I think that Beeple is basically just a rando-tier DeviantArt/Tumblr artist, and much of his art is cringe to boot. Since someone purportedly paid the equivalent of $69 million in ETH for it, it's noteworthy that there's no there there.
There are different kinds of cringe though.
Also, Jim'll paint it definitely looks like he's more talented than Beeple.
> And having 5000 daily pieces is art by itself.
Quantity over quality?
No, performance art. The act of creating that many not-terrible pieces is meaningful on its own.
Am I wrong to find creations less valuable when I cannot enjoy them? Call it performance art or whatever else you like, it's still nothing more than an overpriced collection of an artist's shitposts. But alright, it's not my money.
Whether I want to associate with said beholder is another question entirely.
Isn't focusing on quantity the only reliable way to improve quality? See also, the usual Ira Glass quote: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309485-nobody-tells-this-to....
I'm indifferent to Michelangelo's art, but I have read The Agony and the Ecstasy. In this particular case, a less filtered view of his art doesn't disillusion me because I'm not especially crazy about any of it. But he was famous, influential, and technically capable, so as a person was of interest to me.
But more recently, I found that a multivolume collection of all the short stories is available, and I started reading them. It was really disillusioning because it wasn't just that the average quality was a lot lower than the famous ones, the cringeworthiness started to extend to my image of the author.
It's possible that over time the later work ended up being uniformly brilliant, but I didn't finish.
But “rando-tier” does; the description wasn't just “cringe”, but rando-tier and often cringe.
This doesn't convey any property rights to the art's copyright, unless the purchase also included those separately from the NFT, which, of course, happens all of the time without the NFT silliness and doesn't require NFTs at all.
This is why you see people making the comparison to sports trading cards. You're not buying the person, you're buying the piece of cardboard.
This is more or less you saying you paid for a receipt showing you paid to have a hash of the same MP3 everyone else is listening to.
They can display the receipt but have no more right to the art than you or me.
But I won't be happy if people stop buying gold and all I can do with it is sell it to some electronics manufacturer for 1% of the price I paid for it.
> dollars are backed by a government
Sounds great, what can I do if people stop accepting dollars in trade?
> Owning original art is bragging/speculation.
Agreed, so nothing new.
Buying an NFT isn't like buying a piece of art you can put on your wall, it's like buying a signed, numbered, limited edition card that has the address of where the actual owner has the art on his wall.
...except the address might be wrong. Or become wrong when the actual art changes hands, or the owner dies. Also nothing stops the artist from making a new print run of the cards. Or someone who isn't the artist making a print run of the cards.
But I mean, even if Beeple sells another thousand NFTs referencing the same artwork, and even if this NFT quickly ends up with a broken URL, and even if the buyer of the NFT didn't end up with any ownership rights to the artwork itself...
...at least they can feel pleased they bought the first NFT issued by Beeple with this particular URL on it. That's gotta be worth something! (...$69 million, apparently...)
>NFT carries no rights, express or implied, other than property rights for the lot (specifically, digital artwork tokenized by the NFT.. https://www.christies.com/pdf/onlineonly/ECOMMERCE%20CONDITI...
So no rights apart from the property rights (Christies T&Cs)
So presumably an image file and the NFT. Bit vague on copyright.
Even picasso was alleged to have told a diner to pay him an absurd amount of money for his napkin sketch - because it took him a few decades to get to draw like he did.
And I think Picasso's artworks are trash.