- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Non-fungible token (NFT) wave is here. Digital art sold for $69.3 million
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:09 am to JasonMason
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:09 am to JasonMason
quote:
Everyone does everything on their phone. It seems natural to me for it to move that direction.
yeah, most of the things that are selling as NFTs are available on youtube, google images, or twitter. what makes the NFT version of these worth more than a youtube link?
1
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:10 am to jimbeam
quote:
We will now see in this thread who the boomers are
The OP's link isn't working for me. I'll be the first boomer.
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:10 am to JasonMason
The differences between the Mona Lisa and MonaLisa.gif are many. A real painting has the painter's exact brush strokes. He actually touched that and physically manipulated it. Some people care about that.
If you copy a GIF, the copy is exact. There's no physical or informational difference there. Sure, you can attach some sort of unhackable number to it and say, "so-and-so has the very first copy of this file ever created," but it's objectively more pointless than owning the real original of a painting is.
The person that made the GIF probably made it and then moved it somewhere else to attach the NFT anyway. I move files around all sorts of different ways before I upload them somewhere. If this doesn't matter to the person buying the NFT, why does any of this crap matter? Just copy the damned GIF.
If you copy a GIF, the copy is exact. There's no physical or informational difference there. Sure, you can attach some sort of unhackable number to it and say, "so-and-so has the very first copy of this file ever created," but it's objectively more pointless than owning the real original of a painting is.
The person that made the GIF probably made it and then moved it somewhere else to attach the NFT anyway. I move files around all sorts of different ways before I upload them somewhere. If this doesn't matter to the person buying the NFT, why does any of this crap matter? Just copy the damned GIF.
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:12 am to CunningLinguist
Tim Dillon had a great NFT bit on his podcast this week.
YouTube clip
YouTube clip
This post was edited on 3/11/21 at 10:39 am
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:12 am to CunningLinguist
How can one own something that everyone can use/view/listen without their permission or compensating them? Also, with the influx of celebrities and shite, it seems like it’s almost turned into like an only fans for celebrities for them to just profit off of their image and potentially do sketchy tax shite.
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:18 am to CunningLinguist
The Louvre finna be like
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:19 am to USMEagles
quote:
If you copy a GIF, the copy is exact. There's no physical or informational difference there. Sure, you can attach some sort of unhackable number to it and say, "so-and-so has the very first copy of this file ever created," but it's objectively more pointless than owning the real original of a painting is.
Well yeah this can all be true and then you also have art made by digital artists.
One area that I think this could become big is in trading cards or sports cards. If the companies that license the leagues or the IP for their trading cards went digital, this seems like the way to do it. Some of the companies already have digital only products.
This post was edited on 3/11/21 at 10:24 am
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:20 am to mikelbr
Yeah i linked the google link to an NBC article. I am 39 (old for OT)
New link in OP that should work.
New link in OP that should work.
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:21 am to CunningLinguist
Solid way to wash money
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:25 am to JasonMason
quote:
Well yeah this can all be true and then you also have art made by digital artists.
If the question is, "how do you create a concept of originals for digital artwork?" then this is definitely a valid answer. I just don't think having the original of a GIF matters that much. If rich people want to patronize digital artists, they should do so, but with the understanding that any idiot with a smart phone will probably get the exact same thing at some point.
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:31 am to CunningLinguist
Buying digital art
Do they get a png of it? Since the picture was posted on there, don’t we all now own it?
Do they get a png of it? Since the picture was posted on there, don’t we all now own it?
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:35 am to CunningLinguist
By my calculations, LSUFREEK is currently worth 230 Billion dollars.
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:35 am to DavidTheGnome
Exactly, maybe I don’t get it, but it’s like “hey look at this highlight video/art work/tweet etc I own”, and then the other 100 people in the room pull up the same highlight video/art work/tweet. And they don’t have to compensate you in anyway for having the same access to the thing you “own.”
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:51 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:The product that you “own” is a sheet of paper stating that you “own” a numbered version of a non-scarce item.
Buying digital art
Do they get a png of it? Since the picture was posted on there, don’t we all now own it?
The value isn’t attributed to the scarcity of the object, but to the scarcity of a “sheet of paper” attached to a non-scarce item.
It is like someone paying $50 million for the 1st of a line of free mass produced Walmart sofas. If every person on the planet has access to and owns an item, it has no value.
Unlike, say, art or even limited productions of certain baseball cards.
Yes, people can buy prints or fakes of these items, but they are just that, fakes.
I can even give leeway to some aspects of digital art if the artist has signed a specific copy of it and that is the only one.
Where this loses me is video clips and gifs.
There is zero difference between the purchased clip and the clip others see or download.
People are attributing value to owning something that can’t actually be owned.
This post was edited on 3/11/21 at 11:03 am
Posted on 3/11/21 at 10:56 am to jimbeam
quote:
We will now see in this thread who the boomers are
*raises hand*
I understand the concept. But I think once the newness of it wears off, people will realize the early art NFT's were shite pieces (artistically) and their value will only be as historic items.
Wonder Woman artist Jose Delbo just sold millions of NFT's in Wonder Woman images. He's a nice guy and a solid comic artist, but he wouldn't be on anyone's top 100 comic artists list. But he got in the game first, so good on him.
FYI: This is something digital artists have been clamoring for. Now they can sell their "original art" instead of just images or prints. But it's just not the same.
Posted on 3/11/21 at 11:05 am to CunningLinguist
That's so dumb
Posted on 3/11/21 at 11:23 am to HailToTheChiz
I took a screen shot of the art so I now own it too. Willing to sell it for half price.
Posted on 3/11/21 at 11:25 am to Bunk Moreland
topshots is backed by a global brand and has the most liquid market of any NFT, its just replacing cardboard sports cards as a collector's item. its not that difficult to understand
with that said, id argue 99% of the art NFTs being sold now will eventually crash, as its an illiquid market.
with that said, id argue 99% of the art NFTs being sold now will eventually crash, as its an illiquid market.
Posted on 3/11/21 at 11:27 am to gadknot
quote:
I'm ok with the boomers sitting this one out. They just ruin the market anyway
its always the same group of tards who have the worst takes on this site. you could follow those people around and do the opposite of everything they say to do and become a millionaire within a year
Posted on 3/11/21 at 11:30 am to CunningLinguist
quote:
Digital art sold for $69.3 million
What the hell do you do with it???
Sounds like one damn freakin expensive screensaver
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News