NFT Ramblings 1 1

[hmendryk]

5 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

A monoprint is a copy of a digital file, So, it would be included.

I disagree. The letter warns against selling digital art, not printed copies of digital art. The whole reason for DC's letter was the large sum of money for NFTs. DC is certainly aware that various artist sell prints, both monoprints and in greater quantities. There just isn't enough money to justify their concern.

[Rick2you2]

9 minutes ago, hmendryk said:

I disagree. The letter warns against selling digital art, not printed copies of digital art. The whole reason for DC's letter was the large sum of money for NFTs. DC is certainly aware that various artist sell prints, both monoprints and in greater quantities. There just isn't enough money to justify their concern.

Interesting read, and I do see your interpretation. You may well be right. 

[Rick2you2]

Is it art, or does it just rhyme with it?

https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/nyc-man-sells-fart-for-85-cashing-in-on-nft-craze/

[aardvark88]

Digital NFT art from $66k to $3.5 million to $69 million:

 

[inovrmihd]

I would like to test a theory.  Please like this post if you think NFT's are BS, but would also pay money to say you are the official owner of this.  Thanks.

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by inovrmihd

[vodou]

Um...told you so?

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, vodou said:

Um...told you so?

Pretty funny, actually. Non-existent art bought with non-existent money should result in a non-existent tax.

[hmendryk]

Manhattan construction site.

[cstojano]

Old meets new...

https://app.portion.io/#exchange?ID=QmerptjFhFUiE4aMCXN19ZTXhqJCDrMq5ydyMxsjmmnP8G

[BuraddoRun]

20 minutes ago, cstojano said:

Old meets new...

https://app.portion.io/#exchange?ID=QmerptjFhFUiE4aMCXN19ZTXhqJCDrMq5ydyMxsjmmnP8G

"The purchase of this NFT also entitles the buyer to the original acrylic paint on board 36x36 inches, framed, signed."

[cstojano]

Another for the classic fantasy, DnD crowd. A week later and not a one has sold for around 120 dollars.

 

https://opensea.io/accounts/Keith_Parkinson?fbclid=IwAR33PKHN3MjUOw-og_xir58yYLeb1n7iPZ_Vi_uTYewFKXBs8P5oFae57TM

[Hulk213]

I’ve been think about this topic for awhile. Trying to understand why someone is willing to pay for digital art. I’m use to art being a physical thing. But that really isn’t true.
 

We pay for music, performances, etc. we don’t own those things yet we ‘pay’ for something we don’t true own physically. 
 

Is it the prices of NFTs that seem insane? To someone trying to pay rent can think original comic book art, at any price, is the same as NFTs.

How many in this group have art tucked away out of sight? art that is looked at only once and awhile? We know it’s in our possession but it just kind of there. Kind of like NFTs?
 

Any thoughts? I’m having a hard time articulating my perspective. 

[cstojano]

19 minutes ago, Mftonto said:

I’ve been think about this topic for awhile. Trying to understand why someone is willing to pay for digital art. I’m use to art being a physical thing. But that really isn’t true.
 

We pay for music, performances, etc. we don’t own those things yet we ‘pay’ for something we don’t true own physically. 
 

Is it the prices of NFTs that seem insane? To someone trying to pay rent can think original comic book art, at any price, is the same as NFTs.

How many in this group have art tucked away out of sight? art that is looked at only once and awhile? We know it’s in our possession but it just kind of there. Kind of like NFTs?
 

Any thoughts? I’m having a hard time articulating my perspective. 

We pay for some digital things, things we cannot ethically/morally/legally consume some other way. Hear a good song on the radio...I go to youtube to find it. If not, then I pay for it. Or if I want to listen to the song on an MP3 player (they still exist) where there is no access to youtube then I will buy the song or a physical CD that I rip to the computer.

The images of the pieces I posted above are freely available online. What are you paying for?

NFTs only make sense to me for digital art that doesn't exist any other way. Then you are buying the original of that digital image. Multiple runs of the same image make no sense to me. NFTs of 45 year old paintings make no sense to me. Owning the original of a digital image also makes sense if you can monetize it, which is surely not the case here. So it's like buying a stock that pays no dividend (royalty) and is only subject to (speculative) growth potential. 

For an original painting like the Hildebrandt I would think the thing you would be buying is akin to a high resolution scan of the original painting where you can see the brushstrokes, paint globs, etc. This is why we buy original art, to see that which cannot be seen in the published image. This, to me, is the value added over the thousands of images of these paintings you can find for free on Google. 

Edited April 17, 2021 by cstojano

[vodou]

11 hours ago, cstojano said:

This is why we buy original art, to see that which cannot be seen in the published image.

