241–250 of 271 posts
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cringe doesn't mean bad - I would say 90% of Jim'll paint it is cringe and awesome https://jimllpaintit.tumblr.com/ There are different kinds of cringe though. Also, Jim'll paint it definitely looks like he's more talented than Beeple. > And having 5000 daily pieces is art by itself. Quantity over quality?
> Quantity over quality? Isn't focusing on quantity the only reliable way to improve quality? See also, the usual Ira Glass quote: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309485-nobody-tells-this-to... .
But more recently, I found that a multivolume collection of all the short stories is available, and I started reading them. It was really disillusioning because it wasn't just that the average quality was a lot lower than the famous ones, the cringeworthiness started to extend to my image of the author.
It's possible that over time the later work ended up being uniformly brilliant, but I didn't finish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I made a comment explaining how to check this out yourself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26459621 A Twitter thread explaining how absurd this is: https://twitter.com/jonty/status/1372163423446917122 There's already URL rot going on: https://twitter.com/CheckMyNFT/status/1372253288863825925
I still don't get why this is a scam, there is a SHA-256 hash of the whole image in that token, complete with timestamp and a buyer signature - the buyer can certainly prove he was first (or Nth) to buy this exact thing anytime he wants (if he doesn't lose his private key ofc). Who cares if some URLs included do rot? It's almost the same idea [0] Galileo used 400 years ago to prove he was first to see Saturn rings by…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Quantity over quality? Isn't focusing on quantity the only reliable way to improve quality? See also, the usual Ira Glass quote: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309485-nobody-tells-this-to... .
Sure, but the point of the practice is to produce quality, and then display the good bits of your production because mixing the few good ones into the deludge of average works isn't very helpful for the audience.
I'm indifferent to Michelangelo's art, but I have read The Agony and the Ecstasy. In this particular case, a less filtered view of his art doesn't disillusion me because I'm not especially crazy about any of it. But he was famous, influential, and technically capable, so as a person was of interest to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My argument is that the value of a collectible (NFT, painting, baseball card) is actually because of what it represents, rather than the object itself. Well... yeah? Has anyone ever argued that the Mona Lisa is worth whatever its raw materials are worth? The real question is if the Beeple work is interesting as art or is if just a speculative bubble. https://www.ft.com/content/1563d643-332f-3887-8c6e-caf7435f3...
Many would argue that the Mona Lisa required an immense amount of skill and technique, and is a very high quality piece of art. Modern art (squares and circles) that anyone can make, I just don't see why it has the same value. But it does! And that's my point about NFTs.
No art critic or collector makes that argument, and it's an uniformed position to take. People don't pay for the skill - there is no shortage of (very poorly paid) people who can do a convincing forgery of a daVinci.
Something to consider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if it’s painting the tape it’s an expensive proposition at close to $10 million in Christie’s fees.
10 million in ETH. How easy is it to exchange large sums like that? (Genuine question, I have no idea)
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!
Like bitcoin, the only way it makes sense is if you can trick someone else into buying it off you for more money later, thus you're incentivised to promote the idea everywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the article? Sexist, racist, and bigoted content.
I read the article and the critic is obviously trying to do a takedown, but none of the examples appear racist or sexist to me. Do you agree with everything the critic said?