Bitcoin?

Discussion in 'Whatever' started by ---NT---, Mar 28, 2013.

  1. ---NT---

    ---NT--- Prototype

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,188
    Location:
    PDX
    Bitcoin?
    Same. NFT is fascinating to me, but in a "shaking head" sort of way. I just don't get it. But then, I still buy LPs and physical copies of video games when possible. Recently learning about basketball card NFTs and how much people are paying for them has me like :shock:. But I can even understand trading card NFTs more than fine art NFTs, or toy NFTs...the toy one is particularly perplexing. Maybe once they integrate with AR/VR and you can actually play with them with other people.
     
    The Moog likes this.
  2. The Moog

    The Moog Die-Cast

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    12,550
    Location:
    Gert Brizzle UK
    Bitcoin?
    With Cryptoart, I'm struggling to understand what benefit does 'owning' a jpeg have over owning a physical painting or print?. A jpeg can be copied by anyone and it will be identical (unless you originated it and controlled what resolution was uploaded to begin with). If you buy a jpeg that's existed online for a while, people have had the opportunity to back it up free of charge. If they have no intention of using it commercially, they are free to print it out and frame it or just view it onscreen whenever they like. Where is the benefit of spending thousands on it? Yes, its documented that the jpeg is yours, but potentially millions of people have saved it to their chosen device and are enjoying the exact same thing for free. It just seems like speculators dictating the value of intangible 'objects' comprised of Red, Green and Blue light. They're playing with the concept of ownership to create more ways to spend money on 'virtual' things. Where is the benefit to the 'owner' other than buying, selling and potentially making a profit?
     
  3. ---NT---

    ---NT--- Prototype

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,188
    Location:
    PDX
    Bitcoin?
    ^^^ My thoughts, as well.

    Currently my speculation on the matter is that there is one group that feels that it's a way to support the artist(s) they like and another group that uses it as a money-laundering service. And of course some that view it as an investment, along with their pogs and beanie babies and Nags.

    As NFTs begin to perform functions then the blockchain backing will keep counterfeits from being useful - think of Pokemon being played with NFT cards.

    But yeah, a static image, or even video file (NBA Top Shots), that doesn't do anything other than exist? I ain't buying that.
     
    littledarkthing likes this.
  4. 666doll

    666doll Mini Boss

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,525
    Location:
    Long Beach Rock City
    Bitcoin?
    Give me tangible or give me death

    The only real positive I can muster from Cryptoart is you have provenance. You can trace ownership from artist to current owner. And that can be a good thing to know for authenticity. Other than that, the only people that truly seem to profit are the middle men or miners who take a piece of the transactions and the sites that charge you up front to post your art. And, the few artists who may or may have gotten on board before everyone else.

    I don't see the value in this format. Unless the format is the "art" itself in a way. A new medium. Using this system as a way to create your art like any other medium. That's no less legit than simply using your computer to generate your art, or a camera, or a paint brush...
     
  5. ---NT---

    ---NT--- Prototype

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,188
    Location:
    PDX
    Bitcoin?
    I'm having trouble envisioning how the NFT format could be considered the art or the medium. But that could just be based on my limited understanding of NFT. To me, calling the NFT the art itself would be like calling the receipt the art, and the painting is just incidental or ancillary to the receipt.
     
    The Moog likes this.
  6. 666doll

    666doll Mini Boss

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,525
    Location:
    Long Beach Rock City
    Bitcoin?
    ^^^^^
    I get you.
    You have to think outside the box some to make the argument work. But, it could be considered a "performative" piece of work. It can be a stance on consumerism, technology, etc. It could almost be a call and response work. Now, for this to be true, it would require an awful lot of pre-planning, etc. So I am leaning towards it not being true. But I think a viable argument could be made otherwise.
     
    ---NT--- likes this.
  7. Anti Social Andy

    Anti Social Andy Die-Cast

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Messages:
    9,937
    Location:
    The Grim North
    Bitcoin?
    Kings new clothes! . . . If suckers are dumb enough to pay $60 million for a .jpg I'm sure there are a whole shit-ton of 'artists' ready to sell!
     
