> Do you think nobody wants the bragging rights of owning that?

It would be nice to believe that eventually we evolve beyond bragging about being an idiot.

> I certainly do

...

> Maybe NFTs will not endure, which is a risk for anyone playing a pioneering role in a new genre. That is why the price was not $200 million or more. In any case, this is a world in which Marcel Duchamp’s urinal sculpture still is exhibited in major museums, regarded by many critics as a masterpiece of the 20th century, and it sold at auction for $1.6 million in 2002. Canvases painted a single color, and other forms of abstract and conceptual art, remain a major part of recent art history and can sell for tens of millions.

> The point is not to argue over what qualifies as “art.” It is simply that it is a mistake to assume that NFTs will fail in the art world.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-17/the-nf...

> Canvases painted a single color, and other forms of abstract and conceptual art, remain a major part of recent art history and can sell for tens of millions.

I don't think anyone's under the impression that people paying lots of money for extremely stupid things is a recent phenomenon. I deride those buying single-colour canvasses for 8 figure price tags just the same as I deride anyone buying into the litany of crypto pyramid schemes.

I once wandered through a museum with a modern art collection. Several of the pieces looked like literal trash to me. I wasn't sure if the security guards were there to keep people from stealing the art or keep the janitors from taking the art out to the dumpster :-)

I get it that some people buy it as investments, hoping to find a sucker to sell it to at a higher price. But that just sounds like pump-and-dump to me. Or maybe it's rich people who have run out of fun things to do with their money.

Me, I'd rather do what Elon Musk does. I wanted to buy stock in SpaceX, but it is privately held, so I bought TSLA instead. Lucked out on that one.

This is a misdirection. No one upthread was saying anything is or isn't art. This isn't about art. This about NFT.

Technically it's an artwork that is a commentary om NFTs.

People doubting that a thing is actually art at all seems to be a fairly consistent marker of something being good art.

It's fresh, it's pushing boundaries, it's making people think and wonder, it's generating snark and discussion.

If readymades are art, if a blank canvas is art, then art is just a scam!

Not sure if it will stand the test of time though (I mean technically in terms of the artifacts persisting, and conceptually, aka whether it will still be interesting in 10 years or seen as a fad).

> People doubting that a thing is actually art at all seems to be a fairly consistent marker of something being good art.

Survivorship bias. The successes are highly visible, and we never hear of the failures.

> If readymades are art, if a blank canvas is art, then art is just a scam!

Ceci n'est pas une pipe. All art is a kind of deception.

I'd point out that one thing about "con job" art like that is that, compared to craftsmanship art, where there's a steady paycheck for skilled work, "con art" is, well, the lottery. Tons of people try, and the vast majority make absolutely nothing.

Meanwhile, in craftsman's art fields (all of the many ingredients that go into filmmaking, videogames, etc), if you're merely competent at what you do, it's like being a programmer - you learn the skills, and you get a job doing it, and my goodness - it pays a salary. There's no lottery involved. If you're a good matte painter, concept artist, 3d modeller, et cetera, illustrator, figure artist, etc, etc - people gladly pay money for it.

--

Anecdotally, as someone in the games industry (and knowing some folks in film), the difference between these two fields (con art and skilled art) is pretty stark. Every person I've know who's tried to do con art has failed to make a career out of it, and every person who's gotten a degree-equivalent level of skill/effort into skilled art has earned a living doing it (in much the same way they would in programming).

> every person who's gotten a degree-equivalent level of skill/effort into skilled art has earned a living doing it

Not for the folks I know. I know plenty of authors, painters, photographers, and ex-film-students who need day jobs. It's practically a trope. These are people with degrees in the subject who have already made professional money at it, but can't make enough steady money with it.

(guessing here) If you met these people on the job, you'd know a lot more gainfully employed folks simply by definition.

The success is part of the art. A highschool kid scribbling "this is not a pipe" next to a pipe in his notebook is not the same as an accomplished artist convincing a gallery to feature it in an exhibition.

> The success is part of the art

Not necessarily. Creators who toil in obscurity during life but receive posthumous recognition do happen.

Sure, but is still their accomplishment. The scribbling in the notebook would never receive eventual recognition unless something remarkable happened.

This is like saying, "denial means someone is probably lying"

Exactly. There’s little I’d like less than bragging about having spent my life savings on a JPEG that everyone has but that I “own”...

