You aren't wrong, and again, I am at pains to indicate that I don't support NFTs, was disappointed with NFTs, and I genuinely believe they're a standout sign of cultural decay.

Again, my concern is for the artists who were briefly given hope, however false.

For context, this book is helpful: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Artist-Creators-Struggling-Bill...

Artists can easily make money, they just have to produce what the market demands, like any other business. Draw furry porn comics and paywall them behind patreon and watch the cash roll in.

Of course no one was going to pay $1000 for landscape_digital_painting.png which you can get a dime a million on dall-e.

Nope, Gigachad is exactly correct. If you want to make money as an artist you have to make stuff that other people want to buy. If you only make art that speaks to your unique soul then the market may consist of only yourself.

This is hardly a new phenomenon. Artists today have more ways of getting paid than ever, but it is still a buyers market.

With all due respect, Gigachad, I'm not feeling a deep grasp of the issues here.

There's lots of ways for artists to make money professionally (probably not paid enough in the corporate creative world, but nft's were never an answer to that issue, an issue plaguing a lot of industries and professions lately) and independently. I appreciate that it would be nice if everyone who painted or sang or wrote could support themselves with that passion, but if nobody is buying what you're selling NFTs weren't going to help. There's so much more than the art that goes into supporting oneself with art, and at that point it very much intersects with business.

NFTs are just one more thing to sell if you have the thing a starving artist doesn't - an audience.

What I love about this is that, in its current mood, you can literally say to an HN colleague 'I respectfully think you need to read more about this' (and mean it respectfully,) and you will be downvoted to -3.

Dunning-Kruger has its start in a culture that cannot admit ignorance or infelicity. Brittle, ideological apologetics upvoted all the while.

And yes, I know commenting on the moderation is against HN guidelines; yet banning discussion of moderation is itself leaves us unable to point out to ourselves when we are being ridiculous, further compounding the DK.

Again, the stench of decline.

I didn't downvote you, but I respectfully submit that it's possible that the people who did do so, and gigachad, understand the underlying issues and simply disagree with you.

I think the reason that comment was downvoated is because "you need to read more about the issue" is not a rational argument. In the wrong context, it may even sound like an ad hominem.

> ...you can literally say to an HN colleague 'I respectfully think you need to read more about this' (and mean it respectfully,) and you will be downvoted to -3.

I've noticed the same. It makes discussion here pointless. It wasn't always like this. Something changed in the last 3-5 years.

It's made worse by how HN functions. Only people with >=500 karma points are permitted to downvote comments. The more active commenters influence the discussion this way. And whatever they don't like / disagree with, they downvote.

I agree with your original point. I don't care for NFTs, but there are artists selling original art via NFTs. Let them. Some made a very good living, considering their country's average wage. If their NFT doesn't sell, it doesn't sell.

Very odd how there are people insisting that artists sell art only in a way that they agree with (prints, commissions, etc). Bizarre behavior...

side-note: I often see Gigachad all over crypto-related threads picking arguments with people. They clearly have an axe to grind. It's best to just ignore them when they show up.

What's really interesting is the last gasp of digital art represented by NFTs when DALL-E and Stable Diffusion were literally right around the corner, days away.

If DALL-E emerged before NFTs, I don't think we would have seen them gain any traction _at all_.

In the original post you've called it an "attempt to provide artists with revenue" and let's be clear it was never that. The only attempt was to provide revenue for Facebook, and both NFT scammers and Facebook only used artists as a fig leaf for the get-rich-quick scheme of wash trades and piracy.

At pain of downvoting, I respectfully need to ask if you read the article?

It literally describes an effort by Meta to put NFTs to use for artists.

Again, decay.