3 ms·
the value is in the limited edition asset signed and distributed by an artist. you can verify this by taking the Beeple PNG and re-minting it yourself to see if
by web4 4y ago
the value is in the limited edition asset signed and distributed by an artist. you can verify this by taking the Beeple PNG and re-minting it yourself to see if others value it the same way. or you can take any popular artist's or photographer's signed print like Damien Hirst and create a copy without a signature to see if people value it.
banks and CEX both have nothing to do with the topic of certification of art. neither a bank or CEX upholds the cert.
interesting that you say NFT-as-certs have no impact for notable artists yet there are a variety of notable artists using NFT-as-certs. see: Hirst, Koons, Pace gallery all using NFT. the nice thing is that this tech is available to all, whether you are a notable artist like Hirst or just an illustrator or pixel artist, such as @jmw327.
https://twitter.com/jmw327 https://twitter.com/jmw327
- Juliate 4y agoIn less than a century, your Beeple PNG and Hirst photograph will be in the public domain. Free to copy, reuse, whatever, without exclusivity. But, yes, you will still have an exclusive, costly certificate. Just a certificate. In less than a century, the public domain art will still have admirers, remixers. The certificate itself will hold no value to no one. It's literally a depreciating speculative asset. See: today, who cares as much about whoever funded it and how, than about Mozart's Requiem? Would this have been funded through an exclusive certificate at the time, apart from being a museum artefact of a bygone era, it would not be worth much. The music is still studied, performed, derived, listened to.