Where's my outrage?
All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty
141–150 of 271 posts
Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I know it is hard to wrap your head around, but really, the link does not fundamentally matter. Cryptopunks are just a hash of all the images. The whole point of an NFT token is to be a digital signature, essentially. It is just a shared agreement between buyer and seller to value that signature, and as long as we know that it represents the Beeple artwork, then the fact that the technical implementation points to a…
I see. But to that, I can counter: described like this, it won't scale past a small group of acquaintances. The same reasoning can be applied to a verbal agreement - I can pay you for "that thing we both know", and it'll work the same... until one of us changes their mind and declares the transaction invalid. And the arguments we may have will look completely unsubstantiated to any third party we'd like to involve in it.
A lot of formalism around real laws and real money exist to make word of mouth scale. It's why people pay money accepted by everyone in their society, why they enter written contracts - of the type they can expect the court of law to treat as valid, if a dispute escalates to the point of involving third parties.
Can't shake the feeling it's just the next chapter in the story of cryptocurrencies rediscovering the hard way the last 10 000 years of social development.
Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 do…
Any situation where money meets art doesn't make any sense. Is the original of a Banksy painting any nicer to look at than a copy? Is a rare vinyl pressing of a record any nicer to listen to than an mp3 you can download for free?
> Is a rare vinyl pressing of a record any nicer to listen to than an mp3 you can download for free?
I get your point but this isn't a particularly suitable example. Audiophiles have been arguing for ages that the quality of compressed mp3 and even CDs is not comparable to vinyl, that vinyl is "warmer", etc. Flamewars have been waged about this. So maybe not the best example?
Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty
#144Mediocre artist using cg as a crutch with a gimmick of making an image everyday- yeah that's called "work" and you are supposed to work everyday- I don't see what the big deal is. Don't we all work everyday? Can I make a commit for 5000 days in a row then sell the text as an NFT? Probably not as I couldn't gain 2 million InstaZuck followers by creating commits with "trump sucks" and "whoa the future is crazy maaaan"…
Your point seems to be you don’t personally like this art, so other people shouldn’t like this art because it’s not the way you think art should be conceptualized and experienced.
By all means, choose not to like it as an individual...but spouting off some purity test for making and experiencing art is literally the opposite of making and experiencing art, and you sound exactly like the people you’re criticizing.
Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty
#145Earlier 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... .
Sure, but the point of the practice is to produce quality, and then display the good bits of your production because mixing the few good ones into the deludge of average works isn't very helpful for the audience.
Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any situation where money meets art doesn't make any sense. Is the original of a Banksy painting any nicer to look at than a copy? Is a rare vinyl pressing of a record any nicer to listen to than an mp3 you can download for free?
> Is a rare vinyl pressing of a record any nicer to listen to than an mp3 you can download for free? I get your point but this isn't a particularly suitable example. Audiophiles have been arguing for ages that the quality of compressed mp3 and even CDs is not comparable to vinyl, that vinyl is "warmer", etc. Flamewars have been waged about this. So maybe not the best example?
[deleted]
Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty
#147Modern “art” is very often offensive, but usually that is seen as a good thing. It’s “irreverent”, it “challenges norms”. I suppose the problem is that this particular hack challenges the wrong norms?
I don't see him challenging the norms, so I'm gonna guess "no". It seems to be that his art is a dime a dozen sort of low quality crap. Crap is in itself unsurprising -- most of everything is, see Sturgeon's Law -- but what's surprising is the amount paid for such low quality, low effort crap.
No sign of norms being challenged here.
Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being one of the highest prices ever paid at auction for a piece of art, i think it would definitely raise a lot of eyebrows. If not more. At least as an nft, it can be attributed to the crypto bubble. If an art book from a completely unknown artist sold his art at a Christie's auction for $69m, i think everyone would assume something nefarious was going on.
Beeple isn't a "complete unknown", pretty much every 3D artist knows him, he's produced and published more digital art than anyone else. He's arguably the Andy Warhol of 3D rendering. It's only now that somehow people found a way to make money from all these 3D renderings that the general public pays attention.
Calling him the Andy Warhol of 3d rendering is to not understand what Warhol did.
Beeple is indeed famous for his quantity: occasionally he puts out something good, but the fame is almost entirely for the pieces that are "crazy good for having been done in under a day".
Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty
#149If anyone would like their own full size copy of the work to do their own analysis on, here you go: https://ipfsgateway.makersplace.com/ipfs/QmXkxpwAHCtDXbbZHUw...
Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty
#150I'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…
> a preserved notebook of someone semi-famous with 5000 pages of drawings
That is the crux of it - will Beeple be semi-famous in 200 years? Doubtful. There isn't anything here that is particularly noteworthy to stand the test of time... the unique difference in this work is its delivery, not its content. (In that sense, the buyers were correct to not care about the content.)
It does deserve some recognition for being the first of its kind. But just like the videos of people who took a picture of themselves every day for years were once new and innovative, they are now commonplace... so will works like this become commonplace. So the point is that there is no reason to expect this to appreciate in value and become worth a billion dollars.