Re:NFT's aren't the answer to the problems of digital art
by mattdesl on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @06:42AM
(#29160360)
Signed prints are not necessarily cheap—see Ansel Adams prints going for nearly $1M USD[1]. It becomes a matter of what price society (or, perhaps just a handful of buyers) is willing to place on the artefact.
One of the great things with provenance on the blockchain is that it is not solely dependent on private for-profit auction houses like Christie's and Sotheby's to track provenance of the art we are creating.
By the way, NFT is programmable: it can define whatever you are willing to upload & embed onto the blockchain.
I'd recommend [2] if you are curious to understand this topic a little deeper.
[1] - https://www.dpreview.com/news/4925755857/iconic-ansel-adams-...
[2] - https://jackrusher.com/journal/what-does-it-mean-to-buy-a-gi...
you don't, that's partly why they are cheaper, that and there are more of them.
> If the provenance of that artefact can be reliably tracked over the years, then you can also be fairly certain.
This is why auction houses are a thing, its also why eBay are spending loads of cash with their verification services. They have provenance tracers, and "experts" who try to assert that something is "real"
> Obviously, a signed inkjet print can be forged more easily than a NFT,
Apart from looking at the specs, you can only embed the URL in the NFT: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-721 so the only thing thats really guaranteed is the URL and metadata. as soon as you download the NFT, it ceases to be the NFT anymore.