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

Christie's Deletes Digital Art Department

news.artnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 32 posts

Re: Christie's Deletes Digital Art Department

#11

Post by yieldcrv »

jeron wrote: post #4

one interpretation is that they're not interested in digital art the other interpretation is that digital art has become contemporary art I like the latter

it is the latter, they are continuing to sell digital art and NFTs and they realized their “specialists” didn't have specialized knowledge to justify a separate division

It just takes slower people longer to see the simple similarities to what they already do

regarding the catalyst for consolidating at Christie’s, the whole art market is following a similar downtrend in price and volume as the NFT market since 2022, there was an article about fine art and the contemporary market here the other day

Re: Christie's Deletes Digital Art Department

#12

Post by bze12 »

jeron wrote: post #4

one interpretation is that they're not interested in digital art the other interpretation is that digital art has become contemporary art I like the latter

They’re folding the nft department into contemporary art. But I wouldn’t say the first interpretation is invalid either.

Re: Christie's Deletes Digital Art Department

#13

Post by staplers »

fullshark wrote: post #3

The whole NFT craze was embarrassing and very revealing about what powers a lot of people's belief in crypto.

Digital art and NFT's are not synonymous. I know many digital artists who never bothered with them and could see the triviality. Unsurprisingly many art haters use this as a way to subtly reinforce their bias.

Re: Christie's Deletes Digital Art Department

#14

Post by staplers »

yieldcrv wrote: post #11
jeron wrote: post #4

one interpretation is that they're not interested in digital art the other interpretation is that digital art has become contemporary art I like the latter

it is the latter, they are continuing to sell digital art and NFTs and they realized their “specialists” didn't have specialized knowledge to justify a separate division It just takes slower people longer to see the simple similarities to what they already do regarding the catalyst for consolidating at Christie’s, the whole art market is following a similar downtrend in price and volume as the NFT market since 2022,…

Art is always a lagging indicator of loose monetary policy. Same time interest rates shot up.

Re: Christie's Deletes Digital Art Department

#15

Post by bpt3 »

bix6 wrote: post #7
jsheard wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for a16z who are multi-track-grifting with both at the same time, and trying to find ways to put crypto in AI, or AI in crypto, or something.

Can you expand on this? I see this brought up a lot but if they don’t return capital they’ll have to shut down?

They are big enough that they basically make the market in venture.

The fact that even they couldn't force much interest in web 3.0 should tell you what a bad idea it really is.

Re: Christie's Deletes Digital Art Department

#16

Post by tptacek »

gdbsjjdn wrote: post #5
fullshark wrote: post #3

The whole NFT craze was embarrassing and very revealing about what powers a lot of people's belief in crypto.

Everyone who was trading monkey JPEGs has moved on to claiming that they can replace your staff with an LLM.

I have no idea what the former has to do with the latter. NFTs were a scam (I think the same about crypto more generally, but know that's a more idiosyncratic belief). LLMs are not.

Is your point that LLMs are overhyped? Everything is overhyped. That's not what distinguished NFTs from previous hype cycles; the fact that there was literally nothing there is what distinguished it.

Re: Christie's Deletes Digital Art Department

#17

Post by LastTrain »

tptacek wrote: post #16
gdbsjjdn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone who was trading monkey JPEGs has moved on to claiming that they can replace your staff with an LLM.

I have no idea what the former has to do with the latter. NFTs were a scam (I think the same about crypto more generally, but know that's a more idiosyncratic belief). LLMs are not. Is your point that LLMs are overhyped? Everything is overhyped. That's not what distinguished NFTs from previous hype cycles; the fact that there was literally nothing there is what distinguished it.

I believe his point is something like this: entrepreneurs used to look for ideas on how to create something of value that people want, and then create a sustainable business model out of it, in order to turn a profit. There was some pride in pleasing customers. Now they look for ideas to make a profit, whether or not something of actual value is created or if people actually want it.

Re: Christie's Deletes Digital Art Department

#19

Post by etrautmann »

tptacek wrote: post #16
gdbsjjdn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone who was trading monkey JPEGs has moved on to claiming that they can replace your staff with an LLM.

I have no idea what the former has to do with the latter. NFTs were a scam (I think the same about crypto more generally, but know that's a more idiosyncratic belief). LLMs are not. Is your point that LLMs are overhyped? Everything is overhyped. That's not what distinguished NFTs from previous hype cycles; the fact that there was literally nothing there is what distinguished it.

I think the point is that many of the individuals involved in hyping NFTs moved on to hyping projects in AI. Even if there's immediate real world utility in AI, it's reasonable to approach the space cautiously if you have concern over the demographics contributing to a significant portion of it.

Re: Christie's Deletes Digital Art Department

#20

Post by bix6 »

bpt3 wrote: post #15
bix6 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on this? I see this brought up a lot but if they don’t return capital they’ll have to shut down?

They are big enough that they basically make the market in venture. The fact that even they couldn't force much interest in web 3.0 should tell you what a bad idea it really is.

They are huge but only like 4% of the entire VC market so not necessarily enough to substantially move it?
Post reply on HN