131–140 of 271 posts
I typically launder large amounts of money through traditional art purchases. I store these assets at freeports throughout the world. Many of my friends do the same. As an older, less tech-savvy gentleman, would you recommend NFT Art as a useful way to launder money? The cut Christie's takes on my 'transactions' is borderline usurious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't buy the art, they bought an NFT that represents a hash of the file containing all of the art in question. This doesn't convey any property rights to the art's copyright, unless the purchase also included those separately from the NFT, which, of course, happens all of the time without the NFT silliness and doesn't require NFTs at all.
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!
They can display the receipt but have no more right to the art than you or me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't buy the art, they bought an NFT that represents a hash of the file containing all of the art in question. This doesn't convey any property rights to the art's copyright, unless the purchase also included those separately from the NFT, which, of course, happens all of the time without the NFT silliness and doesn't require NFTs at all.
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!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But presumably you could create an identical image with a different hash by changing 1 pixel? I'm not sure what trust problem the NFT solves.
What would that achieve? If you're late to the blockchain (or really any other distribution channel, like https://truetimestamp.org/ or something like this) your timestamp is greater than original and you own nothing. I don't really know how selling 2nd place works with NFTs but I assume you only can get it from 1st place owner (he has to sign it with his private key), so the scheme is solid. You cannot change a pixe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing and there's no hashing involved. The token just contains a URL to the hosted image. You can even point it to the image in this article.
> The token just contains a URL to the hosted image. That sounds... just insane. Content under an URL can and does change. URLs themselves are not even under full control of the seller. I could get signing data itself, but signing a pointer? EDIT: but the URL contains an IPFS hash, assuming it's not the mutable kind, maybe this is not completely crazy (or at least wouldn't be, if they included just the hash, without…
In fact, the original art could even be lost (as much physical art is). People could still value the signature!
Felix Salmon gets it:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please re-read: "We’ve passed through a racial uprising and a reckoning with sexism, and the cultural project of the moment is… innovating new ways to worship decade-old, BroBible-level brain farts? During a time of immiseration, investors are competing to throw tens of millions of dollars… at this? These are the questions that go through my head. But that’s probably just “fancy-dancy elite art homo” thinking, right?…
How is this "cancelling" the artist? It's just mocking people for paying millions for bad art. People make fun of other people paying too much for art all the time.
Only in 2021 can a man go from art sensation to what appears to be on his way to being cancelled inn like 3 days. I don't care, personally, but man oh man this year isn't gonna be much more normal than last. I actually think it's interesting to see his advances in skill, not bad for effectively a satire artist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this "cancelling" the artist? It's just mocking people for paying millions for bad art. People make fun of other people paying too much for art all the time.
And what does the politics fashionable at the moment ("We’ve passed through a racial uprising and a reckoning with sexism") has to do with art?
You think that art should not be political? You must have missed centuries of art as propoganda then.
What does the "fashionability" of politics mean? That people have political opinions that you dislike?
Especially when one of Beeple's pieces being critiqued is a drawing of a naked Hilary Clinton with a penis.
Do you want it both ways where there can be political artwork but people aren't allowed to criticise it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose all criticism is cancel culture if you just pretend the “cancel” part is there.
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.
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.
"We didn't need a preview": the content of the art isn't important. Like most NFTs, it's just a url that you can sign a hash of for dollars. What's more interesting is the allegation that this is "tape painting": sold to an accomplice for the purpose of promoting the NFT "art" market.