I'd be willing to throw twice that money at it, but want also bundled the original dead parrot.
John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT
201–210 of 404 posts
Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For modern graphic arts, the value has always come from being part of a serialized limited edition. The value to whom? To the artist the actual negative is clearly the most valuable to own. Original Ansel Adams negatives are actually very very valuable. Things, actual things, have value because they are physical, and the closer to the original the more value they have. Negatives have the most value, prints have les…
> and the closer to the original the more value they have. Do you see the step you've just taken? It's no longer about authenticity, it's about proximity to authenticity. Would a reproduction from the original negative by someone other than Ansel Adams be more valuable than a different type of reproduction? If so, why?
Of course, it is closer to the author.
I am fully aware of what I am saying: things have value not only because of what they are or what they are made of, they have value for other reasons.
NFT people claim things only have value because of what they are, an art piece has value because it is an art piece, because it is beautiful to look at or whatever, and that visual property can be stored on the blockchain. That is where they are failing. They are missing 99% of the reasons things have value, and why they cannot understand two seemingly identical things having widely different values.
Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT
#203Dan Held on a podcast made the point that NFTs, like ICOs, will scale to suck up all of the available [foolish] money and then collapse.
Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
This NFT is not "The Brooklyn Bridge", this NFT is "Remember when John Cleese sold the Brooklyn Bridge NFT". Do you think nobody wants the bragging rights of owning that? I certainly do, but not for $50k, which it already has.
c.f.: http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/
That's what I remember. At some point is all of this advertising? a well-known property that people are aware of?
Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT
#205Some people in this thread talk about "bragging rights". I am genuinely curious if anyone would be impressed by someone bragging about purchasing this NFT, or know anyone who would be impressed. I wouldn't and can't think of anyone I know who would, the emotional response would probably just be of frustration at the absurd amount of money being spent, much like bragging about any large value novelty purchase.
A whole lot of other goods are only expensive because people want to show off their ability to buy expensive things, and for a certain subset of bragging rights, the ability to throw away huge amounts of money on something totally useless is a particularly extravagant demonstration of wealth, because spending money on something useless is a more direct demonstration of the magnitude of your wealth than buying something that you can safely sell again to recoup most of your expense.
For what it's worth, I agree with you in general. It's a ridiculous waste of money. But at the same time it's very clear that some people are impressed by this kind of thing.
Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well - Proof of Stake NFTs are already here: https://www.hicetnunc.xyz/ So all I'm doing is hoping everyone uses these instead.
Thanks I've been looking for a PoS blockchain in production. Will check this out. Do you know any others? I really enjoy NFTs conceptually, much more than crypto in general actually, and I really don't get a lot of the hate. If you remove the emissions aspect (which is the non-starter for me), I think it's so cool that there is a way to create scarcity in the digital world, even if that scarcity is totally "meaningle…
> I've been looking for a PoS blockchain in production
Tezos, Cardano, Algorand just to mention a few of them.
Example of creating an NFTs using Algorand: https://developer.algorand.org/tutorials/create-and-manage-n...
Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT
#207*a Drawing of the Brooklyn Bridge
They don't call it 'contemporary art' for no reason. We all know that the drawing itself is worthless but the signature is what is 'valued'. NFTs are just giving life to 'contemporary art' again which can be shortened to 'con-art'. Allowing celebrities a get rich quick route with their signatures. Heck, even an AI can paint something and auction it at Christie's and then re-auction it as an NFT. As for this NFT and t…
I think this an unfair characterization of contemporary art. I don’t consider myself an expert by any means, but I’ve been to a couple of contemporary art museums (Mass MoCA and one in Kanazawa) and enjoyed both experiences. I believe that the bulk of artists producing contemporary art work very hard at their craft for very little reward. Certainly most of the works I saw featured looked like they required a lot of effort to think up and execute. There were also certainly some pieces that raised an eyebrow and made me think “that’s art?”, but that’s part of the fun IMO.
The art collector market is where things tend to go sideways. Collectors do often seem to value the name on the signature over everything else. But in most cases when you see those crazy high sale prices at auction, the money is not going to the artist but rather to some other collector. So I don’t think it’s fair to call an entire genre of art a “con” just because of how rich art collectors behave.
Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT
#208John Cleese is brilliant. Period.
Pity about his views. Wish I could agree, his past stuff is genius.
Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT
#209Elon Musk can make another 100 billions by claiming a chunk of Mars territory and selling NFTs backed by 1 acre lots of Mars land. The NFTs will be real so long as Elon gets the US gov to recognize his landlord rights on Mars, at least near the location of his first rocket landing. The thing is, he can start selling NFTs right now, as his promise alone is this valuable.
It’s not just USGOV who has to approve that claim, it’s every country on COPUOUS : https://www.space.com/33440-space-law.html It’s more likely that Musk will have to settle for his Earthen technokingdom.
I think it's total folly to bet on that staying unchallenged once someone has the ability to transport sufficient mass and volume back and forth to create sufficient financial interests in changing it.
If someone with sufficient odds of establishing a transport stranglehold started selling promises of land even with the giant caveat of it being subject to substantial changes in relevant treaties and laws, I'd suspect they'd find lots of people willing to take the risk, simply because even if it'd be extremely high risk, the potential payoff could be immense.
Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT
#210I can't imagine any real purpose for NFTs except money laundry and the 'I Am Rich' complex. With paintings, you're at least getting a physical artifact that the famous painter touched and painted, stroke by stroke, that can never be duplicated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich
Let's say we could replicate the painting stroke by stroke. Let's say we also use the same painter. Still, it doesn't matter. A copy is a copy. It's not the same as the first and initial incarnation of that artifact, physical or digital.
If the painter makes countless copies, the painting would lose its value.
The value of an object is associated with who made it or who owned it or how unique it is. e.g. Hitler's car wouldn't have had its value if it was owned by someone else, despite it being no technically different from other Mercedes cars of the era.