111–120 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mind sharing just one?
PAXG, each token is a claim to one physical ounce of gold, held by the issuer. Issued by a fully regulated NYC based financial institution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many artists would disagree. The token is conceptually tied to the artwork. This is especially true with digital & software-driven work embedded within the blockchain, such as Deafbeef's tokens[1]. These issues are not new to crypto. Plenty of art is only 'conceptually' tied to their distributed editions. For example: an artist or photographer may own a digital master or photographic negative, and from that they may…
> The distributed work is valued not because of the material (a piece of paper) or its contents (a rendered image), because it was distributed and signed by the artist's hand. Anybody could photocopy that print to produce the same rendered contents, or even print their own copy if they have access to a high resolution file and inkjet printer, but the copy would be worth no value, because it did not come from the arti…
The buyer holds the token (cryptographically secured to their wallet). Any person can save the JPG that is conceptually tied to the token, but that does not give them ownership over the artistic token (i.e. they cannot transfer it to another wallet).
Part of the challenge here is that it gets to the question of "art ownership" in a digital domain. If you own a JPG, do you own the artwork? According to the artist who is distributing the work as a token, and also according the social consensus of others who are collecting art in this way, the answer is no.
It does take time and fees to deploy to the blockchain, in the same way that it takes time and fees to produce a series of print artworks. My own project (Subscapes[2]) required a significant investment, to upload 17kb of generative art code onto the blockchain.
[1] - https://artblocks.wiki/
[2] - https://mattdesl.substack.com/p/subscapes-part-1-preface
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many artists would disagree. The token is conceptually tied to the artwork. This is especially true with digital & software-driven work embedded within the blockchain, such as Deafbeef's tokens[1]. These issues are not new to crypto. Plenty of art is only 'conceptually' tied to their distributed editions. For example: an artist or photographer may own a digital master or photographic negative, and from that they may…
> The distributed work is valued not because of the material (a piece of paper) or its contents (a rendered image), because it was distributed and signed by the artist's hand. Anybody could photocopy that print to produce the same rendered contents, or even print their own copy if they have access to a high resolution file and inkjet printer, but the copy would be worth no value, because it did not come from the arti…
Of course they are. Same as with prints: singular pieces, editions of X, editions of "only available for 48 hours, everyone who buys in that time gets one", ... all are options artists use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many artists would disagree. The token is conceptually tied to the artwork. This is especially true with digital & software-driven work embedded within the blockchain, such as Deafbeef's tokens[1]. These issues are not new to crypto. Plenty of art is only 'conceptually' tied to their distributed editions. For example: an artist or photographer may own a digital master or photographic negative, and from that they may…
How do these 'conceptual ties' work? For example, suppose I create an NFT of the Eiffel Tower. When and how does that particular NFT become conceptually tied to the Eiffel Tower exactly? I don't understand.
What you are asking is similar to Found Art. A signed toilet is not "Art" until social consensus decides that it is. An blockchain-signed Eiffel Tower is also not art, unless society says it to be so. Perhaps that will happen at some point in the future (an artist's digital reinterpretation of Found Art) but at present the crypto artworks we are mostly regarding tend to have a more direct relationship with what the artist/creator is producing by hand (or via digital code/software).
It is not much different than a print series, where the artist says the prints signed in pencil are "the artwork", and social consensus decides that only those pieces of paper with the artist's own pencil signature are valuable, instead of a reproduction by a machine or by a forger, even though the reproduction may have the same or similar material qualities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The distributed work is valued not because of the material (a piece of paper) or its contents (a rendered image), because it was distributed and signed by the artist's hand. Anybody could photocopy that print to produce the same rendered contents, or even print their own copy if they have access to a high resolution file and inkjet printer, but the copy would be worth no value, because it did not come from the arti…
Some NFTs are distributed as 1/1 (like a single-edition print of a photographic negative), while others are distributed as an edition of 50 or 1000. In the case of platforms like ArtBlocks[1], each edition is itself unique and tied to the transaction hash, hence their tagline "1 of 1 of X." The buyer holds the token (cryptographically secured to their wallet). Any person can save the JPG that is conceptually tied to…
But according to the rest of the world the answer is 'Yes'
The rest of the world thinks that in order for something to be considered original that thing has to be hard to replicate
Replicating an NFT is as easy as doing a screenshot or Right clic > 'Save as' . And any random internet user stumbling upon that NFT can do it.