  8. 3wing

    3wing Addicted

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    742
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    Name:
    Neil
    Bitcoin?
    way Beyond speculative art buying....

    It’s not just for .jpgs but, more focused on mediums that require a viewing portal. Like, video art and gif. I think some collectors think that these medium have no worth. but, a ton of artists in digital industries are critically under valued. NFT gives them a way to get paid and, appreciated beyond being seen as minor players.

    I’ve been making digital art for over 20 years. Struggling. This is a good thing for me. Collectors have to option to buy physical art.
    But now they also have the ability to buy digital on contract on blockchain.

    This also sets a standard for a new internet. With artists and engineers working on W3B. hopefully we can create something better that Alphabit.inc and Microsoft etc... have to offer.

    The US, China and, many other countries are moving to crypto inspired tokens.

    This shit is the future.
     
  9. ---NT---

    ---NT--- Prototype

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,188
    Location:
    PDX
    Bitcoin?
    First off, good point on NFT helping support a struggling artistic medium! I have to admit my own person bias against the digi medium - but what can I say, we all have our preferences. But even though digi isn't my thing, I do agree that finding new ways to support mediums that haven't been well supported is GREAT.
    But I quoted this section of your post because I've been hearing about W3B or internet 2.0 or whatever for a while now. I hope it comes to be! If you have any recent articles or anything like that please post 'em up in here.
     
  10. The Moog

    The Moog Die-Cast

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    12,550
    Location:
    Gert Brizzle UK
    Bitcoin?
    OK, but nothing in your post helps me understand the benefits of collecting certificates of ownership for virtual assets. You're not the first person to mention 'supporting artists' and i totally get that, but where is the advantage for the collector in the ability to buy digital on contract on blockchain?

    You buy the virtual asset, your name is then added to a 'Ledger' as the owner of the asset. But the jpeg / gif / meme / video is still being distributed online for anyone to enjoy, and it is exactly the same as what you 'bought'. I still don't understand how that is worth the silly money we are seeing exchange hands.

    You say 'This shit is the future.' .... why?

    Is there anyone that can actually explain how this is not another fad? I understand the benefits of making money for the artists and speculators, but what advantage is it to the average collector?
     
    hellopike likes this.
  11. 3wing

    3wing Addicted

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    742
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    Name:
    Neil
    Bitcoin?
    I don’t want to argue here. As an artist, I find this move both exciting and also challenging.
    there are valid arguments for and against NFT / crypto currency.

    I can only speak what I understand. Which really isn’t much...

    I’d like to think that when a patron buys the work they’d be granted certain rights not limited to resale, reproduction and hosting of said work via the agreement set at sale. also artists would be able to take a cut of the resale as well.

    Digital Art isn’t a virtual asset. It’s a real asset. It’s full of knowledge, in-vocative of feeling and skill.
    Consumers buy digital games, movies, attend zoom meetings... does that make the experience any less real?
    It’s the future because NFT challenges ideas of worth, ownership and, control.
    Once the art is taken out of the cube for all to easily access, those ideologies about ownership and control are recontextualized. But the learning inherently still had worth.
    If you copy and paste a jpg does it have worth?
    I’d argue everything has some inherent value.


    @NT
    I will try and find some interesting reading on NFT and how it relates to building W3B.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2021
    ---NT--- likes this.
  12. The Moog

    The Moog Die-Cast

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    12,550
    Location:
    Gert Brizzle UK
    Bitcoin?
    Wrong. I neither agree or disagree. I'm just thinking out loud i suppose ...
     
  13. 3wing

    3wing Addicted

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    742
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    Name:
    Neil
    Bitcoin?
    I edited as I feel I misspoke
     
    The Moog likes this.
  14. hellopike

    hellopike S7 Royalty

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,582
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Name:
    Phil
    Instagram:
    Hellopike
    Bitcoin?

