4 ms·

Yes; I’m an artist, selling print and digital work for many years now. I also have bought and acquired art through galleries, auction houses, online platforms,

Yes; I’m an artist, selling print and digital work for many years now. I also have bought and acquired art through galleries, auction houses, online platforms, artist websites, and now NFTs. I’m not sure why you have a hard time with the concept of tokenization; but artists typically lose a significant portion of revenue to more traditional systems. A trad gallery’s 30-50% fees, or Bandcamp and Patreon’s 10-15% fees are significant compared to crypto art’s 0-2.5% fees.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> 10-15% fees in Bandcamp and Patreon are significant compared to crypto art’s 0-2.5% fees These are different services. Artists don't pay galleries to process a payment, they pay them for distribution. If you're distributing your own art, why on earth are you selling through Bandcamp or Patreon? Just take payment directly. (Including via crypto.) Crypto art markets do have value in that they're a collection of buyers who place artistic value on buying NFTs. That's fine. But it's a solution for accessing those buyers. Not anything in general. It's a better gallery for a particular audience.
- mattdesl 3y ago
  Most crypto art platforms also act as distribution platforms, akin to Bandcamp in this way. Look at fxhash[1] and Verse[2] which have a 2.5% fee. [1] https://www.fxhash.xyz https://www.fxhash.xyz [2] https://verse.works https://verse.works
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Got it. And not arguing those marketplaces have no value. Just that the value of NFTs is not in "paying digital artists." It's in, well, being digital art. If you're making digital art, crypto art markets are your solution. It's circular, but that's fine--it's art. If you're not making digital art, tagging on an NFT doesn't help you get paid. You might find distribution advantages by doing that, but that's because you changed the thing you're making--e.g. a song into a digital art piece--in a way that appeals to a group of buyers who congregate on crypto art marketplaces. By absurd analogy, suppose there was a trend of buying art slathered in mayo. There's an eclectic group in Miami, and they just love mayo art. When asked what purpose the mayonnaise serves, one artist replies "it helps us get paid." Which is sort of true. The dry work was more difficult to sell; the dripping one isn't. But that's not quite the answer. The mayonnaised art sells because there are people who like mayo on their art. (And to induce people to buy mayonnaise art, a mayo art dealer may very well charge lower gallery fees. Particularly if there's more competition.)
    - mattdesl 3y ago
      Your analogy is indeed absurd and irrelevant. NFT and blockchain is not specific to digital artists; you'll find illustrators, photographers, sculptors, painters, poets, performance artists, and many others using the technology "to get paid." Simply put: one of the values of this technology is that it offers a novel, open source, and often lower fee mechanism for "paying (and supporting) artists."
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > you'll find illustrators, photographers, sculptors, painters, poets, performance artists, and many others using the technology "to get paid.” What’s an example where the point of adding NFTs wasn’t to sell to people who like buying things related to NFTs? Where not only regular money transmission doesn’t work, but crypto, too, is insufficient? The fact that the NFT is added to a physical painting or performance ticket (or the privilege of sponsoring one) is entirely separate from the work itself. That some people will pay more for the bundle is a valid market. But it’s still mayo.
        mattdesl 3y ago
        For many artists, the NFT acts as a certificate of authenticity, akin to Sol LeWitt's signed certificates[1]. It's certainly possible to manage these with mere pen and paper, but in today's digital age there are benefits to using a digital certificate. And in the context of art certificates, there are benefits to using open source standards (ERC-721, i.e. NFT) that can span across many platforms and systems, rather than centralised standards that would typically be upheld by Sotheby's, Christie's, or the artist themselves. And, there are cases where "just crypto" will suffice, like a direct wallet-to-wallet transfer of USDC on a L2 for a physical work—and this is another way of paying artists that Google Play can and should be able to support in their apps. The fees and settlement times are often superior to traditional infra (even Wise). But this transaction comes with no provenance and transfer of ownership, which is one of the selling points of NFT. [1] https://harvardartmuseums.org/collections/object/171166 https://harvardartmuseums.org/collections/object/171166

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> 10-15% fees in Bandcamp and Patreon are significant compared to crypto art’s 0-2.5% fees These are different services. Artists don't pay galleries to process a payment, they pay them for distribution. If you're distributing your own art, why on earth are you selling through Bandcamp or Patreon? Just take payment directly. (Including via crypto.) Crypto art markets do have value in that they're a collection of buyers who place artistic value on buying NFTs. That's fine. But it's a solution for accessing those buyers. Not anything in general. It's a better gallery for a particular audience.

mattdesl 3y ago
Most crypto art platforms also act as distribution platforms, akin to Bandcamp in this way. Look at fxhash[1] and Verse[2] which have a 2.5% fee. [1] https://www.fxhash.xyz https://www.fxhash.xyz [2] https://verse.works https://verse.works
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Got it. And not arguing those marketplaces have no value. Just that the value of NFTs is not in "paying digital artists." It's in, well, being digital art. If you're making digital art, crypto art markets are your solution. It's circular, but that's fine--it's art. If you're not making digital art, tagging on an NFT doesn't help you get paid. You might find distribution advantages by doing that, but that's because you changed the thing you're making--e.g. a song into a digital art piece--in a way that appeals to a group of buyers who congregate on crypto art marketplaces. By absurd analogy, suppose there was a trend of buying art slathered in mayo. There's an eclectic group in Miami, and they just love mayo art. When asked what purpose the mayonnaise serves, one artist replies "it helps us get paid." Which is sort of true. The dry work was more difficult to sell; the dripping one isn't. But that's not quite the answer. The mayonnaised art sells because there are people who like mayo on their art. (And to induce people to buy mayonnaise art, a mayo art dealer may very well charge lower gallery fees. Particularly if there's more competition.)
  - mattdesl 3y ago
    Your analogy is indeed absurd and irrelevant. NFT and blockchain is not specific to digital artists; you'll find illustrators, photographers, sculptors, painters, poets, performance artists, and many others using the technology "to get paid." Simply put: one of the values of this technology is that it offers a novel, open source, and often lower fee mechanism for "paying (and supporting) artists."
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > you'll find illustrators, photographers, sculptors, painters, poets, performance artists, and many others using the technology "to get paid.” What’s an example where the point of adding NFTs wasn’t to sell to people who like buying things related to NFTs? Where not only regular money transmission doesn’t work, but crypto, too, is insufficient? The fact that the NFT is added to a physical painting or performance ticket (or the privilege of sponsoring one) is entirely separate from the work itself. That some people will pay more for the bundle is a valid market. But it’s still mayo.
      - mattdesl 3y ago
        For many artists, the NFT acts as a certificate of authenticity, akin to Sol LeWitt's signed certificates[1]. It's certainly possible to manage these with mere pen and paper, but in today's digital age there are benefits to using a digital certificate. And in the context of art certificates, there are benefits to using open source standards (ERC-721, i.e. NFT) that can span across many platforms and systems, rather than centralised standards that would typically be upheld by Sotheby's, Christie's, or the artist themselves. And, there are cases where "just crypto" will suffice, like a direct wallet-to-wallet transfer of USDC on a L2 for a physical work—and this is another way of paying artists that Google Play can and should be able to support in their apps. The fees and settlement times are often superior to traditional infra (even Wise). But this transaction comes with no provenance and transfer of ownership, which is one of the selling points of NFT. [1] https://harvardartmuseums.org/collections/object/171166 https://harvardartmuseums.org/collections/object/171166