I did, and apologize I didn’t make that more clear in my original message.
Same here. And like any collectors market, very few things are going to rake in the big dollars. That’s going to be based on some combination of fame of the producer, scarcity of the item, desirability of the art, etc. And like most boom/bust cycles, there’s little rationale to the pricing of these things. It’s all “irrational exuberance” because they tagged the word “crypto” to it.
Well, it leaves me in hope that there will be a day a domain takeover results in a swath of NFT images all being replaced by goatse.
Well that is why something akin to a “deed restriction” is effective. You tacitly agree to the terms when you purchase the artwork. If you do not wish to compensate the artist, then you don’t buy the art. Its much different than attempting to legislate for royalties. Compliance is voluntarily imposed as a condition of ownership.
To be fair, the odds are stacked against writers, regardless (especially considering all the stuff that’s been happening with substack and medium). It’s definitely harder to crack the fiction world, though. At least it was for me.
I love the fact that there are services like Patreon out there that make it possible for more creative types to make money with their art.
Why cant we just go back to selling art the old fashioned way, by reaching out to an artist and commissioning a piece in their DMs?
Or maybe just pay by “exposure”
This whole thing confuses me, I’m still not sure I understand it. Let’s pretend (or accept, your choice) that I’m an artist of some kind, digital or otherwise. I make an art. I put time and money into making the art. Let’s assume it turns out to be more than half good. Then I spend some more time and money making an NFT so that someone later can have a record of ownership. Actually I spend a lot of money because what options don’t consume resources? Now I have created an NFT and jumped through another barrier to entry for profit. Now my next job is to convince anyone and everyone in the attention economy that not only was it worth buying my time initially, it’s also worth spotting me for the extra money I spent creating an NFT. Wait… that seems backwards. I should probably do the last thing first.
Apart from novelty, I don’t really get it.
It just kind of seems like a same shit new smell kind of thing somehow for small time artists or anyone who can’t expense a legal team. Even for wealthy and established artists who have succeeded extraordinarily against the odds like Grimes, it seems more like a “fun experiment”. But I could definitely be missing something.
Alternatively, if you’re interested in investing/speculating with cryptocurrencies I also don’t really see how it wouldn’t be better just to do that with some of the currencies without the art baggage? The only real use case I can see is if you need to park a lot of money in an economic gray area for a while then this might create one more way to accomplish that, and it’s getting harder for me to view that with enthusiasm.
And I say that as a person who is desperately clinging to any good news or sense of opportunity.
Saw where someone proposed that women who receive unsolicited dick pics could turn them into NFTs with the offending guy listed as artist, then he has to buy it from her to get it off the blockchain. An interesting use case.
Except that there is a tangible difference between possessing a Beanie Baby and not possessing a Beanie Baby.
Don’t worry, the people paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for this nonsense clearly don’t understand it either.
OFFS…
Like all collectibles, their value is predicated on being the second-to-last sucker in the chain.
There is a subset of the population that is predisposed to collecting [ITEM], and they become quite passionate about it. Some of them devote their lives to it and fill many storage lockers or their house with a vast collection of [ITEM].
The few I have known always talk about how much ‘value’ this or that thing ‘has’. Only true of someone else is willing to pay it, of course. Then, when they inevitably die either their heirs dump the stuff in volume and/or other collectors swoop in like vultures to haul the shiny off to their own lairs.
The people who actually make money in ‘collecting’ are the ones who have found a few rich suckers collectors. They hunt around and find [ITEM] at garage sales and storage auctions etc, then flip them to the rich or obsessive rubes for a massive return.
you neglected to mention: scoundrels, grifters, mountebanks, swindlers, charlatans, flimflammers, fraudsters, and confidence tricksters.
For $10K, I’ll sell them a digital Martian research complex. There might be a few cyberdemons, but that only adds to the charm.
Aren’t NFTs Purple Cow Pogs on PCP?
I do not understand the idea behind NFT’s. They seem to be little more than bragging rights. When you buy art, you have a piece of art that you can look at. It has aesthetic value beyond its value as a collectible. Same for any collectible. Heck, even if you bought Beanie Babies, you still have Beanie Babies.
But with an NFT, you’re not buying anything with any intrinsic value. You’re buying a token, the only purpose of which is either to claim “I own this token” or to re-sell to someone else later on. It’s basically the certificate of authenticity that accompanies your individually numbered porcelain figurine of Captain Kirk with a ripped shirt, but without the figurine. I can’t think of a more apt metaphor for the empty principles behind so much Silicon Valley start-up/tech/disruption stuff.
Seems to me you understand the idea behind NFTs better than the people who bought them.
Sure it does. Think of an NFT as a physical piece of artwork, stored away in a warehouse. On Mars.
Which is a not insignificant component of why people buy art.
This argument that NFTs cannot be art is reminiscent of how photography or video was viewed askance as being art because “nothing is being created, just recorded.”
