Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

news.artnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 271 posts

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#21

Post by thatswrong0 »

uniqueid wrote: post #20
viraptor wrote: post #9

I'm not sure I get this point of view. We know that famous artists did random rude and badly-satirical drawings for fun. Their dick drawings were contained in some old notebooks and trashed. But I bet someone would buy a preserved notebook of someone semi-famous with 5000 pages of drawings, mostly regardless of contents. This is pretty much the equivalent of that - daily fun which went to the internet bin rather than…

What is the article author trying to point out there? That the artist is a bit dim, I should think.

Certainly. You can tell based on the complete lack of success and following they've had, plus some amateur / shitty work they did in the past.

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#22

Post by tablespoon »

pjc50 wrote: post #5

"We didn't need a preview": the content of the art isn't important. Like most NFTs, it's just a url that you can sign a hash of for dollars. What's more interesting is the allegation that this is "tape painting": sold to an accomplice for the purpose of promoting the NFT "art" market.

> What's more interesting is the allegation that this is "tape painting": sold to an accomplice for the purpose of promoting the NFT "art" market.

It seems like the more conventional term is "painting the tape." Googling for "tape painting" pretty much only gives results about painting with masking tape.

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#23

Post by viraptor »

tablespoon wrote: post #17
viraptor wrote: post #9

I'm not sure I get this point of view. We know that famous artists did random rude and badly-satirical drawings for fun. Their dick drawings were contained in some old notebooks and trashed. But I bet someone would buy a preserved notebook of someone semi-famous with 5000 pages of drawings, mostly regardless of contents. This is pretty much the equivalent of that - daily fun which went to the internet bin rather than…

> I'm not sure I get this point of view. I think that Beeple is basically just a rando-tier DeviantArt/Tumblr artist, and much of his art is cringe to boot. Since someone purportedly paid the equivalent of $69 million in ETH for it, it's noteworthy that there's no there there.

Cringe doesn't mean bad - I would say 90% of Jim'll paint it is cringe and awesome https://jimllpaintit.tumblr.com/ And having 5000 daily pieces is art by itself.

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#24

Post by uniqueid »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #21
uniqueid wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the article author trying to point out there? That the artist is a bit dim, I should think.

Certainly. You can tell based on the complete lack of success and following they've had, plus some amateur / shitty work they did in the past.

  You can tell based on the complete lack of success 
  and following they've had
If the world were a perfect meritocracy that would settle it.

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#25

Post by tablespoon »

viraptor wrote: post #23
tablespoon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure I get this point of view. I think that Beeple is basically just a rando-tier DeviantArt/Tumblr artist, and much of his art is cringe to boot. Since someone purportedly paid the equivalent of $69 million in ETH for it, it's noteworthy that there's no there there.

Cringe doesn't mean bad - I would say 90% of Jim'll paint it is cringe and awesome https://jimllpaintit.tumblr.com/ And having 5000 daily pieces is art by itself.

> Cringe doesn't mean bad - I would say 90% of Jim'll paint it is cringe and awesome https://jimllpaintit.tumblr.com/

There are different kinds of cringe though.

Also, Jim'll paint it definitely looks like he's more talented than Beeple.

> And having 5000 daily pieces is art by itself.

Quantity over quality?

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#26

Post by chipotle_coyote »

viraptor wrote: post #9

I'm not sure I get this point of view. We know that famous artists did random rude and badly-satirical drawings for fun. Their dick drawings were contained in some old notebooks and trashed. But I bet someone would buy a preserved notebook of someone semi-famous with 5000 pages of drawings, mostly regardless of contents. This is pretty much the equivalent of that - daily fun which went to the internet bin rather than…

Your observation:

> I bet someone would buy a preserved notebook of someone semi-famous with 5000 pages of drawings, mostly regardless of contents

...is, I think, kind of what the article author is trying to get at. Beeple is arguably semi-famous not for his art, but for getting a staggering price for these 5000 images. It's as if someone bought a preserved notebook with 5000 pages drawings for tens of millions of dollars, and the notebook belong to someone who is semi-famous because... they sold that notebook for tens of millions of dollars.

While I keep trying to give NFTs a benefit of the doubt -- I think it's great for creators to be paid for their work! -- I'm not convinced that introducing artificial scarcity is the way to go about it, and this sort of "it commanded a high price because it commanded a high price" recursiveness doesn't exactly give us a great example for why NFTs are not a peculiar techno-bubble.

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#27

Post by dragonwriter »

viraptor wrote: post #23
tablespoon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure I get this point of view. I think that Beeple is basically just a rando-tier DeviantArt/Tumblr artist, and much of his art is cringe to boot. Since someone purportedly paid the equivalent of $69 million in ETH for it, it's noteworthy that there's no there there.

Cringe doesn't mean bad - I would say 90% of Jim'll paint it is cringe and awesome https://jimllpaintit.tumblr.com/ And having 5000 daily pieces is art by itself.

> Cringe doesn't mean bad

But “rando-tier” does; the description wasn't just “cringe”, but rando-tier and often cringe.

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#28

Post by thatswrong0 »

uniqueid wrote: post #24
thatswrong0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly. You can tell based on the complete lack of success and following they've had, plus some amateur / shitty work they did in the past.

You can tell based on the complete lack of success and following they've had If the world were a perfect meritocracy that would settle it.

I mean discussing this is going to be pointless because art is in the eye of the beholder. The fact that the author didn't even mention what their favorites were of beeple's work indicates pretty clearly to me that they're viewing his collection through a narrow, maybe ivory tower, potentially envious lens of what it means to be a "real artist", and instead they wrote this as a clickbait hit-piece for exposure. The armchair psychologist in me envisions a sense of insult to someone well educated in fine arts with numerous accolades that such a frivolous, amateur collection art could be rewarded so greatly.

At the end of the day, it's much easier to be a critic than an artist, and despite that fact, this is still a lazy ass critique, especially because it glosses almost entirely over the fact that beeple was precisely about creating SOMETHING every day. There has to be.. something that can be said about that, in the same way that people somehow find a reason for a canvas painted entirely one color worthy of being featured in the MOMA.

And even if the actual art won't "age well" (whatever that means to the author), beeple is going down in the art / history books ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#29

Post by setpatchaddress »

tablespoon wrote: post #11
cyberge99 wrote: post #7

Long after we’re all dead this work will be reviewed by historians for it’s significance. Mocked by present day critics, reviled by many. Nonetheless a curated work that defined the times that we lived through, in a series of pictures. He’s an Artist. It’s his chosen vector of expression. Leave him be. His work will be discussed long after we’ve become worm farmers.

> His work will be discussed long after we’ve become worm farmers. Perhaps, but likely as a footnote to the footnote that was NFT mania, not as an artist in his own right.

I think that was intended as sarcasm

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#30

Post by viraptor »

tablespoon wrote: post #25
viraptor wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cringe doesn't mean bad - I would say 90% of Jim'll paint it is cringe and awesome https://jimllpaintit.tumblr.com/ And having 5000 daily pieces is art by itself.

> Cringe doesn't mean bad - I would say 90% of Jim'll paint it is cringe and awesome https://jimllpaintit.tumblr.com/ There are different kinds of cringe though. Also, Jim'll paint it definitely looks like he's more talented than Beeple. > And having 5000 daily pieces is art by itself. Quantity over quality?

> Quantity over quality?

No, performance art. The act of creating that many not-terrible pieces is meaningful on its own.

Post reply on HN