Art Is Becoming a Financial Product, and Blockchain Is Making It Happen
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: Art Is Becoming a Financial Product, and Blockchain Is Making It Happen
#2As someone who has loved mechanical watches for years and seen them become a financial product over the last decade or so. I’m not convinced making art a financial product is a net positive.
Re: Art Is Becoming a Financial Product, and Blockchain Is Making It Happen
#3Wait, people invest in art?
Re: Art Is Becoming a Financial Product, and Blockchain Is Making It Happen
#4Misleading title. Doesn't cite any example of blockchain making anything happen.
The article mentions blockchain tech only towards the end, and the specific blockchain to which they refer hasn't even started operating yet.
Re: Art Is Becoming a Financial Product, and Blockchain Is Making It Happen
#5As someone who has loved mechanical watches for years and seen them become a financial product over the last decade or so. I’m not convinced making art a financial product is a net positive.
I think the difference is that traditional art, to which I mean paintings, are impossible to recreate exactly. Especially, painters like Pollack and Bacon who edited their work using chance/luck as a tool. You can’t do that with watches. Paintings serve as a unique visual representation or a token that is extremetely effective as a financial instrument. Paintings will always be on the lead when it comes to a financial product.
Watches, even custom ones, serve a different purpose. They rarely show up on Christie’s or Sotheby’s. Instead, they serve as a communication device. I am, possibly incorrectly, conspiring that this is the reason for the death of ultra high end pocket watches. They’re just not as visible.
Re: Art Is Becoming a Financial Product, and Blockchain Is Making It Happen
#6I knew I was on to something! [0]
Re: Art Is Becoming a Financial Product, and Blockchain Is Making It Happen
#7As someone who has loved mechanical watches for years and seen them become a financial product over the last decade or so. I’m not convinced making art a financial product is a net positive.
I think the difference is that traditional art, to which I mean paintings, are impossible to recreate exactly. Especially, painters like Pollack and Bacon who edited their work using chance/luck as a tool. You can’t do that with watches. Paintings serve as a unique visual representation or a token that is extremetely effective as a financial instrument. Paintings will always be on the lead when it comes to a financia…
Good point, I agree on the uniqueness of traditional art being a big factor In it’s ability to be used as an asset.
Watches are pretty common these days at the big auction houses and most if not all have departments specializing in them now. Selling to many buyers who are presumably speculators with little intention to no intention to wear the watch.
https://www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/sothebys-beefs-u...
Re: Art Is Becoming a Financial Product, and Blockchain Is Making It Happen
#8Misleading title. Doesn't cite any example of blockchain making anything happen. The article mentions blockchain tech only towards the end, and the specific blockchain to which they refer hasn't even started operating yet.
Indeed,
The one example is simply securitizing a work of art, "with the blockchain", where naturally a blockchain is no more useful than a simple contract since blockchains don't guarantee action in the real world.
Which is to say blockchains could never do what the article claims, as you'd expect. It reminds me of people selling digital paper-clips in the 1980's.
Re: Art Is Becoming a Financial Product, and Blockchain Is Making It Happen
#9Misleading title. Doesn't cite any example of blockchain making anything happen. The article mentions blockchain tech only towards the end, and the specific blockchain to which they refer hasn't even started operating yet.
Indeed, The one example is simply securitizing a work of art, "with the blockchain", where naturally a blockchain is no more useful than a simple contract since blockchains don't guarantee action in the real world. Which is to say blockchains could never do what the article claims, as you'd expect . It reminds me of people selling digital paper-clips in the 1980's.
Digital paper-clips? Could you explain what that is? I didn't get any results via Google.
Re: Art Is Becoming a Financial Product, and Blockchain Is Making It Happen
#10Misleading title. Doesn't cite any example of blockchain making anything happen. The article mentions blockchain tech only towards the end, and the specific blockchain to which they refer hasn't even started operating yet.
Indeed, The one example is simply securitizing a work of art, "with the blockchain", where naturally a blockchain is no more useful than a simple contract since blockchains don't guarantee action in the real world. Which is to say blockchains could never do what the article claims, as you'd expect . It reminds me of people selling digital paper-clips in the 1980's.
Yes. The only advantage I can see for a blockchain (vs. a simple contract) is that shares could be transferred anonymously, rather than requiring legal paperwork (which would reveal the name of the seller and of the purchaser). So perhaps useful for money launderers, or as an alternative to money launderers.