NFTs

[The Great Zaganza]

The question is: how intensive is it to create more of the NFT of this kind?

A Blockchain can indeed be "hacked" if you control a majority of the 'Tokens', since all transactions are 'voted on' whether they are legitimate or not, the assumption being at normally a currency would be widely distributed.

In this current form, NFTs are certainly not something that is going to maintain the initial valuation.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

A Blockchain can indeed be "hacked" if you control a majority of the 'Tokens', since all transactions are 'voted on' whether they are legitimate or not, the assumption being at normally a currency would be widely distributed.

You'd need to control a majority of computational power on a network, not of tokens, to perform a 51% attack, and NFTs are mostly traded on the same blockchain as currencies.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Darat

Isn’t that pretty much that the definition of art - a “in the eye of the beholder” type of deal? A painting may apparently be worth £100 until someone notices it is signed by a certain Leonardo and suddenly it is worth millions. Nothing about the artwork has changed but now it is known to be a painting by Leonardo Da Vinci it is worth more.

What will establish this as a way of “collecting” digital art will be if people can sell on the token for more than they’ve paid for it. If they can’t be sold their value will plummet and no one will be interested.

But the token isn't the art.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

But the token isn't the art.

Neither is a certificate of authenticity. But a lot of people reasonably think it's a necessary part of determining that the art you have is indeed The Art.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Neither is a certificate of authenticity. But a lot of people reasonably think it's a necessary part of determining that the art you have is indeed The Art.

But you never own the art....you only own the certificate only?

[BowlOfRed]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

But you never own the art....you only own the certificate only?

There's nothing about an NFT preventing you from "owning" the art. Some artists may be selling it to you outright, while others are probably "licensing" it for partial use. But that would be part of the contract of sale between the buyer and seller, and not a technological issue. The same is true of physical art pieces.

While the token comes from the purchase, I wouldn't say the point of the purchase is for you to "own" the token. The purchase is for you to control the object (subject to the terms of the agreement), and the token is the record of that sale.

As the NYT piece mentioned, similar concepts have been around for a while in the art world. What does it mean to "purchase" the Cattelan piece that is a banana duct taped to a wall? If your neighbor tapes a banana to his wall and you put a fresh banana on your "original", what's the difference? It's that you would have the certificate from the artist.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

You'd need to control a majority of computational power on a network, not of tokens, to perform a 51% attack, and NFTs are mostly traded on the same blockchain as currencies.

sounds like exactly the thing cybercriminals would attempt to do.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

sounds like exactly the thing cybercriminals would attempt to do.

They've already done it.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

But you never own the art....you only own the certificate only?

Think of it more like an author’s signature in your copy of his book.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by BowlOfRed

As the NYT piece mentioned, similar concepts have been around for a while in the art world. What does it mean to "purchase" the Cattelan piece that is a banana duct taped to a wall? If your neighbor tapes a banana to his wall and you put a fresh banana on your "original", what's the difference? It's that you would have the certificate from the artist.

Except the "original" can also be copied in this case?

Further, is the digital file actually different at all?

[Bikewer]

I see that Nathan Apodaca, the fellow who skateboarded to work while swigging Ocean Spray and listening to Fleetwood Mac, will be putting up the original clip of that event as an NFT... Opening bid 500K.
Of course, Nathan doesn’t have the rights to “Dreams”, and “Ocean Spray” has to be blurred out because he doesn’t have the rights to that either...

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I see that Nathan Apodaca, the fellow who skateboarded to work while swigging Ocean Spray and listening to Fleetwood Mac, will be putting up the original clip of that event as an NFT... Opening bid 500K.
Of course, Nathan doesn’t have the rights to “Dreams”, and “Ocean Spray” has to be blurred out because he doesn’t have the rights to that either...

But I thought he is only selling a certificate of authenticity?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

But I thought he is only selling a certificate of authenticity?

As already explained - you are buying a copy of the work with a certificate of authenticity to say you bought the original copy.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Darat

As already explained - you are buying a copy of the work with a certificate of authenticity to say you bought the original copy.

