NFT Ramblings
1 1

213 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Hal Turner said:

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.

My concern with including the pen-and-ink original with some of these NFT sales, besides the potential for the physical OA marketplace to be driven up even further, is that if these nouveau digital art buyers, who have been into crypto long before Bitcoin and the like became popular, only care about the digital product, how many of those physical pieces could just disappear because the digital buyer views them as disposable?

Jason at one point brought up that NFT could serve as the CGC for comic art.  I really didn't buy into that comparison.  Maybe it's the years spent in this forum, but I've seen it mentioned here time and time again that CGC isn't needed for comic art, so why would NFT (unless a purely digital piece of work)?

Edited by Doc McCoy
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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".

This is why I don't expect much crossover from the traditional collecting base into NFTs. 1. We're old and change intimidates us (generalization, but no other conclusion to draw from overall reaction). 2. To the extent that anyone here already dabbles in crypto...they're not gonna want to pay what the real crypto guys are already paying for art.

2 hours ago, ChrisSnorek said:

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.

I have no disdain for prints at all. I'm just not into the idea of "monoprints". For all the reasons I mentioned on Bill's show. If you purchase a digital work, feel free to print out a copy and enjoy it on your wall. BTW, you don't need to purchase a digital work to do that...if the image is out there, you can do that for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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?

 

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

Speaking for myself, absolutely not. Especially if taking the long term view. Having the same art get constantly flipped is a bad look, IMO. I'd rather it sit in a well-curated collection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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?  

Physical art is being included per Jason S from essential sequential... the Kuberts.. Tim Sale, Frank Miller and others he reps are already tying the two together. And they are looking into adding NFTs to older art that is already in the possession of collectors. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vodou said:

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 ;) 

I understand, but these "kids" do have their own forums. They're not the ones posting here and they won't be reading your future posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nexus said:

I understand, but these "kids" do have their own forums. They're not the ones posting here and they won't be reading your future posts.

Excellent. Can we get rid of Gene and his sports cards noise too? lol 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nexus said:

I understand, but these "kids" do have their own forums. They're not the ones posting here and they won't be reading your future posts.

I'm in information gathering mode. Should have listened to Bills show last night. Will catch it later via youtube. Felix, what are the forums where these "kids" post? Might as well follow down the rabbit hole...

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

I'm in information gathering mode. Should have listened to Bills show last night. Will catch it later via youtube. Felix, what are the forums where these "kids" post? Might as well follow down the rabbit hole...

There's not any one centralized forum (fitting!:P), they're all spread out. And they don't look like this message board. Think reddit, Discord, Clubhouse, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I did a little poking around and saw a Warhol had been "tokenized," but in that case, only a 31.5 stake was sold, and that stake was divided up amoung a number of people.  In the case of comic book art, is the buyer get 100 percent with the token?  There just seems to be a lot of different levels and moving parts to all this, not the least of which is the use of a currency that fluctuates more so than dollars and cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pinupcartooncollector said:

So I did a little poking around and saw a Warhol had been "tokenized," but in that case, only a 31.5 stake was sold, and that stake was divided up amoung a number of people.  In the case of comic book art, is the buyer get 100 percent with the token?  There just seems to be a lot of different levels and moving parts to all this, not the least of which is the use of a currency that fluctuates more so than dollars and cents.

Don't let any of that concern you, just...BUY BUY BUY :flipbait:

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

Physical art is being included per Jason S from essential sequential... the Kuberts.. Tim Sale, Frank Miller and others he reps are already tying the two together. And they are looking into adding NFTs to older art that is already in the possession of collectors. 

how the hell are they gonna do that? Possession is 9/10s of the law. If I have the art in my possession, whether the artist is alive or dead, nobody should be trying to make NFT's off my art. I'll just be taking my CAF down now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MyNameIsLegion said:

how the hell are they gonna do that? Possession is 9/10s of the law. If I have the art in my possession, whether the artist is alive or dead, nobody should be trying to make NFT's off my art. I'll just be taking my CAF down now.

NO- not by force lol... only if the owner of the art requests the NFT

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the example from last night, a post-purchase NFT is only feasible if Essential Sequential was the rep for artist X and you bought a piece by artist X directly from ES.  And then you have to send the art back to ES for authentication (and presumably you still have the original receipt for something).  Then you pay for getting the NFT and return shipping.  And by having the NFT, you're now obliged to give some percentage of any future sale to artist X.

Let's say you bought a piece by artist X before being repped by ES.  Or you're the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc owner of the piece.  Theoretically, you may not be able to get an NFT.  ES and/or artist X may not be able to authenticate.

Bill mentioned that you can't get an NFT for Jack Kirby art because he's no longer living, Kirby would be unable to authenticate.  This is an important point.  Maybe... maybe not.  Theoretically, "Kirby experts" can authenticate.  But there could/would be a possible conflict of interest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing that was mentioned was that the Adam Kubert Spider-Man piece was drawn on 11 x 17 and is (forever) paired with the NFT.  And they have to be kept together. 

I'm not sure how that would work.  In theory if they are broken up, then it can't be sold. 

If you send/receive in crypto and you have to receive/send a physical piece and NFT, it sounds like there's a need for an escrow service or something. 

And then let's say the piece gets lost by USPS, UPS or DHL or FedEx or ... If you hold the NFT and the physical piece is lost forever, I guess the NFT is worthless ??  Send it with insurance ??

