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

All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

news.artnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 271 posts

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#161

Post by breakfastduck »

imaginationra wrote: post #124

Mediocre artist using cg as a crutch with a gimmick of making an image everyday- yeah that's called "work" and you are supposed to work everyday- I don't see what the big deal is. Don't we all work everyday? Can I make a commit for 5000 days in a row then sell the text as an NFT? Probably not as I couldn't gain 2 million InstaZuck followers by creating commits with "trump sucks" and "whoa the future is crazy maaaan"…

"His art is objectively bad because I do not like it" seems to be the takeaway here.

Also, your point about Cinema 4D is actually embarrassing. I suppose you'd say the same about brush companies being owed a percentage of the same of oil paintings, too? Without the brushes being manufactured the "art" would have remained those lousy images in their heads.

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#162

Post by tekstar »

hntrader wrote: post #152
pjc50 wrote: post #5

"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.

Where did you hear about this allegation and is it credible

I think most of the news articles are based on this original reporting:

https://amycastor.com/2021/03/14/metakovan-the-mystery-beepl...

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#163

Post by UncleMeat »

seibelj wrote: post #14
jbluepolarbear wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people are just confused. Like, I didn’t know if who Beeple was and after seeing their work I can say it’s pretty offensive. So why is it worth anything? Is it because it’s a great work of art or did somebody with too much money take a gamble on Vaporware?

Why is this worth $85mil? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprematist_Composition Honestly looks like a piece of shit to me, something my child could do. Value of art doesn't have to do with skill.

Sure.

But usually a piece like this goes for 85m long after the artist has achieved major notoriety in the art community and their work has been a clear influence on later art. In this case the 85m sale was 100 years after the creation of this piece.

That may be a stupid reason, but it isn't a circular reason. Beeple, on the other hand, appears to be famous for selling art at ridiculous prices through NFTs.

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#165

Post by nailer »

dash2 wrote: post #158
TheRealNGenius wrote: post #123

First I heard of Beeple was like a year ago, on Corridor Crew: https://youtu.be/_ul9jrCXhR4 So when I read about some NFT crypto art selling for 69 million, I was genuinely surprised that it was at least someone I had heard about before. It’s not exactly my cup of tea, but I respect Beeple’s dedication to his art. When I read this article, it felt less a critique of the merits of Beeple’s art, and more like a hit pie…

What? No, it's a critique of the art. It points out that the images are unfunny satire, or earnest political right-on-itude, or just trying out photoshop filters. Honestly, they could have just posted the images and that would have been condemnation enough. I mean, good for him for making money, but let's not pretend this is interesting art for anyone over fifteen.

> No, it's a critique of the art. It points out that the images are unfunny satire, or earnest political right-on-itude, or just trying out photoshop filters.

Humor is a matter of personal taste. Art isn't craft.

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#166

Post by acdha »

codeulike wrote: post #112
techdragon wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Its somewhat like paying a lot of money for a rare vinyl record when the mp3 can be downloaded for free

Even that’s not conveying how silly this is: in your analogy you’d at least have the option to natter on about how the vinyl sound was so much warmer and truer to the artist’s vision, as audiophiles have done for decades.

This is more or less you saying you paid for a receipt showing you paid to have a hash of the same MP3 everyone else is listening to.

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#167

Post by mc32 »

techdragon wrote: post #98
sneak wrote: post #40

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!

It’s like buying a digital photo of lottery ticket that’s already been played but played by a celebrity, let’s say.

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#168

Post by Lazare »

techdragon wrote: post #98
sneak wrote: post #40

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!

Yes.

Buying an NFT isn't like buying a piece of art you can put on your wall, it's like buying a signed, numbered, limited edition card that has the address of where the actual owner has the art on his wall.

...except the address might be wrong. Or become wrong when the actual art changes hands, or the owner dies. Also nothing stops the artist from making a new print run of the cards. Or someone who isn't the artist making a print run of the cards.

But I mean, even if Beeple sells another thousand NFTs referencing the same artwork, and even if this NFT quickly ends up with a broken URL, and even if the buyer of the NFT didn't end up with any ownership rights to the artwork itself...

...at least they can feel pleased they bought the first NFT issued by Beeple with this particular URL on it. That's gotta be worth something! (...$69 million, apparently...)

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#169

Post by tim333 »

sneak wrote: post #40
tablespoon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure I get this point of view. I think that Beeple is basically just a rando-tier DeviantArt/Tumblr artist, and much of his art is cringe to boot. Since someone purportedly paid the equivalent of $69 million in ETH for it, it's noteworthy that there's no there there.

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.

I think in this case they did get property rights:

>NFT carries no rights, express or implied, other than property rights for the lot (specifically, digital artwork tokenized by the NFT.. https://www.christies.com/pdf/onlineonly/ECOMMERCE%20CONDITI...

So no rights apart from the property rights (Christies T&Cs)

Re: All 5000 Images in Beeple’s $69M Magnum Opus:What I Found Isn’t So Pretty

#170

Post by acdha »

fastball wrote: post #54
coderintherye wrote: post #4

In case anyone missed it, the artist was also double-dipping on the sale: https://amycastor.com/2021/03/14/metakovan-the-mystery-beepl...

Might be worth noting that Amy Castor seems to have a pretty strong anti-crypto bias in general, though that of course doesn't necessarily mean what she has written here is counter-factual, but she does seem to have an agenda.

She’s a journalist - that job is supposed to involve critical thinking, not regurgitating press releases. If your criticism is that she’s factually correct but not fawning it sounds like she’s doing her job well.
Post reply on HN