That part isn't clear at all. My understanding from cryptocurrency is that in the NFT case, person X generates a token (which often has similarities to the etherium coin), then transfers that token to person Y, which is protected by a private key, and that exchange is added to the ledger.

I thought the NFT purchase was only the NFT, the etherium-like token in the wallet and recorded to the ledgers. The GIF isn't recorded to the ledger.

What am I missing?

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

That part isn't clear at all. My understanding from cryptocurrency is that in the NFT case, person X generates a token (which often has similarities to the etherium coin), then transfers that token to person Y, which is protected by a private key, and that exchange is added to the ledger.

I thought the NFT purchase was only the NFT, the etherium-like token in the wallet and recorded to the ledgers. The GIF isn't recorded to the ledger.

What am I missing?

You aren’t missing anything. The artist might send you a link to the file. Such links and other details for the sale terms might be embedded in the token’s metadata.

But no, the NFT doesn’t have the actual file “attached” to it in any way.

This is the sticking point for me. I argued with my son about it last night. I say you are merely buying a token; he says, no you are buying the art. In his view, it’s enough that the artist has established the link between the piece and the token - owning the token means owning the art. My own view is that I can’t possibly own the art if there is no unique copy of the art.

Basically, he views a token as an unalterable certificate of authenticity/chain of custody “document.” It establishes the provenance of the piece, in art terms. He likens it to art forgery: someone could reproduce the Mona Lisa very skillfully to where most people couldn’t tell. Everyone could have a really good copy of the piece in their homes. But France has the established ownership of the original piece as documented by records of sale or whatever. But those records themselves can be forged or lost. An NFT is forever and cannot be altered. So even if everyone has a copy on their computer, you have the certifiable real original copy because you have the NFT in your wallet.

I’m still not completely sold on the idea but he does make some good points. My hesitation is that there is only one Mona Lisa that Leonard touched and applied paint to. You can’t say the same with a digital file. The artist only touched a mouse, keyboard and stylus. I think there’s some value to having a physical handmade product and just not this tenuous, imaginary connection between a tokenized “certificate” and an artwork.

One thing we both agree on: it’s good that artists have found a way to get paid for digital art but the technology needs to develop a bit more to establish a better link between token and artwork. One thing for sure: these tokens will retain some value if only because of their pioneering nature.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by xjx388

You aren’t missing anything. The artist might send you a link to the file. Such links and other details for the sale terms might be embedded in the token’s metadata.

But no, the NFT doesn’t have the actual file “attached” to it in any way.

This is the sticking point for me. I argued with my son about it last night. I say you are merely buying a token; he says, no you are buying the art. In his view, it’s enough that the artist has established the link between the piece and the token - owning the token means owning the art. My own view is that I can’t possibly own the art if there is no unique copy of the art.

Basically, he views a token as an unalterable certificate of authenticity/chain of custody “document.” It establishes the provenance of the piece, in art terms. He likens it to art forgery: someone could reproduce the Mona Lisa very skillfully to where most people couldn’t tell. Everyone could have a really good copy of the piece in their homes. But France has the established ownership of the original piece as documented by records of sale or whatever. But those records themselves can be forged or lost. An NFT is forever and cannot be altered. So even if everyone has a copy on their computer, you have the certifiable real original copy because you have the NFT in your wallet.

I’m still not completely sold on the idea but he does make some good points. My hesitation is that there is only one Mona Lisa that Leonard touched and applied paint to. You can’t say the same with a digital file. The artist only touched a mouse, keyboard and stylus. I think there’s some value to having a physical handmade product and just not this tenuous, imaginary connection between a tokenized “certificate” and an artwork.

One thing we both agree on: it’s good that artists have found a way to get paid for digital art but the technology needs to develop a bit more to establish a better link between token and artwork. One thing for sure: these tokens will retain some value if only because of their pioneering nature.

