NFT Ramblings
1 1

213 posts in this topic

On 2/19/2021 at 5:26 PM, dichotomy said:

I turned around and I was being hit by Non-Fungible Tokens. The first instance was a livestream by Jim Lee earlier this month. Then a plethora of announcements this week from Christies, followed closely by Essential Sequential and Felix Comic Art.

Same. I did some catch-up reading and even checked in to see if some of my all-time fav (non-comic) digital-only artists had jumped into it. (They had.) The prices were doable, but I couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger.

Would I buy if a high end monoprint was being sold along with the token? (giclee, physical mural even?) I don't think it would sway me... unless it was big enough that making another would be cost-prohibitive.

How about buying a traditional piece of OA and getting the NFT along with it -- which is what I saw with the Essential Sequential offerings? It's nice, but not necessary. And that opens up some convos about selling the art and NFT separately (see pencils and blue-line inks on separate boards.) I've seen a few traditional painters minting NFTs not only for the COA aspect, but also for the public sales and brand-building it gives them.

I doubt you are going to get anything but a collective shrug out of most OA collectors, but like any emerging market there will be a deluge of speculation.

I have an open mind about this, but I'm not sure I am there yet. For me, physical art is all about the lack of Ctrl-Z. So as much as I love digital art as a medium, I am not sure I want to be a digital art collector.

For those of you on the fence, I've found it helps to not look at the ridiculous "fine art" stuff being pushed around right now, but rather ask yourself about some comic OA stalwarts... Would you buy a digital McKean Sandman cover? Staples Saga? Greg Horn? recent Bolland? Or what about the colorists... Isanove Wolverine or Conan? Oback? Middleton? etc. Help me out... What are the big categories of missing comic art that are digital only?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents based on nothing is that this seems like a new playground for people with unrealized gains in crypto to speculate, almost like a SIM world. I cannot imagine anyone converting fiat to ETH and then spending 25k on an 8bit cryptopunk. But for the the person that paid nothing for their ETH a few years ago, then why not speculate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cstojano said:

My 2 cents based on nothing is that this seems like a new playground for people with unrealized gains in crypto to speculate, almost like a SIM world. I cannot imagine anyone converting fiat to ETH and then spending 25k on an 8bit cryptopunk. But for the the person that paid nothing for their ETH a few years ago, then why not speculate.

And never report those capital gains...ooooh that's gonna hurt :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BCarter27 said:

For those of you on the fence, I've found it helps to not look at the ridiculous "fine art" stuff being pushed around right now, but rather ask yourself about some comic OA stalwarts... Would you buy a digital McKean Sandman cover? Staples Saga? Greg Horn? recent Bolland? Or what about the colorists... Isanove Wolverine or Conan? Oback? Middleton? etc. Help me out... What are the big categories of missing comic art that are digital only?

For what it’s worth, McKean already sold all the digital Sandman covers, back in the 90s. At least from the main series. Those were all monoprints. Four Color Gallery in NY had a show with them, and they were sold one by one. A few can be found on CAF.

Many have changed hands over the years. The prices always rise, but nothing quite like the physical cover art he made, or interior pages by various series artists.

Who knows though. In the face of NFTs, perhaps these pieces find a second wind?

-e.

https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=281584

https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=204144

 

Edited by ESeffinga
Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly appreciate aspects of NFT, mostly the link to provenance. The issue for me is the inexorable link to cryptocurrency. This to me indicates we're going to start paying insane prices for digital works, not because they're beautiful originals but because they're being purchased with "funny money". One of the things I would have liked to ask Felix about last night was his disdain for monoprints and how this is different to him? I feel like after purchasing a digital work, I still want a way to display it. Lord knows a Jorge Jiminez Batman would look great on my wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ChrisSnorek said:

I certainly appreciate aspects of NFT, mostly the link to provenance. The issue for me is the inexorable link to cryptocurrency. This to me indicates we're going to start paying insane prices for digital works, not because they're beautiful originals but because they're being purchased with "funny money". One of the things I would have liked to ask Felix about last night was his disdain for monoprints and how this is different to him? I feel like after purchasing a digital work, I still want a way to display it. Lord knows a Jorge Jiminez Batman would look great on my wall.

Speaking for myself. I think the difference is what you link the NFT to. OA + NFT = link to provenance as well as artist/artist's estate gets royalties in perpetuity - and it's still original art!

However, NFT + digital art = ???  


The NFT might make that mono print a true "one of a kind" - however, it's still a digital piece of art, which I have no real interest in owning. If someone is already buying mono prints then maybe an NFT gives the print a bit more allure. However, digital is digital and I am not interested in that type of artwork. No disrespect to those that work digitally and those of us who buy the prints. I like the craft of the traditional methods. (I'm old) 

 

Did anyone catch the part where Jason said he's been asked if the original art could be destroyed??? I'd love to know more about that conversation! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought:

 

Jason and Felix talked about how as reps they love when they sell OA to a collector and see that artwork framed and hanging on the collectors wall. Bill warned of art sales that could turn speculative, with NFTs acting as a catalyst for buying/selling art as investment. Everyone agreed it's been happening for a long time already.

 

However, with NFTs providing future royalties to the artist. Hanging the art on a wall for a decade or two is the WORST outcome! An artist would prefer the artwork be passed around, bought and sold so that they could collect more in royalties over the life of the art/NFT - no?

 

Long term, will this change how reps and artist deal with buyers? Will the speculative buyer be preferred to the true collector?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Stefanomjr said:

Speaking for myself. I think the difference is what you link the NFT to. OA + NFT = link to provenance as well as artist/artist's estate gets royalties in perpetuity - and it's still original art!

However, NFT + digital art = ???  