This is just giving regular ppl like you (or any meme culture creator) a similar sort of markup that was reserved for the Ralph Lauren's or any stupid designer item whose raw materials were mostly just vapor.

Luxury and self-image and [silent] bragging rights were always part of the economy, now it just also includes lulz, which happen to be much more accessible to create :)

I don't think the person spending $50k does it with his lifes saving.

You don't buy a jpeg, you buy the unique item that John Cleese sold.

Same for movie props. You can buy a nice lightsaber below $200. The ones that were used in the movies... a bit more.

> You don't buy a jpeg, you buy the unique item that John Cleese sold.

A NFT is not an item.

> Same for movie props. You can buy a nice lightsaber below $200. The ones that were used in the movies... a bit more.

Those are things. There is no correlation. NFT is selling you a pointer. It's a hash that on one software platform says "that thing over there". When Bob buys a NFT, he isn't buying a lightsaber that he can display, loan out, or hold . Bob is buying a number.

Right, but in this case, you're buying a number provably owned by John Cleese, as part of a performance piece where he sold a token representing the Brooklyn Bridge, as a commentary on the entire concept of selling numbers. It's meta, it's brilliant, it's popular, (it's absolutely going to devalue the other Brooklyn Bridge NFT I own because mine was minted first but this one's more popular), it's ART.

That's a good point, and I think you're right for this one instance. It's an exceptional case and the artistic statement literally can't be made without NFT. He's telling a joke and the fact that someone will buy the NFT is itself the punchline.

If Bob buys a movie prop lightsaber for $10,000 and a fully quality replica costs $200, then Bob has only bought $200 worth of something he can display, loan out, or hold. The remainder of the price is made up of the intangible connection to the film and artists.

I see what you're saying that the authenticity and the connection have some value. That value is intrinsic to the object itself though. NFT is asking us to pretend that that "intangible connection" can be parceled out for speculators as collectible magic numbers while the real lightsaber hopefully sits in Lucasfilm's warehouse.

Sure, but this NFT was specifically valued for the interaction of the sale of this NFT. Just like buying Dorsey's Tweet is. It's just pure commoditized interaction without a base good under it.

I do agree that it's completely ridiculous, but I feel that way about the stock market.

The main (and dangerous) difference with the NFT stuff is that society doesn't agree any of this stuff is valuable. It's a bit like what happens when a conquering power comes in and existing land titles become meaningless. A good example of this was real estate moguls in prewar Japan, many of whom had spent centuries gradually accumulating land tenancy over tons of other people - but as soon as WW2 happened, one of the big changes that transformed that country was that all of those land titles were simply dissolved.

Just, -poof-. Gone.

Ownership of that land was simply taken from them, and evenly divided amongst their tenants.

There's a very similar danger with i.e. property rights inside of videogames and stuff - until and unless there's case law about it, I can go into my buddy's proverbial minecraft server, wreck all of his (potentially months of) work, and there's really nothing he can do about it. I might lose a friend over it, but I won't lose a lawsuit.

The illustrative bit about the minecraft server is I'm at the mercy of "the community of people who agrees that thing has value", and in this case, it's one person.

I'd assume part of the artistic statement being made here ties exactly to your point about land. It's ultimately just ALL certificates that are unconnected to possession of the physical space. The difference between owning the NFT and owning the bridge is a matter of scale; of how many people buy into the worth of your scrap of digital paper.

NFTs imply there is a platform which supports the contract and blocks all non-ownership AND people will use no other platforms

Not necessarily.

It would be more impressive if Jack can sell his first tweet, once on each major platform. Now they are somewhat fungible, non fungible titles. If one is worth more than the other, why?

While I agree with you on the surface, it not being able to be displayed is not really true. Bob may not hang it up on their wall or hold but they can put it on their website. Bob can make a dedicated personal museum showing their ownership live streamed in vrchat and altspacevr. Bob can constantly talk about it on their social media. Bob can be an equally big asshole about this as if they could hold it physically.

Thats not something that translates into digital content. That original lightsaber is valuable because it is unique, it can never be recreated, a jpeg is infinitely reproducible, thus less valuable

"item"

I don't like NFTs but your comment triggered a counter argument in my head.

People buy and collect all kinds of worthless tuff. I know several people that spent between $3k and $10k on Magic the Gathering cards. From a non-player's perspective it's ridiculous. The cards are worthless and you could just print out images of the cards on a printer or copy machine if all you cared about was playing the game itself.

