What sells you on the idea of NFTs?
I'm very much at the y tho stage. I don't get particularly annoyed by artists giving them a go out of desperation, as it's hard to make money from pictures, but they do seem a bit of a con.
Eno is undecided:
the-crypto-syllabus.com/brian-eno-on-nfts-and-automatism/
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Mon 20 Dec 2021, 18:40,
Reply)
have you seen the energy consumption of the blockchain?
also, at this stage people are minting NFTs of art that they don't even own, so not only are they making money of the back of others' work, they are actively preventing the original artist that same opportunity.
It is a huge money laundering scam
(, Mon 20 Dec 2021, 19:46, Reply)
It does look that way,
hence my asking someone who's into them.
There are people I like who make them, who I can't imagine being the usual crypto libertarian shit heads.
An artist wanting to get in-and-out before the bubble burst is my only way to understand why someone would do it at the moment.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Mon 20 Dec 2021, 20:32,
Reply)
it's an immature, unregulated mess
much like cryptocurrency generally imo
but i think it's brilliant technology and advances in non-PoW consensus algorithms will eventually see the end of energy-hungry mining.
(, Mon 20 Dec 2021, 20:49, Reply)
They no longer require a quorum of the former inmates of Stalag Luft XVII to perform calculations
(, Mon 20 Dec 2021, 22:01, Reply)
I think it's something to do with that World Of Minecraft that everyone's always on about
(, Mon 20 Dec 2021, 23:17, Reply)
A reduction in the number of ex-prisoners joining factions.
(
FeralCatMan Long ads need comments sections, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 0:55,
Reply)
While there is an abundance of nonsense there are some great projects out there
Some of the biggest contemporary artists are NFTers.
Beeple and Pak have both sold works in excess of $100m.
Lots of innovation within the metaverse going on too, making online virtual galleries where artists control the gateway.
I'm launching a poroject quite s00n , so stay tuned for that. If you are history fan you'll love it.
(
ProjectWeasel The Bird is the Word, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 0:07,
Reply)
ok, and i'm all for nfts in principle,
but a. $100m is not the value of any piece of art - not beeple's, not anyone's
b. 'metaverse' is a term only enjoyed by excitable children and marketeers
and c. what broad public interest do you think these virtual galleries will attract? i mean are we talking a paywalled instagram?
(, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 4:42, Reply)
Virtual galleries are just a way for someone to curate digital content
...as NFTs also prove ownership, then it can also act as a flex.
Maybe interactive experiences can be made on top.
Early days, but I do see quite a bit of potential for building online worlds and experiences under a new framework.
(
ProjectWeasel The Bird is the Word, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 19:10,
Reply)
most of the biggest contemporary artists aren't
NFTs aren't artwork, they aren't ownership of art. they are an unregulated register of ownership of a virtual token referring to a single instance of a digital file.
(artificially inflated prices are already a feature of the art trade - it's a really telling indicator of money laundering - not a good thing)
online virtual art galleries already exist in many forms
real art can be hung on walls. I'd be interested to know how many NFTs assets have been printed out and framed
(, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 8:55, Reply)
It's another pathetic status thing
Exclusive ownership except in this case the ownership is not exclusive in any meaningful sense, it's just a feeling. It's a fascinating psychological experiment
(, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 10:15, Reply)
I kind-of understand people collecting them in
the same way I still buy MP3s, and collect badges on things like Duolingo. Virtually owning makes sense.
I even quite like the idea of people owning virtual art galleries (even if most NFTs are tasteless shit).
People willing to pay for art is great.
It's the blockchain stuff, though. I can't see how it adds anything except perhaps making people buy a hacker image off-the-shelf without actually having to be smart.
And the movement is full of fash libertarian cunts, too.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 12:52,
Reply)
"People willing to pay for art is great"
they're not paying for art though
(, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 13:01, Reply)
Ignoring the quality of the work,
and all the copyright theft, they are surely paying for art in the same way as paying for an mp3 is.
It's giving money to be able to go "this one is in my collection", even though you could just illegally download / stream and give the person who made it nothing.
I mean, I still don't know *why* you would (there is so much awful stuff about them), but I suspect a big market is in people at an age where they want to express a personality via the media they consume. Paying for things does increase that feeling of ownership.
Professional dealers buying them just shows what a load of bollocks the art market has always been.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 13:18,
Reply)
because the ownership model is different to mp3
if you legally download a song you have rights to play that file.
an NFT does not confer ownership of the image. You get to register that you 'own' that one digital instance of the file (not a download).
The register is unregulated and unenforceable, and gives you no control over what you 'own'. So in a very real and legal sense, you don't.
(, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 14:23, Reply)
Yeah, but you still curate a personal collection.
You can then show them off to other people who care.
Surely people buying them know what they are buying by now, so legal ownership can't be why they are doing so (and my question is why are they doing so, not why are they shit).
Admittedly, Pokemon might have been a better example than mp3. People like to collect things and follow fads.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 15:25,
Reply)
Well, that's just like, your opinion, man...
than art. The technical framework is often confused with an image that has appended to the smart contract as a visual representation of the unique hash. However, NFTs can do more things, depending on how you wish to code them.
(
ProjectWeasel The Bird is the Word, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 19:14,
Reply)
Decentralized Finance is probably the strongest usecase
...u effectively turn a piece of digital art into a yield bearing instrument, that can be collateralized (according to whatever User X will pay for it) and borrowed against, fractionalized, lent out, etc.
Other uses include
- to pass on royalties or copyright (could be useful not just for art, but music as well)
- a ticketing system, or proof of attendance
- pair NFTs with physical assets, to give digital representations or ownership rights
- gaming , eg. ownership of in-game assets/items
NFTs are just smart contracts, that essentially execute if / when rules.
(
ProjectWeasel The Bird is the Word, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 23:34,
Reply)
The art is fairly irrelevant to all this isn't it?
You might as well be 'collateralising' a pebble off the beach. As long as you can persuade someone to buy it, you're good to go. The conceptual framework behind it all seems very shaky indeed
(, Wed 22 Dec 2021, 9:08, Reply)
I’m a digital artist/illustrator myself
and NFT’s are the scourge of all online discourse on this at the moment. Scammers taking other people’s work. Fuckwits offering tediously implausible get rich quick schemes, and the odd middle aged woman thinking she’s at the cutting edge because she scanned a bad acrylic painting of a horse.
Of course it’s all bullshit - there’s no audience. Who looks at NFTs because they want to see art? Nobody.
I’d be very interested to see a bit of digging into the actual reality of these massive prices. Is it actually the case that this Beeple guy now has access to $100m dollars? And it’s now removed from the system and just in his bank account? Great for him if true, but I smell bullshit
(, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 10:19, Reply)
"thinking she’s at the cutting edge"
Yeah, that makes sense as to what they add, I guess. That weird value of something being fashionable.
I remember Danny Baker putting the concept of cool into Room 101. He was right.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 12:57,
Reply)
Beeple raised $69m thru one piece
But Sotheby's took a good portion of that.
He probably still has close o $100m thru his other sales though. The valuation is crazy, but equally, the artistic endevour is also quite impressive. He created something every day, for 5000 days. What have you done every day for 5000 days?
Sure, some internet character who got stupid rich from cryptocurrency certainly overpaid for it. But is it any more bizzare than an owner of a car company or online bookshop planning to colonize outer space?
(
ProjectWeasel The Bird is the Word, Tue 21 Dec 2021, 23:39,
Reply)