But the artist doesn't have to give you that certified original? I thought the only thing you are buying is the token?

And if they do provide it, if you copy that certified original, are they both certified? Further, how does the token link to that copy?

[BowlOfRed]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Except the "original" can also be copied in this case?

Are you asking if it's legal to copy or if it's technically possible to copy?

I'm sure there are some exceptions, but it seems just about anything that we call created art can be copied, but for many physical objects the cost of doing so and the loss of fidelity can be very high. (Yes, I'm sure "copying" a Christo piece where the location is part of it is not very possible). Digital art is only different in that the cost of very-high-fidelity copies is near zero.

Quote:

Further, is the digital file actually different at all?

Different from what? In some cases the token is for a file that is not generally available, so only the owner would be able to copy it. In many other cases, the file is generally available. So someone that wants to view/display it without paying will have no technical restrictions from doing so (copyright/contract may prevent it).

[BowlOfRed]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

But the artist doesn't have to give you that certified original? I thought the only thing you are buying is the token?

I think that's a poor way to think about it. In most cases, you are buying some right to the original piece (although that right may be vague). It's just that when the original is a 5kb file that has been downloaded a billion times on the internet, there is no such thing as the "original". It's just a file that most people agree was created by a particular artist.

When perfect digital copies exist, the concept of "original" is difficult to define. The artist can let you download it again if you want. Maybe you already had access to the art and want to use the token to reward them. Kind of how folks buy $80 music CDs from public TV stations. You could get the music more cheaply elsewhere, but you're using the purchase as an excuse to give the station money.

The specific thing you get would be part of any purchase negotiation. Maybe it's spelled out in a digital store, maybe you ask about it because this is a one-time sale. The token doesn't change that part.

Quote:

And if they do provide it, if you copy that certified original, are they both certified? Further, how does the token link to that copy?

You can copy the token, but the token has information about a

• purchase (with a purchase price)
• Seller
• Buyer
• Information field.

You can copy the token, but all the information in the token remains. What you can't do is modify the information in the token. You can't scribble out that Bill Gates made the purchase and put your account in there instead. Or technically, I would say if you did do that, the token would not verify. Likewise you can't take a token for a $1.99 thing and replace that you paid the equivalent of $200000 for a Banksy.

The information field can contain anything to tie back to the original. It could be a URL describing the piece, or it could be a cryptographic hash of the file.

The token allows verfication. I have art on my wall and say it's a Rembrandt. It might be something I inherited. It might be a real Rembrandt, but it's on loan. It might be a fake that was copied well.

To some people, none of those states would be different. The fact that I have a piece of art with a dude in a funny hat, and you can see the brush strokes on it is good enough.

To some people, knowing the exact provenance of that piece is important. The token is an expression of provenance for things that can be copied so easily and with such fidelity that the idea of an "original" copy loses meaning.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by BowlOfRed

I think that's a poor way to think about it. In most cases, you are buying some right to the original piece (although that right may be vague). It's just that when the original is a 5kb file that has been downloaded a billion times on the internet, there is no such thing as the "original". It's just a file that most people agree was created by a particular artist.

When perfect digital copies exist, the concept of "original" is difficult to define. The artist can let you download it again if you want. Maybe you already had access to the art and want to use the token to reward them. Kind of how folks buy $80 music CDs from public TV stations. You could get the music more cheaply elsewhere, but you're using the purchase as an excuse to give the station money.

The specific thing you get would be part of any purchase negotiation. Maybe it's spelled out in a digital store, maybe you ask about it because this is a one-time sale. The token doesn't change that part.



You can copy the token, but the token has information about a

• purchase (with a purchase price)
• Seller
• Buyer
• Information field.

You can copy the token, but all the information in the token remains. What you can't do is modify the information in the token. You can't scribble out that Bill Gates made the purchase and put your account in there instead. Or technically, I would say if you did do that, the token would not verify. Likewise you can't take a token for a $1.99 thing and replace that you paid the equivalent of $200000 for a Banksy.