And yet people do it.

Is a NFT really any different? Is it wrong for people to spend their money on whatever they want?

I don’t think anyone will disagree that money will be made by keen NFT creators and collectors, much like money is made by anyone peddling collectibles. The part of the argument where I depart is when proponents argue that this is somehow a transformative technology.

It’s digital baseball cards and pet rocks, “but crypto”.

I also remain convinced that NFTs are a fad in their current iteration. To use a rough analogy, NFTs are taking the record store into crypto when the future lies in building Spotify/Netflix in crypto.

Collecting is fine, buying is fine - as long as the goal is not bragging. The problem is bragging.

Wizards of the Coast are making a game. I don’t doubt that the secondary market eventually changed how they operated but at base, they are a game company. That’s ethically different from someone that sets out to create a Ponzi scheme.

I suppose one can “brag” about most anything. Seems to me, though, that a brag about “owning” an arbitrary sequence of bytes is pretty damn empty.

Overcome a challenge that presses your personal limitations? Worthy of a brag: you took up the task, persevered, and conquered.

Open your wallet to purchase something? I just don’t see that there’s any legitimate boasting to be had there: any damn fool with the same money could do it. There is no challenge, there is no accomplishment, there is nothing to be proud of at all. It’s such empty bragging.

IMO people who brag about owning things have deep personal insecurities and would be better off putting the money spent towards therapy.

Having a unique and quirky item is worth a brag.

Bragging with an expensive Rolex is very different than bragging with the NFT of a terrible image of the Brooklyn Bridge by John Cleese who sold it as a joke.

Except there is nothing unique about it.

Nor anything unique about a Rolex. Can’t see how a purchased watch qualifies for bragging. It takes no skill, no dedication, no smarts, no gumption to open one’s wallet to purchase a watch.

The person who built the watch might have something to brag about.

A Rolex is an actual thing with a function and an intrinsic value. It can be copied, but only at a significant cost.

John Cleese has done how many pieces of architectural art now?

> Open your wallet to purchase something? I just don’t see that there’s any legitimate boasting to be had there: any damn fool with the same money could do it.

The item isn’t the brag. The purchase is. People don’t buy Rolxes because because it doesn’t anything radically different than a $50 watch. They buy it because it tells people they have money. That’s what art is. That’s what NFT is.

> That’s what NFT is.

Yeah, but who gives a shit whether it's centralized or not?

If some intrepid reporter figured out that NFT has a backdoor that means it is being controlled as a-- god forbid-- centralized service, what bad thing happens to the dipshit who paid a million dollars for Rick and Morty digital art?

I agree with you 100%.

I cant think of anything more depressing than saying art is showing off you have money.

Do you think the person that buys a Picasso is:

A) The world biggest fan of Cubism and a lifelong fan of Picasso.

B) A person with a shitload of money, that has nowhere else to put the money than in some famous artwork.

I am not saying that all art is like this. But I am saying that a large part of the fine arts world is like this.

I will remember this. I even bookmarked that tweet, and it cost me nothing.

I’ve created an NFT of a bookmark to the tweet. Starting bid is 1000 Doge.

to the moon!

Joke aside, what's to prevent anyone from selling an NFT for "the first NFT"? They've done it for tweets... And what would that make of their claim of "verifiable unique" ownership?

A claim of ownership requires one thing ... other people to believe it.

c.f.: http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/

At least those who bought pixels on that page got something for it.

That's what I remember. At some point is all of this advertising? a well-known property that people are aware of?

This isn't really convincing. If NFTs are only valuable when celebrities sell them as part of a fad, then they have absolutely failed to meet the "correspondence to ground" point.

How about if somebody sells NFTs and then becomes famous? Maybe they become famous for NFT art, maybe not.

Chances are most will expire worthless, but a select few may be early works from people who go down in history.

> This NFT is not "The Brooklyn Bridge", this NFT is "Remember when John Cleese sold the Brooklyn Bridge NFT".

You certainly seem to be right, but where's the authority for that observation coming from? Or what would the actual Brooklyn Bridge look like as an NFT?

It's like you get to pay to be part of a joke with John Cleese. I think it's worth something too.

*Edit: Too late to delete, but my sarcastic comment is likely against site rules. Apologies