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

101–110 of 271 posts

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

#101

Post by gadders »

I think this is what Glenn Greenwald calls "hall monitor journalism":

"A new and rapidly growing journalistic “beat” has arisen over the last several years that can best be described as an unholy mix of junior high hall-monitor tattling and Stasi-like citizen surveillance. It is half adolescent and half malevolent. Its primary objectives are control, censorship, and the destruction of reputations for fun and power. Though its epicenter is the largest corporate media outlets, it is the very antithesis of journalism."

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-journalistic-tattletale...

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

#102

Post by bildung »

Dzugaru wrote: post #95
Kiro wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I made a comment explaining how to check this out yourself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26459621 A Twitter thread explaining how absurd this is: https://twitter.com/jonty/status/1372163423446917122 There's already URL rot going on: https://twitter.com/CheckMyNFT/status/1372253288863825925

I still don't get why this is a scam, there is a SHA-256 hash of the whole image in that token, complete with timestamp and a buyer signature - the buyer can certainly prove he was first (or Nth) to buy this exact thing anytime he wants (if he doesn't lose his private key ofc). Who cares if some URLs included do rot? It's almost the same idea [0] Galileo used 400 years ago to prove he was first to see Saturn rings by…

Because that doesn't make the image in question scarcer? I just went to Christie's site and copied it by just viewing the page.

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

#103

Post by bildung »

hjnilsson wrote: post #82
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.

But the lack of reproducability is what makes Picassos's sketches be worth more than 0, or not? I can get a copy of those sketches for a few bucks as a high quality print, but not the original. In the NFT case, there is no original.

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

#104

Post by zelos »

Dzugaru wrote: post #95
Kiro wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I made a comment explaining how to check this out yourself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26459621 A Twitter thread explaining how absurd this is: https://twitter.com/jonty/status/1372163423446917122 There's already URL rot going on: https://twitter.com/CheckMyNFT/status/1372253288863825925

I still don't get why this is a scam, there is a SHA-256 hash of the whole image in that token, complete with timestamp and a buyer signature - the buyer can certainly prove he was first (or Nth) to buy this exact thing anytime he wants (if he doesn't lose his private key ofc). Who cares if some URLs included do rot? It's almost the same idea [0] Galileo used 400 years ago to prove he was first to see Saturn rings by…

But presumably you could create an identical image with a different hash by changing 1 pixel? I'm not sure what trust problem the NFT solves.

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

#105

Post by johnyzee »

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.

So like many of the world's most celebrated artists during their lifetime...

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

#106

Post by blunte »

nj999999 wrote: post #97

I typically launder large amounts of money through traditional art purchases. I store these assets at freeports throughout the world. Many of my friends do the same. As an older, less tech-savvy gentleman, would you recommend NFT Art as a useful way to launder money? The cut Christie's takes on my 'transactions' is borderline usurious.

There is surely more to this "sale" than meets the eye, pardon the pun.

Unless someone has billions and wants to just p*ss away money for laughs, there is no legitimate explanation for buying something like this for such a price. It is not an investment in any reasonable sense of the word.

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

#107

Post by sneak »

techdragon wrote: post #98
sneak wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't buy the art, they bought an NFT that represents a hash of the file containing all of the art in question. This doesn't convey any property rights to the art's copyright, unless the purchase also included those separately from the NFT, which, of course, happens all of the time without the NFT silliness and doesn't require NFTs at all.

Wait... the only way this NFT stuff made any sense to me was if they were actually selling the copyrights via NFT... this was actually just a $69 million version of calling “dibs” like some kind of schoolchild? WTF!

Buying an NFT (by itself) does not make you party to a legal contract or agreement, which is the only way to transfer ownership rights in IP. It just makes you the owner of the NFT.

This is why you see people making the comparison to sports trading cards. You're not buying the person, you're buying the piece of cardboard.

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

#108

Post by stuaxo »

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.

I'm not sure this is a good metric ?

There are successful artists that you could say this of, and unsuccessful artists who are talented.

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

#109

Post by stuaxo »

dgellow wrote: post #100

People seem to say it’s not good art/drawing/rendering, I personally love that kind of punk-ish style. I grew up reading all the graphic novels I could find during the 90s and early 2000s, with a lot of punk-inspired themes, and that’s the same vibe I see here. It’s gross, dark, morbid, cringy, ugly, trashy, and unnecessarily provocative. That’s not for everybody but some of us like that type of stuff. The bernie-mon…

It's the fact, he knocks one of these out every day that's great.

Watching his workflow, and seeing them get slicker is a part of it too.

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

#110

Post by texasbigdata »

Animats wrote: post #3

Didn't it come out that there was some pre-existing commercial relationship between buyer and seller? Was this a real transaction?

So if you buy two things from one vendor, where the first time you had a good experience, it’s now fake?

That’s like the core crux of SaaS!

Post reply on HN