More evidence (not that we needed any) that modern "fine-art" has jumped the shark

[9tubes]

...there must be some value to applying this blockchain technology to digital rights management of creative content, but I can't wrap my head around how exactly it would work in the real world.

I can envision an application of blockchain to music. A record company could produce copies by digitally signing each official copy of a song. Each owner would have verifiable right to ownership.

I could own a copy of the song, and then sell it to someone else in the same way we used to sell our CDs. Or if I died, I could pass some or all of my collection to others. The record industry might be very different now if this concept had taken root in 2000 rather than the Napster era which gave rise to the streaming services.

Another practical application of this would be that artists could sell tickets to a concert that would include an official digitally-signed recording of the concert.

A signed digital copy could not be stolen because it would be logged in the blockchain to me and music players could verify ownership against the chain. The music player doesn't even need to know who I am, just that owner #34F25-588W4-GR31b-7H20n owns a copy of that song, and the owner of the music player is or is not #34F25-588W4-GR31b-7H20n. Although let's face it, they would want to know who I am because business loves collecting data, but that's a separate issue.

[kdawg]

I can´t eat a bike. How many hamburgers i could buy w/ 12k? Comparisons are usefull.

You can’t eat a bike. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Lotito

[chasea]

But digitizing art worked so well when it was music. Everybody pays to own music.

/sarcasm off

[colker]

Buying and selling art is a business. Don't get confused and try to make the price of a work of art a statement of its value or quality as creative work.

What this shindig should tell you is that someone has a lot of money (or simulacra of money) and needs to put it somewhere.

Saying that modern fine art is in some way rotten because of this transaction is getting suckered by a shell game.

Who has $69.3 million to spend on this? Who set up this deal? What's really going on here?

It isn't art that is rotten.

Bingo.

[Corso]

If I had millions, I'd rather spend it on Art instead of a baseball card...

To each their own, I guess.

[bcm119]

In a similar vein, buy some land on earth2:
https://earth2.io/
I assume this uses NFT

[Mabouya]

Well, I'm glad the NYT was able to cause some good to come of this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/b...smid=url-share

A one-of-a-kind digital collectible item created out of a New York Times technology column sold for more than $500,000 in an auction, the first such sale in the history of the newspaper.

An image of the column — titled “Buy This Column on the Blockchain!” — was turned into a nonfungible token, or NFT, and sold in a heated auction that brought in more than 30 bids on the NFT marketplace website Foundation.
:
:
:
All proceeds from the auction will be donated to the Neediest Cases Fund, a Times-affiliated charity.

[sk_tle]

I think you misinterpret this as fine art jumped the shark. It actually hasn't and the concept is fairly clever for NFTs. If you think about the problem of digital media, its the ability to copy anything. With NFT, at least you have a block chain showing you own the 'original', but more importantly, I think you can then easily control the rights to the image. I can see the value of the NFT for any digital work.

Well it is fundamentaly broken as anyone can claim they are the owner of the 'original', pay a fee to have it NFT signed without asking permission to the original creator, and sell it. The NFT actually only bind that actual copy of a file to the person who created the token. It doesn't warrant any form of proof that the file is the original one. It just signs one particular copy and thus make it resellable and the rest is based on good old trust that the token creator is not lying. And ultimately all you own is a right on an actual signature, not the actual file or art form. As the one you might retrieve will still be another copy.

And actually, "stealing" art [1] using NFTs has already been done, some online comics authors have already been victims of that.

[1] actually selling an NFT of a copy of someone else's art

[Sino]

Art has long been a shady industry about moving money around without paying taxes and avoiding inflation by the ultra wealthy. Nothing new. </story>

[colker]

Art has long been a shady industry about moving money around without paying taxes and avoiding inflation by the ultra wealthy. Nothing new. </story>

You mean the art market.. I doubt most of the guys and gals working on a canvas right now are motivated by taxes or inflation. It´s still a self fullfillment activity.

[Sino]

You mean the art market.. I doubt most of the guys and gals working on a canvas right now are motivated by taxes or inflation. It´s still a self fullfillment activity.

Really? Yes of course I meant the art market, not artists themselves. Jesus

[Mark Kelly]

Almost on cue, a couple in Korea "defaced" a work by a soi disant graffiti artist because they thought participation was part of the work.

IMO the new graffiti will add to the value of the work, helped along by the sudden notoriety.

[vertical_doug]

Almost on cue, a couple in Korea "defaced" a work by a soi disant graffiti artist because they thought participation was part of the work.

IMO the new graffiti will add to the value of the work, helped along by the sudden notoriety.

As an australian this should come naturally to you!

[ides1056]

this comes to mind:

https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/98.298/

https://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/98.29...eK_98.298_003/