have to give a crap about that stuff. That's where the value lies. I'm not sure most people do.
  - donatj 4y ago
    I think basically everyone aside from the most devout nihilists assign more value to a copy of photograph signed by the artist than a non-signed copy. It's literally just a digital equivalent.
web4 4y ago
the main use case is not an oil or acrylic painting but digital art and digital media. look at highest sales on any platform its memes, gifs, JPGs, digital photographs, 3D renderings, videos, generative art. there was no easy way to distribute signed editions of digital media in limited capacity and have it certified by the artist themself, the only option was to make it a signed physical print which is not a digital substrate. the only middleman you requires is blockchain indexer like etherscan or TheGraph or an alternative , and if you do not trust those platforms you can run your own local node as the data is not owned by any single entity.
- Juliate 4y ago
  That’s a silly bit use case. It’s trying to replicate some medium (world of atoms) properties unto another medium (world of bits) which provides a wild different perspective (scarcity is not the rule). If anyone wants to play the scarcity/exclusivity game, fine. There are better, more efficient solutions/means than crypto and nft for this already.
  - web4 4y ago
    > There are better, more efficient solutions/means than crypto and nft for this already. lol people like to repeat this without pointing to any solutions. with crypto art an artist can sign their cryptographic key on a transferable and ownable digital asset published on a distributed ledger, set its scarcity and supply, and then use the blockchain as a sales and auction mechanism without requiring an intermediary auction house to handle escrow like sothebys or christies. what is the proposed alternative for these digital media?
    - Juliate 4y ago
      Art certificates, both physical and digital have existed for… ages? And even the NFT frenzy is a good opportunity to market a « new », « better » Dropbox-like integrated solution, that’s supported in the long run and enables small artists to be as well autonomous on this. Edit: seriously. Selling NFTs as a solution for art certificates sounds like an American coming in France to sell the concepts of bread and cheese.
      - web4 4y ago
        > Art certificates, both physical and digital have existed for… ages? and they are generally pretty crap? easily lost, forgeable, destroyed, manipulated, unrecognized. typical certs require a centralized "Certificate Provider" who upholds their value, for example a major auction house might distribute a cert when selling a painting. in crypto art there is no centralized authority that maintains the veracity of the tokens as the provenance and ownership lies in the distributed ledger. for those who wish to achieve similar goals as a digital cert but with more cryptographic robustness and less reliance on a centralized actor, NFT is a fine approach. that it has sales and market mechanisms built in is a bonus and probably the reason for its booming success as a new digital art market.

by 255kb 4y ago

donatj 4y ago

With a good quality physical fake it can be hard for even the artist themselves to know if they made it. An NFT, they know for certain without question if they minted it or not. That’s the whole schtick. You have a jpeg or whatever provable signed by the artist. Sure you can make copies, but those copies are provably not signed by the artist.

account-5 4y ago
For me the main issue is do I care? Leaving aside the: "which Blockchain/NTF represents the real image" issue, you actually have to give a crap about that stuff. That's where the value lies. I'm not sure most people do.
- donatj 4y ago
  I think basically everyone aside from the most devout nihilists assign more value to a copy of photograph signed by the artist than a non-signed copy. It's literally just a digital equivalent.

web4 4y ago

the main use case is not an oil or acrylic painting but digital art and digital media. look at highest sales on any platform its memes, gifs, JPGs, digital photographs, 3D renderings, videos, generative art. there was no easy way to distribute signed editions of digital media in limited capacity and have it certified by the artist themself, the only option was to make it a signed physical print which is not a digital substrate. the only middleman you requires is blockchain indexer like etherscan or TheGraph or an alternative , and if you do not trust those platforms you can run your own local node as the data is not owned by any single entity.

Juliate 4y ago
That’s a silly bit use case. It’s trying to replicate some medium (world of atoms) properties unto another medium (world of bits) which provides a wild different perspective (scarcity is not the rule). If anyone wants to play the scarcity/exclusivity game, fine. There are better, more efficient solutions/means than crypto and nft for this already.
- web4 4y ago
  > There are better, more efficient solutions/means than crypto and nft for this already. lol people like to repeat this without pointing to any solutions. with crypto art an artist can sign their cryptographic key on a transferable and ownable digital asset published on a distributed ledger, set its scarcity and supply, and then use the blockchain as a sales and auction mechanism without requiring an intermediary auction house to handle escrow like sothebys or christies. what is the proposed alternative for these digital media?
  - Juliate 4y ago
    Art certificates, both physical and digital have existed for… ages? And even the NFT frenzy is a good opportunity to market a « new », « better » Dropbox-like integrated solution, that’s supported in the long run and enables small artists to be as well autonomous on this. Edit: seriously. Selling NFTs as a solution for art certificates sounds like an American coming in France to sell the concepts of bread and cheese.
    - web4 4y ago
      > Art certificates, both physical and digital have existed for… ages? and they are generally pretty crap? easily lost, forgeable, destroyed, manipulated, unrecognized. typical certs require a centralized "Certificate Provider" who upholds their value, for example a major auction house might distribute a cert when selling a painting. in crypto art there is no centralized authority that maintains the veracity of the tokens as the provenance and ownership lies in the distributed ledger. for those who wish to achieve similar goals as a digital cert but with more cryptographic robustness and less reliance on a centralized actor, NFT is a fine approach. that it has sales and market mechanisms built in is a bonus and probably the reason for its booming success as a new digital art market.