NFT is a modern day lazy excuse for Art

[Free Agent]

I'm not a artsy fartsy but all these people paying for NFT and saying it's art. I don't get it.

This picture of a bored ape went for $450000. You kidding. It's a digital meme and anyone can get a copy of it. There's no physical art in it. I copied it right now just to put it here. I got the art now. Took a second to download. And before you say its not the original copy. Well the person who paid $450k for it doesn't have the original either. Unless they handed over the computer. That's the only way. They hand over the computer to claim it's original. Without the computer it can't be claimed as original as it would be transfered like I just did here. Hey look I got proof it's original art. This computer made it and I have the computer it was made from lol. Password for the computer is password. Can only open it if you use open by admin. Original physical copies don't exist at all. They are a free for all for everyone.

It's just lazy to me. People go to art gallerys to see actual paintings made with actual skill. Paint brushes, oil on canvas ect. A meme made from a computer isn't art. How stupid can people be. I'm just going start making memes from my computer and put $500k tags on them. Don't worry about going to a art gallery. Just transfer them on a USB. I got the art gallery in my pocket.

Leonardo Da Vinci is spinning in his grave right now looking at NFTs.

Sent from my CPH2025 using Tapatalk

 

[perthblue]

Isn't all art just money laundering/tax evasion for the ultra-rich?

 

[74561347]

which is stupid because a washing machine is cheaper than art and can launder your money just fine

 

[Free Agent]

Isn't all art just money laundering/tax evasion for the ultra-rich?

Yeah probably. Explains why Eminem bought it given how rich he is. NFT is a easy way for tax evasion.

Why hasn't governments banned NFTS for fraud and tax evasion.

Although I doubt Eminem would get his money back even if he did it for tax evasion. Who the hell would buy it if he decides to sell it. That $450k is basically giving away money with no way to make a return.

Sent from my CPH2025 using Tapatalk

 

[Caesar]

Isn't all art just money laundering/tax evasion for the ultra-rich?

not really - its attraction to rich people is mostly due to the way it differs from other asset classes

art is not very fungible (because artworks are unique), nor is it very elastic (because once an artist dies, they aren't making any more). The market for art is not very efficient/transparent/regulated - which means if you have the money, you can buy yourself an edge. Plus, the art market is not highly correlated with the equities market, which arguably makes it a decent option for hedging (especially against inflation).

It also has added the advantage that you can show it off and enjoy it. Most conspicuous consumption is a loss-making enterprise - expensive yachts, fancy villas, luxury cars all depreciate - art doesn't. In fact, although returns on art can be a bit unpredictable, at the top end of certain sectors they are generally pretty downside-safe (e.g. you are unlikely to ever have to sell a Renoir for less than you paid)

 

[Free Agent]

not really - its attraction to rich people is mostly due to the way it differs from other asset classes

art is not very fungible (because artworks are unique), nor is it very elastic (because once an artist dies, they aren't making any more). The market for art is not very efficient/transparent/regulated - which means if you have the money, you can buy yourself an edge. Plus, the art market is not highly correlated with the equities market, which arguably makes it a decent option for hedging (especially against inflation).

It also has added the advantage that you can show it off and enjoy it. Most conspicuous consumption is a loss-making enterprise - expensive yachts, fancy villas, luxury cars all depreciate - art doesn't. In fact, although returns on art can be a bit unpredictable, at the top end of certain sectors they are generally pretty downside-safe (e.g. you are unlikely to ever have to sell a Renoir for less than you paid)

Art is safe if we are referring to actual art like physical paintings.

NFTs on the other hand. Very risky and bad idea as isn't a piece of physical art. Couldn't even get it evaluated. There is no history or skill behind them. Give it a few years and this fraud of art will be gone. None of them will be worth a cent. Just a 15 minutes of fame right now because it's a new idea to use it for tax evasion from rich people. Probally get banned and made illegal soon once the governments figure it out.

 

[Caesar]

Art is safe if we are referring to actual art like physical paintings.

NFTs on the other hand. Very risky and bad idea as isn't a piece of physical art. Couldn't even get it evaluated. There absolutely no history behind them.

Sent from my CPH2025 using Tapatalk

I don't really put any value on NFTs but I think you are getting a bit caught up in what is or isn't art - a lot of the value of art has always come down to artificial scarcity, long before NFTs existed.

Take Auguste Rodin's Thinker, which has been cast many times - including a limited run of 12 made by his museum subsequent to his death. These 12 statues were cast by the same foundry used by Rodin, using Rodin's original moulds - functionally identical to many of the statues cast during his lifetime. Yet they are worth substantially less. Why? No good reason, really.

It's certainly plausible that one day an NFT proven to be issued by a digital artist could become the 'authentic' version of that work, and hold value simply because it is deemed as such. Although I certainly can't say it's enough to convince me to 'invest'.

 

[Evolved1]

The valuation of some NFT's make no sense unless you understand crypto. Dogecoin, which started as a joke had a market capitalisation of $90 billion USD at its peak last year. Bored Ape NFT's have scarcity, and basically trade in the same manner as other cryptocurrencies.

Owning a bored ape has more appeal to me than owing a doggy meme coin.

Whether the art itself is worth what people are paying for it is another matter altogether, but there are buyers at those prices. A lot of it is wash trading too.

 

[dumb]

I'm not a artsy fartsy but all these people paying for NFT and saying it's art. I don't get it.

This picture of a bored ape went for $450000. You kidding. It's a digital meme and anyone can get a copy of it. There's no physical art in it. I copied it right now just to put it here. I got the art now. Took a second to download. And before you say its not the original copy. Well the person who paid $450k for it doesn't have the original either. Unless they handed over the computer. That's the only way. They hand over the computer to claim it's original. Without the computer it can't be claimed as original as it would be transfered like I just did here. Hey look I got proof it's original art. This computer made it and I have the computer it was made from lol. Password for the computer is password. Can only open it if you use open by admin. Original physical copies don't exist at all. They are a free for all for everyone.

It's just lazy to me. People go to art gallerys to see actual paintings made with actual skill. Paint brushes, oil on canvas ect. A meme made from a computer isn't art. How stupid can people be. I'm just going start making memes from my computer and put $500k tags on them. Don't worry about going to a art gallery. Just transfer them on a USB. I got the art gallery in my pocket.

Leonardo Da Vinci is spinning in his grave right now looking at NFTs.

Sent from my CPH2025 using Tapatalk

i haven't retained all of the deep dive into NFT's i took one time. but to my possibly limited understanding, you're thinking in terms of the image to look at. the original comes with metadata and encryptions which denotes it as the original copy. whether that means it's worth whatever someone is paying for it is another question.
this too is separate from copyright. you may have a copy, but you're unable to reproduce it for financial gain.

i've thought of entering the market as a seller as i work in the arts sector (both an artist and 'actual' arts job) but don't quite have the time to commit.

one thing that NFT's seem to have over the bricks and mortar institutions is their inbuilt capacity to pay royalties. the original artist can be more easily paid for work that is on-sold, a much more difficult prospect in the real world especially at the lower end of the market where there may not be proper attention paid to providence. this is one thing that makes it very attractive to consider as a creator.
i don't know whether the same technology that allows the original creator to be paid royalties from onselling extends to creating an electronic providence, if you will. this would add further value to NFT's if it's going through the hands (sorry, hard drives) of particular individuals.

if you want to talk about a downside, it's that NFT's require particular platforms and technology to be exchanged, and they need electricity to run that technology to be exchanged and retain value.