In order to replicate a painting such as the Mona Lisa you need millions of dollars of equipment and millions of dollars to pay experts who'd do so without ruining the sole original, and still won't be the same as the original.
Maybe subtle nuances not even discernible by the human eye, but still after millions of dollars of equipment, millions of man hours you don't have something which is 1:1 as the original Mona Lisa. With NFTs is again as easy as screenshots or Right clic > 'Save as'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PAXG, each token is a claim to one physical ounce of gold, held by the issuer. Issued by a fully regulated NYC based financial institution.
PAXG, USDT and similar voucher tokens are not Non Fungible Tokens since they are fungible, you redeem a quantity of gold vs a specific gold bar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PAXG, each token is a claim to one physical ounce of gold, held by the issuer. Issued by a fully regulated NYC based financial institution.
PAXG, USDT and similar voucher tokens are not Non Fungible Tokens since they are fungible, you redeem a quantity of gold vs a specific gold bar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some NFTs are distributed as 1/1 (like a single-edition print of a photographic negative), while others are distributed as an edition of 50 or 1000. In the case of platforms like ArtBlocks[1], each edition is itself unique and tied to the transaction hash, hence their tagline "1 of 1 of X." The buyer holds the token (cryptographically secured to their wallet). Any person can save the JPG that is conceptually tied to…
> If you own a JPG, do you own the artwork? According to the artist who is distributing the work as a token, and also according the social consensus of others who are collecting art in this way, the answer is no. But according to the rest of the world the answer is 'Yes' The rest of the world thinks that in order for something to be considered original that thing has to be hard to replicate Replicating an NFT is as e…
It depends who you ask, and when you ask it. The understanding of 'digital ownership' may be shifting, as we can see in real-time with the OP thread, where Visa is making a claim that their ownership over the digital token is distinctly different than their ownership over the digital JPG file (and, apparently, distinct enough that they felt it worth paying a large sum to acquire).
Indeed, anybody can reproduce a JPG by right clicking and saving the image, and there are many valuable artworks in art history that can be reproduced with seemingly little effort — such as all white canvases (Malevich), splashes of paint (Pollock), and handwritten instructions on scrap paper (LeWitt).
And I do not think anybody previous to NFTs would make a claim that they "own" an artist's work because they captured it via "Right Click > Save As."
Another way to view this is: ownership of digital art is not a notion that had much social consensus around it before the advent of NFTs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do these 'conceptual ties' work? For example, suppose I create an NFT of the Eiffel Tower. When and how does that particular NFT become conceptually tied to the Eiffel Tower exactly? I don't understand.
It comes through a combination of the artist's intent ("I am distributing this artwork in the form of a limited series of tokens") and social consensus ("We recognize that the artefact is an artwork, created by the artist"). What you are asking is similar to Found Art. A signed toilet is not "Art" until social consensus decides that it is. An blockchain-signed Eiffel Tower is also not art, unless society says it to b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Would you go to Louvre to see Mona Lisa if you have an atom-by-atom identical copy at home? How much would you pay for the original? What is "original" in this case? Which ship of Theseus is the original one? I am certain that if there was a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa, the original would retain most of its value. I don't really understand why this is the case, but I do understand that it is the case.
I'll take a stab at this. The value for me is in knowing that I am standing in front of the same canvas that Da Vinci stood in front of. It's similar to going to a historical site and standing where history you've heard about was made and seeing/hearing/smelling something of what the people who made it did. It builds a sense of human connection, a shared experience, and makes something you "know" to be real "feel" mo…
Interestingly, when paintings like the Mona Lisa are concealed in those plastic protective containers, that experience is significantly decreased for me. It's strange, but that layer between the canvas and my eyeball has a major effect on my perception.