    And then a bunch of people will take those expensive .jpgs into Photoshop and make liberal use of the spray tool and cover it in every color of the rainbow and try to resell it at a higher markup... ;)
     
    The Moog and Bob like this.
  15. hellopike

    hellopike S7 Royalty

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,582
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Name:
    Phil
    Instagram:
    Hellopike
    Bitcoin?
    My thoughts on this all are in line with @The Moog i don’t particularly understand the advantage of any of this to the end consumer. And by “any of this” I mean ownership of digital property. Convenience is the only plus as far as I can see. I’ve purchased digital games on my PlayStation and music on my iPhone, and I stream content that I’ve paid for on my tv. But I don’t own any of it in a tangible sense. The moment Sony or Apple or whoever decides they don’t want to support the artist/medium I’m SOL.

    the whole equation gets more nonsensical to me when it’s applied to artwork. Copied digital art Is not like a photocopy of a painting. It’s an exact copy. Why would I, as a collector pay a premium for anything that can be exactly duplicated infinitely basically for free? It just doesn’t make sense.

    this just sounds like the predicament photographers found themselves in in the early 2000s. Just in the opposite direction. The advent of cheap good digital cameras ruined the livelihood of many professional photographers. I should know, I graduated with a degree in photography in 2005. People and companies were no longer willing to pay a premium for my work because they could get someone cheaper to do it digitally. So I left the photography world before I ever really got a chance to start. Thems the breaks.

    good luck to the digital artists. But you’re fighting an uphill battle. Not that there isn’t money in it- utilizing your work as part of a bigger whole; ie. Movies, video games or tv.... but as stand alone art? I don’t see it happening.
     
  16. Anti Social Andy

    Anti Social Andy Die-Cast

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Messages:
    9,937
    Location:
    The Grim North
    Bitcoin?
    NFT's are like bottled farts!

    Just because someone might be selling 'em and you could buy 'em . . . why the fuck would you want to!
     
  17. The Moog

    The Moog Die-Cast

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    12,550
    Location:
    Gert Brizzle UK
    Bitcoin?
    Yeah, the only analogy that maybe comes close for this is music MP3.

    There are the people who will always buy physical media (vinyl records, tapes and compact disks.) Then there's the people who download all their music legally, and some people torrent all their music illegally.

    But then a percentage of illegal file sharers feel guilty and switch to legal means, to support the artists they like, but there is no noticeable difference between the paid for MP3 file and the illegal 'free' version.

    I just read that there's Cryptoart that even if you buy it, you don't necessarily own the rights to it. Which would be the same as music MP3's I suppose.
     
  18. hellopike

    hellopike S7 Royalty

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,582
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Name:
    Phil
    Instagram:
    Hellopike
    Bitcoin?

    Or streaming in a sense. To echo you and NT, I will always prefer ownership of a physical thing. I think about Star Wars. I own physical copies of the original theatrical trilogy. Those are the versions I prefer. Disney however, only streams and currently sells the latest iteration of the digitally “remastered” version, which I find inferior. What if the creator of a piece of digital art decides 1 or 5 or 10 years down the line that his masterpiece is not truly finished and wants to modify it? But you bought the rights to the art in the “original” state? How would that work? Are you required to update said art?

    what if your hard drive crashes and you lose your $60,000 JPEG? Can you redownload it? Or is it no longer the same? Hard drives fail much more often then floods or fires which could destroy a physical object.

    I’m just thinking out loud.
     
    ---NT--- and The Moog like this.
  19. 666doll

    666doll Mini Boss

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,525
    Location:
    Long Beach Rock City
    Bitcoin?
    I am of the belief that once you purchase an original work of art, from the artist, it belongs to you and you can do whatever you want with it. That includes making prints or whatever you want with it. I have never agreed with the idea that the artist retains the right to the image, but you get to buy and own the original. This always fell in line with that imbecile Garth Brooks and his greed towards consumers buying his music and then realizing they made a huge mistake and sold it on the secondary market, and he was allowed a part of the sale. Nah, I bought it and it is mine to do with what I wish.

    Another thing we need to consider in the broader sense of this new market and medium is energy use. Those servers suck up a lot of juice and the idea of these images being produced, sold and traded just means more and more need for more and more servers and the power required to keep em' running...