The NFT might make that mono print a true "one of a kind" - however, it's still a digital piece of art, which I have no real interest in owning. If someone is already buying mono prints then maybe an NFT gives the print a bit more allure. However, digital is digital and I am not interested in that type of artwork. No disrespect to those that work digitally and those of us who buy the prints. I like the craft of the traditional methods. (I'm old) 

 

Did anyone catch the part where Jason said he's been asked if the original art could be destroyed??? I'd love to know more about that conversation! 

I think you've misunderstood the entire concept of NFTs.  Do you remember the point in the interview where they mention to Google 'Beeple'.

Well, Beeple is a digital artist and most likely the reason NFTs have become so popular recently. Beeple sold his repertoire of digital art + NFTs, amassing more than £3 Million from the sale. Christies are now going to auction off more of his work (+ NFTs) in the coming weeks, a first for Christie's and the digital world.

There is now an entire market of digital artists selling their work with NFTs. To answer your question NFT + digital art  = legitimised one of a kind digital art. Its one of the reason NFTs were created in the first place!

For NFT collectors, digital art and the NFT is probably more important than pencil and ink pages. It's definitely more suited to (and easier to apply to) digital comic art pages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stefanomjr said:

However, with NFTs providing future royalties to the artist. Hanging the art on a wall for a decade or two is the WORST outcome! An artist would prefer the artwork be passed around, bought and sold so that they could collect more in royalties over the life of the art/NFT - no?

Technically yes, but the artist would only get say 10-40% of the resale value (as they stipulate when creating NFT). They would actually make more money from their initial sale. It would be better for the artist to keep making (digital) art and selling it (+NFT). I am a digital artist myself by the way. 

Also who's to say the amount received from 5 years of continuous resale doesn't equal the exact amount from one sale after 5 years on someones wall?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if NFT's revolves exclusively around digital art and the collecting of NFT's specifically, then almost no one here on this message board can relate or care about this at this time? We (the typical members of this message board)  all collect physical OA, so this isn't about our hobby. Right? Or is the implication that this will eventually be a feature tied in with physical OA in order to maximize sales in both the collector and crypto marketplaces? Does this include stuff like Jack Kirby art and Steve Ditko art, where those artist's aren't still alive to verify the authenticity of the original, physical OA (authenticity seemingly one of the drivers in NFT's in the first place). I guess I'm asking, how is this relatable to collectors of physical art today?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, ChrisSnorek said:

This to me indicates we're going to start paying insane prices for digital works, not because they're beautiful originals but because they're being purchased with "funny money".

This is not new.

The conversion of high grade un-slabbed comics to high grade CGC slabs, where the number before and after has always been shocking, and then those funds pouring into comic art has been going on for 20 years. Very much "funny money" all along too. This is no different than the Industrial Revolution monopolists of the late 19th and early 20th century using their "funny money" to clean out Europe of many (but not quite all) their Old Masters and the like.

I say let the kids have their toys, it doesn't have to make sense to us (cuz: it never will :) ) but I'm definitely going to get much grouchier the more this subject intrudes here. I think these kids (and the artists they collect and the reps that feed The Machine) should get their own forum...so they won't have to read my future (likely exceptionally negative and/or sarcastic) posts on the subject ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, stinkininkin said:

So if NFT's revolves exclusively around digital art and the collecting of NFT's specifically, then almost no one here on this message board can relate or care about this at this time? We (the typical members of this message board)  all collect physical OA, so this isn't about our hobby. Right? Or is the implication that this will eventually be a feature tied in with physical OA in order to maximize sales in both the collector and crypto marketplaces? Does this include stuff like Jack Kirby art and Steve Ditko art, where those artist's aren't still alive to verify the authenticity of the original, physical OA (authenticity seemingly one of the drivers in NFT's in the first place). I guess I'm asking, how is this relatable to collectors of physical art today?  

NFT art sales are making a S**T LOAD of money for digital artists right now. This is why I think Jason, Felix and traditional artists are jumping on board. To make money. Your favourite traditional artist may want a piece of that pie. If they started selling their work on digital platforms with the NFT, would you following along?

Edited by Shin-Kaiser
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stefan's post suggests that a pen-and-ink Kubert original was attached to an NFT and sold for a multiple of what it might have otherwise. If so, this will have an impact on the hobby we love. Also, I understand why artists would be excited to collect a percentage when their artwork is sold again. It sounds as if some contracts will give them that percentage even when the art sells at a loss... again, if I'm understanding the current madness correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shin-Kaiser said:

NFT art sales are making a S**T LOAD of money for digital artists right now. This is why I think Jason, Felix and traditional artists are jumping on board. To make money. Your favourite traditional artist may want a piece of that pie. If they started selling their work on digital platforms with the NFT, would you following along?

No. I have no interest in "selling" NFT's

NFT is not for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stefanomjr said:
Almost like someone paid 10k for the art and 15k for the NFT??

No, someone paid $25K for the NFT. That the physical art was included is incidental. It didn't need to be for the NFT to sell for $25K.

And we don't know if the cover would have sold for $10K as an original. It might have been more, it might have been less. But certainly less than the $25K it got as an NFT.

4 hours ago, Stefanomjr said:
I've read a little about this, there were NFTs that were linked to digital images of cats that were worth something like a million dollars - stupid! I hope this isn't a new direction our hobby is heading to. Otherwise, kiss collecting good bye! Every knucklehead with a cryptocurrency will step into the space and drive new art through the roof.

HA is already selling NFTs and accepts payment in crypto.

4 hours ago, Stefanomjr said:

Old art is valued at a premium, because nostalgia. Now new art will also be valued at a premium because crypto speculation??

Hate to break it to you, but speculation isn't limited to cypto or new art. It's a driving force behind vintage art, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1