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

Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 245 posts

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#21

Post by the_local_host »

darkerside wrote: post #11
the_local_host wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything (other than lawsuits) preventing issuers from "printing NFTs" and diluting the value of those already sold? It seems like a blockchain-based technology that only works when backed by the threat of lawsuits combines the worst aspects of the art market and the cryptocurrency market.

Many modern art pieces could really be recreated. What's the difference you are trying to draw?

Digital art can be recreated easily, which is probably one reason why few people have been paying money for it.

Physical art, which people have historically paid for, is much more difficult to credibly reproduce than NFTs.

Edited to add:

Moreover if the argument in favor of NFTs is that they're not worse than what preceded them, then what's the point of introducing them? If the same problems in the traditional art market (especially for digital works) are recapitulated with NFTs, I don't see the point.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#22

Post by gmuslera »

throwawaysea wrote: post #7
seibelj wrote: post #2

This is 100% correct. For those that can’t understand the value of NFTs, it’s the same reason a “squares and circles” modern art piece can be worth millions - it’s the story of who made it, the collective belief, the rarity... Ultimately it has value because people agree it has value. It’s the same reason the Tom Brady football rookie card sold for millions despite it being nothing more than ink on flimsy cardboard.…

> Ultimately it has value because people agree it has value. This feels like a pyramid scheme. What makes it different?

The old object-observer duality. Where is the value in this case? It is in the observer, not in the object. It goes in a different layer.

The problem there is that culture, social conventions, shared fictions and so on can be manipulated/twisted/adapted to some agenda or interest, and that includes what we feel valuable or not, without minding of what is really behind (like with bitcoins and similar). Once we took this route, all kinds of mirages can appear. And they can vanish into thin air as fast as they appeared.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#23

Post by peytn »

speedyapoc wrote: post #16
zabzonk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between a physical object (painting, sculpture, trading card, slice of bread) which cannot with our current technology be exactly reproduced, and a digital thing, which can be.

I've struggled wrapping my ahead around whether this line of thinking has merit or not. I'd argue that everything you listed can be reproduced, almost identically. But there's no value in doing so since it is not the original or was never authorized by the creator. Why does this change all of a sudden once we go digital? Is it because it's so much easier to reproduce something that originates digitally?

It’s not just “going digital”—the creative act isn’t there. It’s just financialization. The act of taking an artwork to an auction house isn’t something that’ll hold value.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#24

Post by iamben »

twox2 wrote: post #18
apples_oranges wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However that ink on flimsy cardboard is still somewhat unique. The NFT only associates a wallet address with a hash of whatever digital document. It's similar, but not quite. It has value in human imagination, sure, one can convince oneself that's the case. But the token is merely a hash of something that can be obtained very easily in full original quality on the Internet. The flimsy cardboard is not. At least not i…

There's a good chance that "mining" will out live some pieces of cardboard. Even if the blockchain du jour becomes a thing o the past, it might live on in some device in an emulator thanks to Moore's Law.

But sadly the URL the NFT points to will probably be long gone.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#25

Post by throw7 »

I suppose we'll see contracts include the artist not "de-valuing" their "own" works in such future where they are super-stars able to shape a story to direct their fans on what to believe.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#26

Post by zabzonk »

darkerside wrote: post #13
zabzonk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between a physical object (painting, sculpture, trading card, slice of bread) which cannot with our current technology be exactly reproduced, and a digital thing, which can be.

You can reproduce a trading card such that it's indistinguishable to just about every human on the planet.

But not to someone using a few simple scientific tools, such as, say, a microscope.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#27

Post by SiempreViernes »

twox2 wrote: post #18
apples_oranges wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However that ink on flimsy cardboard is still somewhat unique. The NFT only associates a wallet address with a hash of whatever digital document. It's similar, but not quite. It has value in human imagination, sure, one can convince oneself that's the case. But the token is merely a hash of something that can be obtained very easily in full original quality on the Internet. The flimsy cardboard is not. At least not i…

There's a good chance that "mining" will out live some pieces of cardboard. Even if the blockchain du jour becomes a thing o the past, it might live on in some device in an emulator thanks to Moore's Law.

You do realize that you're comparing a medium that routinely stores information for 350 years versus a field where something saved 10 years ago invariably demands considerable resources to access?

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#28

Post by rayiner »

The quote from Nilay Patel's Vox article hits on one of my pet peeves.

> Nilay Patel wrote in Vox:

> "Taylor makes a nice little argument in favor of paying for music. 'Music is art,' she says, 'and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for.'

> This is an impressively-constructed syllogism. It is also deeply, deeply wrong.... On the internet, there’s no scarcity: there’s an endless amount of everything available to everyone.

How does such an obvious fallacy command such purchase among smart people? Swift is talking about "music" as an original work. Patel responds with an irrelevant point about digital copies of music. Obviously these are two different things! If you tell your mom "I made a song" she will be quite unimpressed if what you actually mean is "I made a digital copy of a song." A book or a song or a movie is more than the bits that make up any individual copy of it.

There is a like-with-like comparison in there, but it actually hurts Patel's argument. There is no scarcity of music on the Internet--not referring to digital copies, but because the Internet has made it trivial to create and widely distribute original music (often for free). If consumers were unwilling to pay much for Swift's music because of the vast quantity of alternatives available on the Internet, Patel would indeed have a point. But consumers still want Swift's music, not other peoples' music. Even in the face of huge amounts of free alternatives, consumers still want Swift's music. That only proves Swift's point!

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#29

Post by zabzonk »

speedyapoc wrote: post #16
zabzonk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between a physical object (painting, sculpture, trading card, slice of bread) which cannot with our current technology be exactly reproduced, and a digital thing, which can be.

I've struggled wrapping my ahead around whether this line of thinking has merit or not. I'd argue that everything you listed can be reproduced, almost identically. But there's no value in doing so since it is not the original or was never authorized by the creator. Why does this change all of a sudden once we go digital? Is it because it's so much easier to reproduce something that originates digitally?

> almost identically

But not identically. I can get a very nice print of the Mona Lisa, with very accurate colours. But it isn't at all an exact copy of the original. And I defy you to produce anything like a near-exact copy of a specific slice of bread.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#30

Post by packetslave »

eric_b wrote: post #3

Sort of tangential to the main point but - I find the new version of Fearless to be utterly lacking in "soul", "energy", "magic" or whatever you want to call it. The unquantifiable things that made the original so good are missing. Sure, the remakes are competent and perhaps even better technically, but after listening to both side by side (song by song, new then old) - to me there is no comparison. I went online loo…

I wouldn't call it a money grab (TSwift already has a net worth of over $400 million. She's not worried solely about money).

I think it's more of a giant, public middle finger to Scooter Braun: "you won't sell me my masters? Fine, I have enough money and spare time to re-record them AND it won't hurt my career a bit, because my fans love me enough to buy something I've literally already released."

edit: TS probably worries some about money like most rich people, but it's likely not her primary motivation

Post reply on HN