Submitted by nickmakr t3_zwhv1d in Futurology
Melodicmarc t1_j1ut9as wrote
Reply to comment by lofgren777 in art future by nickmakr
Sounds exactly like an expensive art collector. Which actually makes perfect sense.
Themasterofcomedy209 t1_j1uy6ux wrote
Except the art collector actually has a physical work that has actual value. The only use NFTs have is to clean your dirty money, people legitimately interested in art will usually choose a physical original over a NFT that’s effectively worthless
Melodicmarc t1_j1v44gv wrote
I’d argue that in both cases (except with historical famous paintings), there is an object with no value except perceived value. The painting is just a physical form of “art” whereas the NFT is a digital form of “art”. Both cases don’t really have any value beyond the perceived artificial value.
Destructopoo t1_j1v5uod wrote
This isn't metaphysical. A piece of art has context that an NFT can't because it's literally meant to be arbitrary filler to represent a transaction. NFTs are not even the image. They're the line of code that the image represents in a digital format.
Edit: this is like asking if penny stocks are going to replace people living in houses because both are investments.
lofgren777 t1_j1v6sht wrote
I can hold a piece of art. I can look at it and be moved by it. It communicates something from the artist to me, through time and space.
The only thing an NFT can do for me is appreciate in my digital wallet.
If somebody thinks these two things are comparable they are exactly the kind of soulless philistine I was talking about in my first comment.
Yes, both only have as much value as they are perceived to have. One is a line of gibberish and code and the other is an attempt by a fellow human being to bridge the infinite gulf between minds. These are not the same thing just because neither would have value if humans stopped existing (which is true of everything anyway).
Destructopoo t1_j1v7fz7 wrote
That last part is so important. This casual nihilism is just an excuse to stop thinking about it. Nobody actually thinks nothing matters.
Melodicmarc t1_j1vet7r wrote
Okay let’s make sure we have the same understanding of what an NFT is here. My understanding is an NFT is essentially a digital signature to show ownership of a digital image? Is that correct? If that is the case, then I don’t see why physical art would hold any more value than digital art? Maybe that’s what we should be discussing.
I was not trying to downplay the value of art. There is a bunch of beauty in art. But also a lot of art is a big scam by rich people. Watch this video:
Destructopoo t1_j1vjb2t wrote
NFTs are the digital signature themselves. They are tokens and the images are a place holder. There is a line of code which an algorithm uses to generate an image and inversely, an image has a unique line of code associated with it. Ever pixel has a numerical value. Imagine I made an nft line that was a 4 by 4 grid. The format is [Blockchainsecurity][0000000011110000][gibberish] and my platform draws you a blank grid with a horizontal line 1/4 of the way up. You own the code. My website makes it a picture. An nft differs from crypto in that there's an image gimmick.
Art isn't a rich people scam. It's art. Do you think houses are a rich people scam? The proportion of houses that are commodified and exploited by the rich is far more than the proportion of art which is commodofied and exploited.
Melodicmarc t1_j1vmvaw wrote
So the intent of NFT's are used to show ownership of the original digital image right? Just as a signature by the original painter on a piece of art shows they created it? I think a digital signature of ownership of a digital image is a valuable. I think the scam of buying and selling NFTs like they are stocks is incredibly dumb. FYI this is where I am getting my information from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNQLJcJEzv0
You're correct in that art in itself isn't a scam. Art is great, and only a small portion is used as a scam by the very rich to inflate value and launder money, which that video goes into detail about. Which is why I thought NFT's was a good comparison to that. Comparing art to houses is a bad comparison, because once again houses hold actual value in materials and owning a piece of land. Value in art is based entirely off what humans perceive it to be. A painting won't get you far on a cold winter night, but a house will.
Destructopoo t1_j1y0w2w wrote
That's not the intent. It's the selling point. NFTs do not show digital ownership of art. The art is a representation of the code. You do not own the art nor do you have any rights to it with the NFT.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments