- cross-posted to:
- technology
- cross-posted to:
- technology
Artists are using blockchain tech to sell digital art. It's very interesting, but like crypto currency, it's a gargantuan energy sink. Fascinating intersection of art, tech, and politics.
You must log in or register to comment.
Being able to sell art is not in any way saying that selling art is the most important thing about it.
I'd say selling art only means anything to the extent that owning art means anything and that owning art only means anything to the extent that the art being owned is scarce. Crypto Art only makes sense if you consider the specific NFT itself to be the art and not the associated image, but most people care about art in order to display it and it's not clear how to display a NFT or what's stopping me from creating new NFTs for pieces I didn't make and pointing to them as proof I own the art.
Yes indeed its focus on Pixelism over LED Wash is subtle...but profound. And see how the crack in this screen actually adds to human element of 0xB98s. Truly
Well right now we live under capitalism, and artists deserve compensation for their work. Your argument requires the total devaluation of art as it is today. Plenty of artists make a living selling their work, and it's scarce because they can only make so much - my wife supplements our income with embroidery art sales. Other people I know depend entirely on their art for their livelihood. Selling art means something because art means something.
You may have noticed that the article I posted is a critique of NFTs, hence the title "The problem of CryptoArt".
Art means something but the reasons people pay for it are to 1. use it (usually by displaying it) and 2. to show support for the artist. It's hard to sell digital art based on 1 when the piece is nearly infinitely reproducible by anyone able to interact with it (without bringing in intellectual property laws) and 2 is called donation.
Crypto Art is an interesting marketing ploy to drive donations to digital artists targeted towards people who respond less positively to the straightforward idea of donating to an artist they like, but that's about it.
I mean you can get a nice print of the Mona Lisa but it ain't the Mona Lisa
But all digital renderings are just copies anyway, the crypto art piece is just a big song and fucking dance to say one person's copy is good-vibes.
Maybe people fetishize the physical Mona Lisa a little too much, and maybe it makes no sense to contrive a way to reintroduce that bizarre fixation.
The Mona Lisa is dumb and overrated; that Lonely Island song is correct.
Yeah exactly that is the key issue in this article and why artists who were otherwise interested are abstaining.