Edited by Will_K
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Will_K said:

In the example from last night, a post-purchase NFT is only feasible if Essential Sequential was the rep for artist X and you bought a piece by artist X directly from ES.  And then you have to send the art back to ES for authentication (and presumably you still have the original receipt for something).  Then you pay for getting the NFT and return shipping.  And by having the NFT, you're now obliged to give some percentage of any future sale to artist X.

Let's say you bought a piece by artist X before being repped by ES.  Or you're the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc owner of the piece.  Theoretically, you may not be able to get an NFT.  ES and/or artist X may not be able to authenticate.

Bill mentioned that you can't get an NFT for Jack Kirby art because he's no longer living, Kirby would be unable to authenticate.  This is an important point.  Maybe... maybe not.  Theoretically, "Kirby experts" can authenticate.  But there could/would be a possible conflict of interest. 

I mostly collect published art. That stamp from Marvel or DC is all the authentication I want or need. I don't give a flying monkey what some self appointed dealer, artist, rep or estate wants to "authenticate" If they think this silly NFT stuff can be used to de-value or delegitimize other people's art, they are in for a RUDE awakening.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MyNameIsLegion said:

how the hell are they gonna do that? Possession is 9/10s of the law. If I have the art in my possession, whether the artist is alive or dead, nobody should be trying to make NFT's off my art. I'll just be taking my CAF down now.

I watched the show last night and I will say it was very informative.  It definitely opened up my eyes to a whole new field.  I don't think a few hours of googling makes me the most educated to speak on this, but your thought is like saying I will force you to get a COA when your art didn't come with one.  It obviously doesn't have any real meaning to you and you can't be forced, coerced, or even given a COA in this context without a few things happening. 

Some people might "want" a COA though and that's their prerogative.  It'd be like buying a modern Neil Adams sketch and it not coming with his sticker.  It'd devalue it if you think it should have come with one.  If it doesn't, it doesn't and that might affect the value.  It might not. 

There's a bit of alarmist attitude as well I see in the thread, but really, there's not much to be worried about at this time.  Long story short, that's a pretty gross misunderstanding of the topic if you'd feel threatened enough to take your art down. It's not like they're going to steal your OA picture, tokenize it, and say that yours is not legit or legal or something. 

What MAY happen is that let's say Charles Shultz's estate (just randomly picking something) may issue a token attached to each piece of art they have, so when they do sell it, they get a kickback based on the digital contract you "sign" when buying the art or maybe they'd tie in something else.  I don't know.  Before you get up in arms about signing a contract to buy art, people do this A LOT with a number of kinds of assets.  Even art.  

Contractual obligations when buying dogs, art, etc. have existed for quite some time.  For example, in fine art, the gallery or dealer may have a right of first refusal when you (the buyer) are reselling a painting.  Is this legal? "Maybe" and it depends on the contract terms. 

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/galleries-legal-resale-clauses-1924336

http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/spencer/spencers-art-law-journal-9-2-11.asp

The point is that attaching a contract to fine art is not unusual, but also is not common for comic OA.  That the contract "lives" with the art is kind of the novel idea and the fact that the contract itself serves multiple purposes from kicking back to the artist (or their estate) upon a sale or transfer to serving as a pseudo-COA is quite creative.  

Would this alienate some collectors? I believe so.  But some people will pay and do anything or sign anything to get what they want.  If the contract is onerous, it will (accordingly) devalue the art.  If the contract essentially said, "you kick back 50% to the original artist", I imagine that'd be a tough pill to swallow. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole contract to kick back $ to the artist is very much the BWS agreement all over again, but the modern web-equivalent.

We all saw how well that went over.

But the kids don’t give two chits, what us old timers think. They will do what they will do. Like CGC, this could prove a sea-change in time, at least for modern OA. But for a while at first, there will be plenty of old guys saying no way, never. Just like the early CGC years.

For the record, I’ve never had anything slabbed and never would. And the irony is not lost on me, that I spend as much time as I do on a CGC run board.

I think I’m kinda over comic OA anyway, so it’s not a big deal to me. I’d be more by the prospect if I was a collector that was all in on the stuff.

For new digital OA, who here genuinely cares though, right?

I feel like 99% of the folks on this board were never in the market for that stuff, and few ever let the opportunity go by to take a figurative dump on digital OA as often as they could.

So if some digital guys make bank selling their stuff, no harm no foul. More power to them. In theory, doesn’t devalue your fat stacks of Itoyas. Not right now anyway. 
 

You do you. Live and let live. 

Edited by ESeffinga
Link to post
Share on other sites

The artist mentioned in the podcast last night. Note the physical asset packaging here definitely has the feel of the card market esthetics. Note this is clearly in the fine/modern art genre. Not sure how or why this translates to rather blah looking illustration art. Those monoprints that sold at HA for a loss were just random modern comic art pages. 

 

 

Edited by cstojano
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LastRaven said:

But some people will pay and do anything or sign anything to get what they want.

Yes. But most of us are vintage-oriented and this is newfanged bs for newfangled art. I get that's 100% go time for Felix and Jason customers, but again...that's not most of us most of the time, if at all (personally: I am an 'occasionally' on 21st century comic art). I'm definitely not stepping in the way of people doing business this way, the way contracts should be formed: voluntarily by all parties, and it's even better for me (us all here) if it draws money away from vintage ;) 

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