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

81–90 of 271 posts

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

#81

Post by Kiro »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #77
Kiro wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing and there's no hashing involved. The token just contains a URL to the hosted image. You can even point it to the image in this article.

> The token just contains a URL to the hosted image. That sounds... just insane. Content under an URL can and does change. URLs themselves are not even under full control of the seller. I could get signing data itself, but signing a pointer? EDIT: but the URL contains an IPFS hash, assuming it's not the mutable kind, maybe this is not completely crazy (or at least wouldn't be, if they included just the hash, without…

Yeah, and regarding using just raw IPFS hashes there's this comment further down the thread indicating not even that is enough (I know too little of IPFS to verify but seems legit): https://twitter.com/jonty/status/1372169695277760519

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

#82

Post by hjnilsson »

throwawayfeaxcz wrote: post #53

A small tangent, I don't get NFTs, what's stopping me from creating a new NFT with beeples image, or if there is hashing involved with beeples image and a couple of pixels changed?

There is nothing stopping you from making a new lithography series of Picasso’s sketches, but they won’t be worth nearly the same as the originals.

The utility provided by the NFTs is in actually owning the “original”, not that it is not reproducible.

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

#83

Post by gala8y »

birdyrooster wrote: post #36
cwkoss wrote: post #34

I walked away from this thinking the $69M image was much cooler than I expected it to be. Its like a representation of the artist's whole body of work, ~4000 lower quality sketches progressing into ~1000 in his current style. I feel like this art critic is not in touch with meme culture. Many of the examples contained were quite striking and interesting, don't find drawings of dicks or naked people particularly shock…

it's not shocking, it's mediocre renditions of things which were common art during the last 15 years and put together, the sum still really isn't worth more than the parts people are willing to waste untold sums of money to feel sophisticated

Exactly. Instagram is literally flooded with art of this kind, very high in quality and creative as hell.

Maybe, if you don't grasp too much of a chaos of a modern world, you just want one piece of art from one artist to contemplate and discuss with your fellow travelers, behind closed doors of your castles.

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

#85

Post by yellowapple »

jjeaff wrote: post #63
viraptor wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Except they are all pretty terrible.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Whether I want to associate with said beholder is another question entirely.

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

#86

Post by TeMPOraL »

incrudible wrote: post #73
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. That's literally how the non-digital art market works, as well.

Art is the prototypical intersubjective meme, isn't it? You know something is art iff you know there's plenty of other people who also believe it's art.

The quality of being art has some positive correlation with being aesthetically pleasing, and has some negative correlation with being useful for practical purposes, but the determining factor is whether you can reasonably expect other people to consider it art too.

Intersubjective memes have a bootstrap problem (the concept is a supertype of "network effects"). To make something art, you have to make people believe other people believe its art. A way to brute-force this is to get someone to visibly spend large amount of money (or other resources) on it, and proclaim their belief in the value of the thing.

So it's not just the NFT "art" market that's being promoted here; the work itself is being turned into art, and the author into artist.

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

#87

Post by chevill »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #72
tablespoon wrote: post #25

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/ 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? Isn't focusing on quantity the only reliable way to improve quality? See also, the usual Ira Glass quote: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309485-nobody-tells-this-to... .

Becoming a great artist usually means creating art every day. It depends on how you go about creating art though. You need focused studies. You need to push your boundaries. There's a shockingly low amount of technical improvement in this artist's work compared to other long-term online portfolios I've seen.

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

#88

Post by celticninja »

tablespoon wrote: post #22
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.

Painting the tape tends to relate to market trading activity, but the underlying ethos is the same in both markets. Make a public statement about price so oth

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

#90

Post by yarcob »

Udik wrote: post #80
yarcob wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> look, I've found something damning buried among X's old stuff Since this is specifically an auction of "old stuff" looking through it makes sense. And while the author is very critical of the work, the most significant criticism isn't that it's not PC. The article mostly complains that most of the art is shallow and won't age well.

Please re-read: "We’ve passed through a racial uprising and a reckoning with sexism, and the cultural project of the moment is… innovating new ways to worship decade-old, BroBible-level brain farts? During a time of immiseration, investors are competing to throw tens of millions of dollars… at this? These are the questions that go through my head. But that’s probably just “fancy-dancy elite art homo” thinking, right?…

How is this "cancelling" the artist?

It's just mocking people for paying millions for bad art.

People make fun of other people paying too much for art all the time.

Post reply on HN