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

91–100 of 271 posts

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

#91

Post by joosters »

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.

What are you suggesting, that we should ignore facts if they are highlighted by people whose views you don't like? Or that Amy is untrustworthy and lying? If that's the case, please point to some lies that she has told?

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

#92

Post by rfw300 »

luckylion wrote: post #55
tsimionescu wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The critique is calling the art bad and sometimes mysoginistic. It is not, in any way, calling for the artist to be canceled. And yes, art can be racist or misogynistic or problematic in other ways. There's nothing wrong with calling it that. Or do you think it's cancel culture to call "Birth of a Nation" racist?

> It is not, in any way, calling for the artist to be canceled. Please. "I'm not saying we should do something about it, but oh my gosh, look how offensive it is".

I suppose all criticism is cancel culture if you just pretend the “cancel” part is there.

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

#94

Post by svantana »

jayd16 wrote: post #45

If it makes everyone feel better, they didn't pay almost $70M for the art. The buyer paid almost $70M to post their id, a guid, some metadata and a link to a site neither the buyer or the seller controls. What a world.

Since the buyer is in the NFT business, it seems obvious to me that what they paid for was marketing for themselves and their space. I'm not sure $70M on advertising would be better spent. As the old adage goes, "you can't buy publicity like this".

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

#95

Post by Dzugaru »

Kiro wrote: post #65
jayd16 wrote: post #45

If it makes everyone feel better, they didn't pay almost $70M for the art. The buyer paid almost $70M to post their id, a guid, some metadata and a link to a site neither the buyer or the seller controls. What a world.

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 hashing the image description and distributing the hash.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn

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

#96

Post by dgellow »

pharmakom wrote: post #61

the art perfectly captures someone desperately trying to be relevant despite having nothing to say.

That doesn’t really match reality though. He did the vast majority of this work when he wasn’t relevant in any way. It’s not like he became famous in 2007 and continued publishing to milk the cow. For a decade almost nobody cared, then he became a meme artist.

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

#97

Post by nj999999 »

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.

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

#98

Post by techdragon »

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.

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!

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

#99

Post by canadianfella »

tablespoon wrote: post #17
viraptor wrote: post #9

I'm not sure I get this point of view. We know that famous artists did random rude and badly-satirical drawings for fun. Their dick drawings were contained in some old notebooks and trashed. But I bet someone would buy a preserved notebook of someone semi-famous with 5000 pages of drawings, mostly regardless of contents. This is pretty much the equivalent of that - daily fun which went to the internet bin rather than…

> 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.

That what?

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

#100

Post by dgellow »

People seem to say it’s not good art/drawing/rendering, I personally love that kind of punk-ish style. I grew up reading all the graphic novels I could find during the 90s and early 2000s, with a lot of punk-inspired themes, and that’s the same vibe I see here. It’s gross, dark, morbid, cringy, ugly, trashy, and unnecessarily provocative. That’s not for everybody but some of us like that type of stuff.

The bernie-monster is fantastic IMHO, and I have nothing against Bernie Sanders.

Post reply on HN