The information field can contain anything to tie back to the original. It could be a URL describing the piece, or it could be a cryptographic hash of the file.

The token allows verfication. I have art on my wall and say it's a Rembrandt. It might be something I inherited. It might be a real Rembrandt, but it's on loan. It might be a fake that was copied well.

To some people, none of those states would be different. The fact that I have a piece of art with a dude in a funny hat, and you can see the brush strokes on it is good enough.

To some people, knowing the exact provenance of that piece is important. The token is an expression of provenance for things that can be copied so easily and with such fidelity that the idea of an "original" copy loses meaning.

Let me rephrase....does the piece of art possess some metadata linking it to the token? If I delete my copy, then download a random copy somewhere else, is there anything different about the piece of art itself?

Further, why not just purchase the rights to the art by conventional means? I don't understand the bragging rights argument. Bezos owns something completely digital (his stock) that is conventionally owned and he has a bunch of bragging rights (so does his ex).

ETA: it seems the real bragging rights is the ability to use the copyright.

ETA2: still not clear what an NFT does that a conventional contract and receipt cannot

[BowlOfRed]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Let me rephrase....does the piece of art possess some metadata linking it to the token? If I delete my copy, then download a random copy somewhere else, is there anything different about the piece of art itself?

In the general case, this would not be expected. Likewise there is no note on the back of a Rembrandt mentioning what the certificate of authenticity should look like. The art is (in the vast majority of cases) created independently.

Now, if the format happens to support notes (not all do), there's nothing preventing the creator from putting a note about a purchase in the file. But here's the thing... putting that note in the file would change it. It wouldn't change how the art displays, but in a very real sense, such a file would be less of an original than it was without that note. Certainly it would be a chicken-and-egg problem if you wanted a cryptographic hash of the original in the token.

Whether it would be possible to re-download it depends on how the piece had been previously distributed and sold. It may only exist elsewhere as low-res versions. Or it may be widely distributed. Yes it's possible that the thing you're getting rights to exists elsewhere in exact form. Then again, your ISP has a copy of it while you execute the download. Does that count?

Quote:

Further, why not just purchase the rights to the art by conventional means? I don't understand the bragging rights argument. Bezos owns something completely digital (his stock) that is conventionally owned and he has a bunch of bragging rights (so does his ex).

I'm sure some do purchase it that way. Movies didn't disappear when TV came out. This is a new way for folks to express information about a purchase that gets around some pain points with other methods. It's exciting for some and confounding to others.....kind of like art.

[BowlOfRed]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

ETA2: still not clear what an NFT does that a conventional contract and receipt cannot

A conventional contract and receipt can be forged or faked. For an artist with a public account of the correct type, NFTs can be verified to be true. (It doesn't solve problems with ownership. Someone could forge a token if the seller's account can't be independently verified to be the true creator)

Also for folks already working with Etherium, this is just another message. If you're not dealing with it now, it's an odd hurdle. But for others, this is a super-simple way to create a receipt.

[BowlOfRed]

John Cleese will sell you (his painting of) the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT.

https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/statu...44852325789704

[TragicMonkey]

Why can't art be art and investments be investments? I'll never understand why people always want to combine separate incompatible things.

[gnome]

I feel the same way about collectible toys and comic books. If I buy a toy based on my favorite fandom show, it's because I want to put it on my desk and mess with it when I'm bored. If I buy a comic book it's because I want to read the story in it. I felt that way as a kid and still feel that way now.

If I'm looking for a way to make money it seems like an oddly complicated and unreliable approach.

[Olmstead]

How I assume it went down:

"Oh my God, I just had the dumbest idea."

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by BowlOfRed

John Cleese will sell you (his painting of) the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT.

https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/statu...44852325789704

Currently sitting at $36,000.

There's good money to be made in satirizing this stuff. Dogecoin was started as a parody of also-ran cryptocurrencies, and has a market cap in the billions, even when Elon Musk isn't using his army of weird nerds to inflate its value.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Why can't art be art and investments be investments? I'll never understand why people always want to combine separate incompatible things.

