Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#251

Post by pessimizer »

capableweb wrote: post #190
sn_master wrote: post #156

I 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 you can't tell the copy from the original, both would probably halve in value, then quickly rise because of the notability of the situation.

Art has its worth because it is difficult to forge, mostly through its proof of provenance, but also through the certification of designated, well-paid experts.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#252

Post by jamiek88 »

dleslie wrote: post #244

There are children going hungry at school, people with trivial to fix but prohibitively expensive medical issues, and silicon valley millionaires are spending more than many will make in a year by purchasing bullshit. Shit's on fire, yo.

> Shit's on fire, yo.

Let them eat cake.

Can anyone else hear the guillotines being sharpened?

Seriously though this obscene inequality can only lead one place, and we were lucky that they were morons on January 6th and not organized properly.

Ironically the revolution will be stoked by those first up against the wall in the name of engagement.

It won’t be televised but it will be on Instagram.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#254

Post by Igelau »

barry-cotter wrote: post #216
pmlnr wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think nobody wants the bragging rights of owning that? It would be nice to believe that eventually we evolve beyond bragging about being an idiot. > I certainly do ...

> Maybe NFTs will not endure, which is a risk for anyone playing a pioneering role in a new genre. That is why the price was not $200 million or more. In any case, this is a world in which Marcel Duchamp’s urinal sculpture still is exhibited in major museums, regarded by many critics as a masterpiece of the 20th century, and it sold at auction for $1.6 million in 2002. Canvases painted a single color, and other forms…

This is a misdirection. No one upthread was saying anything is or isn't art. This isn't about art. This about NFT.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#255

Post by koonsolo »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #243
koonsolo wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is already a famous NFT. "Remember when John Cleese sold the Brooklyn Bridge? Look, I have that NFT that he sold!". Heck, I would even pay money for that. First of all for the bragging rights, and second of all because I'm sure plenty of people would pay for it. But $50k is a bit over my budget ;). But in no way am I surprised that there is somebody out there that wants to pay this amount. If anyone is surprised…

So the idea is to pay money to claim involvement in a cultural moment in which you played no role? Sounds sad and hollow to me.

Why do people buy movie props, collect stamps, let authors sign their books? Maybe all very "sad and hollow", but a lot of people seem to enjoy it.

You judging those people says more about you than them.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#256

Post by Igelau »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #232
barry-cotter wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe NFTs will not endure, which is a risk for anyone playing a pioneering role in a new genre. That is why the price was not $200 million or more. In any case, this is a world in which Marcel Duchamp’s urinal sculpture still is exhibited in major museums, regarded by many critics as a masterpiece of the 20th century, and it sold at auction for $1.6 million in 2002. Canvases painted a single color, and other forms…

People doubting that a thing is actually art at all seems to be a fairly consistent marker of something being good art. It's fresh, it's pushing boundaries, it's making people think and wonder, it's generating snark and discussion. If readymades are art, if a blank canvas is art, then art is just a scam! Not sure if it will stand the test of time though (I mean technically in terms of the artifacts persisting, and co…

> People doubting that a thing is actually art at all seems to be a fairly consistent marker of something being good art.

Survivorship bias. The successes are highly visible, and we never hear of the failures.

> If readymades are art, if a blank canvas is art, then art is just a scam!

Ceci n'est pas une pipe. All art is a kind of deception.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#257

Post by AddisonRyan »

koonsolo wrote: post #242
leokennis wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. There’s little I’d like less than bragging about having spent my life savings on a JPEG that everyone has but that I “own”...

I don't think the person spending $50k does it with his lifes saving. You don't buy a jpeg, you buy the unique item that John Cleese sold. Same for movie props. You can buy a nice lightsaber below $200. The ones that were used in the movies... a bit more.

"item"

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#258

Post by ori_b »

andybak wrote: post #230
ori_b wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well yes. But anyone can make a reproduction of a Warhol print The point is that an NFT only shows a chain of custody for the NFT. It does not imply anything about the originality of the Warhol.

See my other comments throughout this thread. We have many fictions we indulge in about authenticity and value. NFTs are a new fiction. They might even be dumber than other currently accepted fictions. But the discussion is "which of these fictions is the most stupid?" rather than "NFTs are stupid". We are already a long way from genuine utility or intrinsic value and into the realms of social consensus and value-thr…

Sure. They have value because people will pay.

I still suspect most people think they're getting an exclusive license for a piece of artwork, and not a bit of performance art.

They almost certainly believe that the goods pointed to by the token are non-fungible. Not that they have a non-fungible reference to a fungible good.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#259

Post by GhostVII »

dleslie wrote: post #244

There are children going hungry at school, people with trivial to fix but prohibitively expensive medical issues, and silicon valley millionaires are spending more than many will make in a year by purchasing bullshit. Shit's on fire, yo.

Well purchasing an NFT doesn't really reallocate any resources that would have gone to those things, so I don't think it's a huge issue. They are just transferring money from one person to another, essentially.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#260

Post by pessimizer »

vidarh wrote: post #205
hatboxreappoint wrote: post #168

Some 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 somethi…

Also, if a group with money generally agrees about (and demonstrates by buying) the desirability of something, it becomes just as valuable to people outside the group. I don't have to care about NFTs to buy one that I know I can unload.

The problem comes when the auctions start failing i.e. people who bought NFTs with leverage can't sell for enough where they won't be wiped out.

The art market runs on the self-image of wealthy people as superior people, which requires constant critical appraisal and reappraisal by designated experts. There's no chance that the ability to piss money away on an acknowledgement in a distributed ledger can compete indefinitely with the ability to piss money away on a canvas by a dead abstract expressionist painted in their own piss and shit. Academics and famous aesthetes will call you a genius for owning the second. How long are you going to be able to brag about one of these, and who to?

Every initial transaction with these is giving some real person real money for absolutely nothing in return. Who are going to be the designated issuers, and why? Who is going to pay for Scott Baio's Designated Cool Dude NFT, and how much?

Post reply on HN