    Lastly, the "art world" has always been up for debate. Whether or not the art market is legit, does art mater, how can we put a value on art and should we, blah, blah, blah. This is nothing different IMO. This seems like a new direction it is taking and it means that some are going to win and others lose. I personally feel there are going to be more losers than winners, but aint that the same. If you're an artist and you can make some money from this new format and means, I say go for it. If you're one that feels your money is well spent on this new medium, then go for it. Personally, if I want to be anywhere involved, it's the selling and reselling of this medium. Then I can take all my profits and buy some real art like Kaws or Banksy :roll:
     
    ---NT--- likes this.
  20. ---NT---

    ---NT--- Prototype

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,188
    Location:
    PDX
    Bitcoin?
    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56335948 ;)
     
  21. ---NT---

    ---NT--- Prototype

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,188
    Location:
    PDX
    Bitcoin?
    Interesting. I can see your parallel between the hypothetical painting and Garth Brooks, but I don't agree. And I suppose that's because I don't consider the mediums to be the same. I draw a distinction between art and artistic - it's not a line I can 100% draw with confidence, but it's defined in my head well enough that music is artistic but not art. My definitions have something to do with mass production/distribution/public domain. Basically, if the work has millions of legit copies floating around the world it's not art. I don't expect anyone to agree with that, it's just where I sit. And there are always exceptions to my rules. ;)

    With that said, I disagree that the person who purchases a unique, one-of-a-kind painting has rights to produce and sell prints of that painting...unless those rights were granted to them during the sale. That image is still the artist's intellectual property. I think that producing/profiting off that image is more akin to bootlegging CDs, than reselling used legitimate CDs.

    The idea of blockchain being used to kick back a cut of all future re-sales to the artist is interesting. I've seen recent art sales with clauses that state any future sale will be subject to a percentage back to the artist. I think it's being done as a way to reduce flipping (a subject we love to talk about ad naseum), or at least let the artist share in the "true market value" of their work. Making the certificate of authenticity an NFT would really help in enforcing those clauses.

    BTW - Terry Currier is a local hero who fought against Garth Brooks' attempt to ban record stores from buying/selling used CDs. He owns and operates Music Millennium here in Portland, and is partially responsible for the creation of Record Store Day.
     
    666doll and hellopike like this.
  22. 666doll

    666doll Mini Boss

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,525
    Location:
    Long Beach Rock City
    Bitcoin?
    ^^^^^
    Absolutely a fair assessment and opinion. And, I fully understand your take on the intellectual property argument. Of course I already stated I don't agree, but I do get and appreciate your concerns. Kinda surprised you don't view music as art. Curious as to what you think about films and dance... and I am not trying to rake you over the coals. Sincerely curious.

    Very familiar with Terry x Music Millennium, for years and years they supported and sold my releases. Glad to know he's still there. Via IG, and my viewing habits, more and more indie record stores have been popping up and I am both surprised and delighted that so many of them are still around. It is such a thankless task. Through IG I have been trying to help spread the word and give them props as often as I can.
     
    ---NT--- likes this.
  23. Waterbear

    Waterbear Line of Credit

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,581
    Location:
    Hiding in your toy chest
    Bitcoin?
    Pay 69 million bucks or just right click on my mouse... tough call.
     
    The Moog and hellopike like this.
  24. ---NT---

    ---NT--- Prototype

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,188
    Location:
    PDX
    Bitcoin?
    I view them as their own thing - dance is dance, music is music, film is film. Unless music/film/dance/whatever is made with the intent of being consumed as art (basically, not consumed by millions of people) I view them as their own, unique, creative forms. I don't like sticking them all under the umbrella of "art"...not really sure why.
    It's not a very robust or defensible position. It certainly breaks down under light questioning! But that's why I leave myself room for exceptions. ;) And don't try to seriously argue that my opinion is correct!
     
  25. Anti Social Andy

    Anti Social Andy Die-Cast

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Messages:
    9,937
    Location:
    The Grim North

Share This Page