Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well, this is actually to do with selling images, though mainly moving ones I think. Extra points for anyone who understands a word of it, I don't. I do understand that the American National Basketball Association has apparently made $250 million by selling authenticated 'slam-dunk' video clips (?) and Christies are  selling digital artworks verified by this method of authentication.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-retail-trading-nfts-insight/how-a-10-second-video-clip-sold-for-6-6-million-idUSKCN2AT1HG

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Well, this is actually to do with selling images, though mainly moving ones I think. Extra points for anyone who understands a word of it, I don't. I do understand that the American National Basketball Association has apparently made $250 million by selling authenticated 'slam-dunk' video clips (?) and Christies are  selling digital artworks verified by this method of authentication.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-retail-trading-nfts-insight/how-a-10-second-video-clip-sold-for-6-6-million-idUSKCN2AT1HG

 

Seems fairly straightforward in what it is - the equivalent of selling an original oil painting rather than a printed copy of same. Not limited to moving pictures, no, it appears that it can be applied to any online work - though how that is actually done, I don't know! The high prices are merely down to what they are - a sought-after artists original online work or much admired sports stars performances, etc. - rather than the fact that it has this technology applied to the work.

 

I think that this would be different to selling the RAW file of an original photo, in that you could always retain a copy of that RAW file. This system appears to ensure that the work is a unique one-off - only one person can ever own it. And it's for online works only.

 

Interesting, but as they say, likely to bubble and burst. BUT, in the long run, if this technology becomes cheap and more widely accessible, it could help tremendously in copyright issues for any and all online content. Of course, in the specific case of images, they could still be licenced as JPEGs, but the original NFT would always count as ultimate certifiable proof of actual ownership of the original. Perhaps this is, or could be, extended to permissions to reproduce that work as copies online - or those permissions granted to licencing agencies?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they use one of your images can you claim through DACS?

 

Allan

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, losdemas said:

I think that this would be different to selling the RAW file of an original photo, in that you could always retain a copy of that RAW file. This system appears to ensure that the work is a unique one-off - only one person can ever own it. And it's for online works only.

I must say that I know nothing about 'digital art' and certainly nothing about the (presumably very wealthy) artist mentioned in the article. On the face of it, whereas I can understand why an original painting by, say, Chagall, will be worth many millions of pounds I find it hard to understand why a 10 second video clip could be. The difference to me is that the Chagall will always be the only original whereas a digital copy of the digital art will be identical to the original apart from this uniqueness bestowed by the blockchain authentication. With the basketball clips they sell authenticated versions rather like 'limited edition' prints - “When you own #23/49 of a legendary LeBron James dunk, you’re the only person in the world who does.” It does rather look like a device for financial speculation, like cryptocurrencies in general, but perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.

 

I've read that blockchain authentication uses vast amounts of computing power and so an equivalently vast amount of energy so whether it proves to be a good way for us to authenticate the uniqueness of our own images remains to be seen. I suppose the Elon Musks of this world see it being powered by renewable energy as I think it is predominantly in China.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

If they use one of your images can you claim through DACS?

 

Allan

 

 

Only if it's "non-fudgeable". 😜

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

I find it hard to understand why a 10 second video clip could be. The difference to me is that the Chagall will always be the only original whereas a digital copy of the digital art will be identical to the original apart from this uniqueness bestowed by the blockchain authentication. With the basketball clips they sell authenticated versions rather like 'limited edition' prints - “When you own #23/49 of a legendary LeBron James dunk, you’re the only person in the world who does.” It does rather look like a device for financial speculation, like cryptocurrencies in general, but perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.

Agree totally with all this, Harry. A lot of it is just people with lots of money playing Monopoly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

I must say that I know nothing about 'digital art'

 

There are many forms of "Digital art" Harry and I am sure you must be processing your RAW images from your camera before loading to Alamy. That is the most common form of the arts.😃

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

There are many forms of "Digital art" Harry and I am sure you must be processing your RAW images from your camera before loading to Alamy

Thank you Allan, obviously modesty prevented me from mentioning what an, ahem, artist I was. Unfortunately it's not the $6 million kind!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/03/2021 at 19:53, losdemas said:

 

3 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

So the Beeple artwork finally sold for $69 million. Not bad for a jpg.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/arts/design/nft-auction-christies-beeple.html

 

Some people have more money than sense. If I had that sort of money to waste I would want to put it to good use in helping people.

 

Allan

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Some people have more money than sense. If I had that sort of money to waste I would want to put it to good use in helping people.

Yes, I fear we're going to see more of this, but it seems on the face of it to be just a form of financial speculation so I presume they're intending to profit from it. But then who's to blame - the artist, Christie's, the purchaser? I suppose really you can point the finger at the fact there is a demand for it and the price was driven that high by all the bidders desperate to 'own' it.

 

There have been huge sums paid in the contemporary photographic art world (see Andreas Gursky for instance) but at least you got something to hang on the wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing new in this.  The South Sea Bubble etc. was also virtual.

 

Note the buyer also paid in virtual currency.

 

Much ultra high price-tag art, legitimate or not, is a scam. The buyer knows this as much as the seller and in high publicity cases they may even be "virtually" the same people.

 

Fake news from a virtual event or news about a fake event or a true report about virtual news or  …….

As they say in all the best detective novels  -  Follow the Money  -  but the media never bothers these days. They just churn this stuff out as click bait. Who cares?

Edited by DavidLyons
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DavidLyons said:

Much ultra high price-tag art, legitimate or not, is a scam.

 

Netflix has "Made You Look" about a relatively recent art scam involving forgeries of Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko.  Estimates of fakes go up to 40 or 50% of what's sold.  YouTube has several on various earlier forgers. 

 

The frequent thing is to donate art to a museum to cut down on taxes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So here is my understanding of this madness, i do not claim that I am right. Someone creates digital art, which becomes so popular that it is copied, perhaps millions of times. These copies are exact duplicates indistinguishable from the original. You may have one on your computer as a screen saver. You wish to claim that your copy is "authentic", not merely a copy. Keep in mind that this authenticity doesn't mean it was the first one created.

 

Whereas a fake Mona Lisa can be discerned from the original that's not true in digital art. So people are spending all this money just on these certificates, on these non-fungible tokens, that tell people that you’ve got the real thing. But the real thing isn’t real in any real way. So it’s a weird reversal,  you’re only buying it because it’s famous already, because so many other people actually own it.  

 

Or something like that. 

Edited by formerly snappyoncalifornia
Sp
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, formerly snappyoncalifornia said:

So here is my understanding of this madness

Well yes, possibly. I'd never heard of Beeple but you're right in that he is very well known and popular in certain online circles, just not mine. This is an interesting bit of background by Will Gomperz, BBC Arts Editor:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56368868

 

Spoiler alert - he doesn't understand it either, I don't think anyone does. He also highlights the profound damage to the environment this type of blockchain authentication could do if it becomes commonplace, not something we need right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, RyanU said:

Just seems like a new form of money laundering via "modern art".

 

They can resell it if it appreciates, and donate it to a museum for a tax right off if it doesn't.  The art auction houses make out like bandits. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.