Totally agree. One should buy art because they like it, period. This is a corrupting influence on the art world, I think.

[Bikewer]

There have been a number of articles recently about the cozy relationship between major auction houses and wealthy investors.... Apparently a lot of artwork is offered to the wealthy clients without ever seeing an auction catalog, and the art is promptly salted away for it’s potential investment value.

[JoeMorgue]

David Wong (yeah him again, I know I bring him up a lot) pretty much predicted this in all but name back in 2010 with his Cracked.com article "5 Reasons the Future Will Be Ruled By B.S." where he said that once things actually started to become post-scarcity, the only way for society to keep functioning was by creating artificial scarcity.

https://www.cracked.com/article_1881...d-by-b.s..html

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Why can't art be art and investments be investments? I'll never understand why people always want to combine separate incompatible things.

Art has been high value for most of history. In ancient China or renaissance Europe, the wealth to create art involved scarce materials and the trained labor of a specialist artist.

Things of high value have always been tangled up in investment. Land, houses, precious metals, commodities, oil.

It would be sort of a new and novel thing to the extent that art could extricate itself from investment.

I'm actually a fan of Bread and Puppets' "Cheap art" concept

https://breadandpuppet.org/cheap-art...-art-manifesto

As part of their art practice, they produce prints and offer them at a few bucks each or (in my experience at least way back when) given free to people who want them but don't have the money. And their work is lovely if you ask me.

[Cavemonster]

I can see in some sense a problem trying to be solved.

If I put my labor into my fields and grow potatoes, someone has to pay me if they want to eat one of the potatoes I grow.

If I put my labor into art... well as soon as we had inexpensive printing, it became easy to enjoy the fruits of an artists work without transacting with them, to reproduce the benefits indefinitely.

A potato is as difficult to copy as it is to grow. The scarcity of potatoes is related to the labor to make one. Art that doesn't depend on the physical object has no scarcity in the digital age. The cost to reproduce is negligable, the easy to copy and share or take is negligable. So that puts artists in an odd place compared to potato farmers.

It's a strange world where everyone enjoys potatoes and art (of some kind) but only pays for the potatoes.

I think this as a solution is dumb for a great number of reasons, but the problem is meaningful.

[JoeMorgue]

It's essentially the problem with post-scarcity.

It's a great idea as long as you jump straight into a world where it's the norm because any transitional phase to to get to it is literally impossible to even begin to imagine.

That's why post-scarcity sci-fi stories always START there and how they got there is glossed over and vague.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I can see in some sense a problem trying to be solved.

If I put my labor into my fields and grow potatoes, someone has to pay me if they want to eat one of the potatoes I grow.

If I put my labor into art... well as soon as we had inexpensive printing, it became easy to enjoy the fruits of an artists work without transacting with them, to reproduce the benefits indefinitely.

A potato is as difficult to copy as it is to grow. The scarcity of potatoes is related to the labor to make one. Art that doesn't depend on the physical object has no scarcity in the digital age. The cost to reproduce is negligable, the easy to copy and share or take is negligable. So that puts artists in an odd place compared to potato farmers.

It's a strange world where everyone enjoys potatoes and art (of some kind) but only pays for the potatoes.

I think this as a solution is dumb for a great number of reasons, but the problem is meaningful.

There needs to be a shift in how people perceive what paying for art (or entertainment in general) means.The current perception is still that you pay for the piece of art itself, but that's hogwash unless it's an actual physical object. What you're really doing at the most basic level is investing in an artist. What the artist has created pleases you, and you'd like to give him the opportunity to create more, kind of like a blind Kickstarter.

[JoeMorgue]

There was. The problem is the shift was to "Why can't I get it for free if someone else has already paid for it?" with items which can be replicated at no (or near no) cost.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Art has been high value for most of history. In ancient China or renaissance Europe, the wealth to create art involved scarce materials and the trained labor of a specialist artist.

