261–270 of 271 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if it’s painting the tape it’s an expensive proposition at close to $10 million in Christie’s fees.
10 million in ETH. How easy is it to exchange large sums like that? (Genuine question, I have no idea)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
Like bitcoin, the only way it makes sense is if you can trick someone else into buying it off you for more money later, thus you're incentivised to promote the idea everywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Criticism != What this article does. Tone and style makes the difference between criticism and the works of the Schreibtischtäter. It's a great German compound word from Schreibtisch (=desk) and Täter (=perpetrator). It's the person sitting at a desk, keeping their hands clean, writing to make others do the dirty work.
What dirty work? Didn't this guy get $69 million dollars? And you're using a word which from the wikipedia article is described as: "The term "desk murderer" (German: Schreibtischtäter)[1] is attributed to Hannah Arendt and is used to describe state-employed mass murderers like Adolf Eichmann, who planned and organised the Holocaust without taking part in killings personally." I'm amazed.
That was _before_ the article. Obviously you can't cancel people before you know about them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And, for the 'art investor', as long as other collectors don't sell for a lower price, it doesn't even matter. Many galleries will blacklist collectors who sell for lower prices. As long as there's someone to buy, you're fine.
Is it legal to exclude someone from a public auction? And couldn't the person just hire someone to buy for them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the art world it's a pretty straightforward formula: -Buy out the estate of a 3rd tier artist who once drank a beer with a famous artist -Created slick marketing materials written by an art critic who was paid a lot of money to hold their nose -Place several key pieces up for auction and an accomplice buys them at inflated prices -Market is cornered, established prices are high, nothing left to do but sell to buye…
And, for the 'art investor', as long as other collectors don't sell for a lower price, it doesn't even matter. Many galleries will blacklist collectors who sell for lower prices. As long as there's someone to buy, you're fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read the article and the critic is obviously trying to do a takedown, but none of the examples appear racist or sexist to me. Do you agree with everything the critic said?
Really? Because they made posts using the word homo, a picture of Hilary Clinton naked with a penis, Dalai Lama performing sexual acts...
The other two are crude, but I don't think I'd call them sexist.
Think its interesting seeing how the algorithms and Twitter feedback loop have affected his work over time. Kinda went from eyecandy to the 3D equivalent of a low level political comics but 3D. Although as someone working in the same sphere the "Everydays" idea has been quite a negative influence on the quality of work you see out there and the work has taken on a lot of similarities.
Yeah I agree, it's nice to have a window into the process at first but eventually it's worthless spam on a feed that becomes really grating over time. It becomes tiring to witness every possible permutation of a shader that one person's working on. It starts to all feel like a big homogeneous soup of algorithmic content production just for the sake of the platform's own growth. I forget there's supposed to be a complete, detailed, complex thought in the form of the final piece at the end of the road, usually... which at this rate exists less and less as social media feeds dominate how we experience the web more and more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like bitcoin, the only way it makes sense is if you can trick someone else into buying it off you for more money later, thus you're incentivised to promote the idea everywhere.
Or gold, or dollars, or art, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or gold, or dollars, or art, etc.
Gold has a use, dollars are backed by a government. Owning original art is bragging/speculation. I read that the very expensive art that people buy isn't even hung on their walls to look at, they get a copy made for people to see, and put the original in a vault.
But I won't be happy if people stop buying gold and all I can do with it is sell it to some electronics manufacturer for 1% of the price I paid for it.
> dollars are backed by a government
Sounds great, what can I do if people stop accepting dollars in trade?
> Owning original art is bragging/speculation.
Agreed, so nothing new.