Great point.

[Rick2you2]

13 hours ago, Mftonto said:

I’ve been think about this topic for awhile. Trying to understand why someone is willing to pay for digital art. I’m use to art being a physical thing. But that really isn’t true.
 

We pay for music, performances, etc. we don’t own those things yet we ‘pay’ for something we don’t true own physically. 
 

Is it the prices of NFTs that seem insane? To someone trying to pay rent can think original comic book art, at any price, is the same as NFTs.

How many in this group have art tucked away out of sight? art that is looked at only once and awhile? We know it’s in our possession but it just kind of there. Kind of like NFTs?
 

Any thoughts? I’m having a hard time articulating my perspective. 

For the most part, we don’t buy art for the privilege of looking at it. We buy it for the pleasure or profit of owning it. If we only acquired art to look at it, we’d be downloading photo’s, buying books or cheap prints. Same with NFT’s. We get to say, to ourselves or others, I own that and it’s an NFT. That means I had money to waste, or invest, which others don’t. And, there is nothing wrong with that. Whatever floats your boat, unless you get hit by a tidal wave.

[vodou]

19 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

For the most part, we don’t buy art for the privilege of looking at it.

Wrong (for me).

20 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

We buy it for the pleasure or profit of owning it.

Yes and no (see above).

20 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

If we only acquired art to look at it, we’d be downloading photo’s, buying books or cheap prints.

Yes. That's me - I'll buy anything reasonably priced for the art/artists I like that expands my knowledge and overall experience of The Art, but admittedly it is generally "best state". If I already own the oil painting at 48x60...a 9x12 reproduction isn't exciting. Whereas that print might be if the painting was destroyed or is otherwise unobtainable. The shelves of fine art books I have are "best state" stand-ins for what's not coming out of MFA Boston, The Met, LACMA, MOCA NY, etc in my lifetime (or if it did...whoosh!...not even three generations of my family has taken that much home after taxes  ).

[Rick2you2]

4 hours ago, vodou said:

Wrong (for me).

Yes and no (see above).

Yes. That's me - I'll buy anything reasonably priced for the art/artists I like that expands my knowledge and overall experience of The Art, but admittedly it is generally "best state". If I already own the oil painting at 48x60...a 9x12 reproduction isn't exciting. Whereas that print might be if the painting was destroyed or is otherwise unobtainable. The shelves of fine art books I have are "best state" stand-ins for what's not coming out of MFA Boston, The Met, LACMA, MOCA NY, etc in my lifetime (or if it did...whoosh!...not even three generations of my family has taken that much home after taxes  ).

I think you mangled my point about NFT's. There is rarely any reason to actually own the art if you can view an (assumed top notch) image of it. Some art, with a 3-D aspect (layered paint as well as sculpture or projects like by Christo) really needs the original to enjoy 100%. But, most people--not all people-- get sufficent enjoyment out a reproduced version for there to be no rational explanation to justify the difference beween a $5 print and a $100,000 painting. NFT's even less so.

[vodou]

2 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

There is rarely any reason to actually own the art if you can view an (assumed top notch) image of it. Some art, with a 3-D aspect (layered paint as well as sculpture or projects like by Christo) really needs the original to enjoy 100%.

 A significant portion of my collection falls into: you're going to enjoy appreciate it a lot more seeing the original. And yes, I'm talking paintings, some with heavy impasto, that will never come through in 2D.

[Hulk213]

9 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

For the most part, we don’t buy art for the privilege of looking at it. We buy it for the pleasure or profit of owning it. If we only acquired art to look at it, we’d be downloading photo’s, buying books or cheap prints. Same with NFT’s. We get to say, to ourselves or others, I own that and it’s an NFT. That means I had money to waste, or invest, which others don’t. And, there is nothing wrong with that. Whatever floats your boat, unless you get hit by a tidal wave.

I’m not following you here. You can make a profit by owning NFTs and reselling them. Also, isn’t part of the art collector mentality is being able to say, I own this original art, no one else has it?Even though you can get high res images or artist editions. To others, owning original art is wasting money. 
 

[Hulk213]

1 hour ago, vodou said:

 A significant portion of my collection falls into: you're going to enjoy appreciate it a lot more seeing the original. And yes, I'm talking paintings, some with heavy impasto, that will never come through in 2D.

Agree. I really appreciate what it takes to make comic art. What I love about the original art is seeing all of the little notes, pencils, white out, etc. As a kid I always thought that comic artist where so good that I would never be able to compete. (Always wanted to work for marvel). Seeing the original you see that you don’t have to be perfect.