Things of high value have always been tangled up in investment. Land, houses, precious metals, commodities, oil.

It would be sort of a new and novel thing to the extent that art could extricate itself from investment.

To paraphrase Terry Pratchett on opera: you put money in and get art. Art is the product, it's the goal. You shouldn't put money into art in the hopes you'll get money out of it again, in larger quantities. That people do, and sometimes successfully, isn't necessarily a good thing. Either for them, the art, or their finances.

But then I don't believe people should regard their housing as an investment either, and most people appear to do that, so I recognize I'm going against the grain on this. I can only assume that most people are crazy.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

There needs to be a shift in how people perceive what paying for art (or entertainment in general) means.The current perception is still that you pay for the piece of art itself, but that's hogwash unless it's an actual physical object. What you're really doing at the most basic level is investing in an artist. What the artist has created pleases you, and you'd like to give him the opportunity to create more, kind of like a blind Kickstarter.

They have some things like that, one is called "Patreon"

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

You shouldn't put money into art in the hopes you'll get money out of it again, in larger quantities.

This. The whole "Oh just make art and if people like it they will pay you" is foolish.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

There needs to be a shift in how people perceive what paying for art (or entertainment in general) means.The current perception is still that you pay for the piece of art itself, but that's hogwash unless it's an actual physical object. What you're really doing at the most basic level is investing in an artist. What the artist has created pleases you, and you'd like to give him the opportunity to create more, kind of like a blind Kickstarter.

I've been trying to conceptulize this and I've come to the same kinds of conclusions you have. The best analogy I can come up with is music.

We saw this shift in music, kind of. When most of us, back in the day, bought physical media, we thought "we are buying the music." A lot of us made mixtapes for friends or just recorded whole albums for them without even thinking about the idea that we didn't buy the actual music, we bought a license to listen to the music personally. You could say that the physical media was nothing but a token that said you had the right to listen to that music, music which was readily available for free everywhere -a primative, physical NFT-like thing.

When it became possible to digitize music files, this created a problem for artists and the music industry. P2P sharing nearly killed the industry. They had to come up with a digital way of controlling rights. Now, most of us subscribe to some music service or another which is kind of like an iteration of what became the NFT, a subscription tied to your email and secured with a password that serves as a digital license to listen to the music personally. When you buy a digital album, you are recording a transaction in the, say, Apple Store which gives you a similar license.

So, I can see an NFT being, essentially, a digital license transacted on the blockchain. If an artist sells only one license, only the buyer has the right to say they own the actual art, much like only CD owners had the right to actually listen to the music on their stereo systems. If a music act only sold 1 CD of their music, sure, the music might proliferate freely online but that CD would probably be pretty valuable.

Maybe not perfect, but about the closest I can come to making sense of it. Essentially, buying a CD or buying an NFT is showing support for artists you like and officially having the rights to listen to/display/whatever that art.

[bruto]

I think it's an interesting and convoluted corruption of what art is, and what scarcity is worth.

Traditionally, we would acquire, and hopefully buy, art because we like it, and if we guess right, it becomes valuable. Peripherally, of course, we start looking to that second part and trying to predict it, but still, the basic idea is that we, or someone in the world, likes the art for what it is. Scarcity is largely a necessary byproduct of the way art is made.

Now, it seems, we're buying art whose value is its price and its engineered scarcity, with the content secondary.

The NFT market is further complicated, I think, by the fact that blockchain transactions are huge consumers of energy. So in yet another way, the value of an NFT is peripheral to what it is, and its rarity depends on its extravagant unsustainability,

It reminds me a little of dining on Komodo lizard and hummingbird tongues, or owning an exotic car that never starts.

[JoeMorgue]

You can't make a business on giving away what the person actually wants hoping a side hustle of selling auxillary items will magically cover it.

An artist has to be able to make a living selling their art, not giving their art away (or having no functional to sell it on anything but the honor system) and make their actual living selling novelty keychains or Fortnite Skins.