Ah. The "NFTs are no more silly than the traditional art world" argument. ;-)

Joking aside - NFTs have more in common with concepts of intellectual property than they do physical works of art. Physical objects have scarcity for mostly physical reasons. IP and NFTs have scarcity because we've decided they should.

Tbh, a large part of the art market can indeed be called a scam that only exists as a tax evasion opportunity. Maybe that shouldn’t be the template for the so called Web3.

However even HN must admit the art world is a real industry, with a lot of big money players, and the reason things have value is not in the quality of the art.

I see the same argument rehashed over and over, and it's the same reason HN as a collective never understood or embraced crypto in general - a total lack of understanding combined with a total lack of imagination.

So you're telling me NFTs are exactly like an industry that exists almost entirely to service the ultra-wealthy looking for new ways to hide their assets and/or show off with conspicuous consumption? That's pretty much all I need to hear to decide it's a bunch of BS. Find a use for NFTs that affects those of us without massive disposable income, and maybe I'll be impressed.

I think if we can convince HN that NFTs are essentially the art market, then that would be a huge upgrade in the discourse here; no one needs to be impressed.

> However even HN must admit the art world is a real industry, with a lot of big money players, and the reason things have value is not in the quality of the art.

If your standard is 'there is lots of money in it, therefore it is cool & good and should be embraced' then sure, I will freely admit that both contemporary art and NFTs pass that standard. So do televangelism, diamonds, and robocalls.

>The background of the artist and the piece's history is what gives it value

That, and the fact that there is only one, it's not digital, and it can be authenticated (and also the artist is dead, so it is guaranteed there won't be any more).

The "value" of an NFT is that there is only one unique occurrance of it in a pile of bits called a blockchain. It is very hard to hang it on a wall.

Web3: not satisfied with the fundamental principle of digital abundance, we invented digital scarcity.

>The "value" of an NFT is that there is only one unique occurrance of it in a pile of bits called a blockchain. It is very hard to hang it on a wall.

It's worst than that because almost all NFTs are only an pointer/URL and the art itself is not on the chain.

And the provenance of which NFT is legitimate and/or original is not on the chain either.

I create myartwork.jpeg. Somebody creates an NFT of it. Later, I create an NFT of it. Even later a bunch of people make NFT replicas of both. Which NFT is legitimate? The blockchain doesn't know.

If you publicly state which smart contract is your NFT, then that would be the real one. Similarly someone could claim a physical painting is yours, but you could publicly say it isn't. The blockchain doesn't know anymore than a physical canvas "knows" what is real and what is fake. The blockchain is a tool, the artist is the creator and arbiter of what the real NFT is.

> the artist is the creator and arbiter of what the real NFT is

Then why can't they just be the arbiter of what the real JPEG is and skip a whole step?

that's a very bad comparaison for 2 reasons:

1) Regardless of if the physical painting is the original or a copy made a talented painter, you can still enjoy how it looks on the wall. The painting doesn't magically disintegrate if you find out the certificate was forged. You also have no option but to buy it (or a replica) if you want to place it own your wall.

With an NFT, the art itself is available to anyone, regardless of if you own the NFT. You never needed to buy an NFT to enjoy the art. The only thing of value in an NFT is the NFT itself, not the art that it represent. If the NFT is not authentic, it's a much bigger deal because now it loses all of its value, not just a portion of it.

2) Creating a fake painting that looks "original", even to an amateur that doesn't know anything about art, is hard and expensive. Even when the painter isn't trying to pass it as the original one, it can easily cost thousands of dollars to get decent quality replica that looks close to the real thing.

To replicate the art of an NFT, it just takes a few clicks. It's not difficult or expensive to copy it. If you can't figure out how to do it, you probably don't need to spend more than 10$ to get someone online to do it for you.

> With an NFT, the art itself is available to anyone, regardless of if you own the NFT. You never needed to buy an NFT to enjoy the art. The only thing of value in an NFT is the NFT itself, not the art that it represent. If the NFT is not authentic, it's a much bigger deal because now it loses all of its value, not just a portion of it.

I can easily print out a high-quality Mona Lisa and put it on my wall, and I can enjoy it, but I wouldn't pretend I own it.

> To replicate the art of an NFT, it just takes a few clicks. It's not difficult or expensive to copy it. If you can't figure out how to do it, you probably don't need to spend more than 10$ to get someone online to do it for you.

It is mathematically impossible to copy the NFT. It isn't the same smart contract, it isn't the same NFT. It is theoretically possible to arrange atoms in the precise location of a physical object, however.

>I can easily print out a high-quality Mona Lisa and put it on my wall, and I can enjoy it, but I wouldn't pretend I own it.

Even a half blind person would tell you the print doesn't look anything like the painting. If you want something that looks close to the really thing, it's difficult to make. There is modern art that would be cheap/easy to replicate (eg. a blank canvas made by artist trying to create a debate about what is art or not) but anything that you are likely to want on your wall will easily cost you >500$ to replicate properly in its original size (they are larger than they look).

>It is mathematically impossible to copy the NFT. It isn't the same smart contract, it isn't the same NFT. It is theoretically possible to arrange atoms in the precise location of a physical object, however.

I wrote it poorly, I was referring to the art behind the NFT that you can replicate easily. If I see a very cool picture and want to use it as my wallpaper on my laptop, I don't need to recreate the exact same smart contract with the same wallet key or pay for the NFT, I can just copy the picture in a few clicks. The picture will look the same with or without the NFT

As I stated before, the art is less important than the proof of ownership. The creator says, “This is the contract. There are only this many. All others are fake.” And for whatever reason I like the creator and want to own it. Just like a perfect print simply isn’t the real thing, I don’t want the saved image, I want the real NFT.

And again, you are fully allowed to disagree, I’m trying to explain the mentality of the NFT purchaser and it’s similarity to the physical art world.

In many ways it feels like we are recreating DRM, which was something that we weren't happy with as consumers, but this time: "It's different because it's crypto and I can make money on it".

Have you seen a Newman painting in person? The image of Voice of Fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire) on Wikipedia is completely unremarkable, but it's actually very impressive and powerful to see in person. One of my favourite pieces of visual art. A lot of people like to shit on abstract art and color fields as "a toddler could do it" but there is technical skill and artistry on display. Keith Haring's art is also very simple but powerful. Personally I don't get the same feeling from a shitty iPad drawing of a monkey with some photoshop layers swapped around.

Additionally, I have seen quite a lot of actual toddler art, and even when that fact is initially hidden, I have yet to be impressed by any of it.

I simply disagree that 3 vertical bars are worth millions of dollars. But that's the point I'm making about art - it's subjective.