I think funding by way of scarcity is just another symptom of a capitalist mentality.
I mean the whole idea of digital democratization is that anyone has access to a piece of art. Funding is meant to be done differently - crowd funding, for example - but NFTs with their made-up uniqueness reinforce the sickness.
Would I can them an asshole? No, I wouldn’t. Mostly because we’re already so deep in that system, I’d rather they get paid. We’re not so deep into NFTs yet; trying to head it off at the pass out here. And that’s another issue so upsetting about it: that artists can only make a living in a system that demands scarcity is something we need to change: its a disadvantage to both artist and audience. Instead, now we’re distracted by the hyperversion of that.
Sounds like you would if the price tag was high enough for that scarce fine print (I know I do!!)
concerning digital democratization … who said you have to buy that NFT? It’s currently like that … like you can download that GIF and don’t buy that NFT, right?
You’re right. I keep thinking to myself “well why not just let the 1% and its simps play their stupid little game? I can still see that GIF”. I actually don’t have a good response to that; and I don’t know of one. I’m sure there is one, though.
But I’ll take that up when the whole shitshow becomes sustainable.
I still don’t think art funding should come solely (if at all) from scarcity and the rich and powerful.
always has been like that, hasn’t it? Painters are only going to make it if a gallery decides to showcase their work so the art gets bought by the rich people so they can fund rent for their home, studio, paint and maybe some food etc. pp. … and other have luck (?) and it’s enough for a villa, Ferrari and what not
“Within our present oligarchic, exploitative, irrational, and inhuman world system, the rise of crypto applications will only make our society more oligarchic, more exploitative, more irrational, and more inhuman.”
Technically, it’s some sort of well protected crypto-proof that you’re the owner of something.
All the relation with buying/selling art is – as the rest of the thread suggests – just some generic crypto-trading overhype.
That’s as far as I’ve understood, but I haven’t invested much brainpower in any of that. I might watch the Foldingideas video at some point, he makes really good video essays
Not the same to me, a print of a photograph is not just a go through a printer and you send it through the mail. The photographer usually has to make a special version of the file that goes with some specific settings on a specific printer that can print on a specific paper that was also picked to go well for the picture, and then he has to pick a frame that highlights the print, put everything themselves and then plan a suitable way to ship it to the buyer. When were talking about such serial art, material and time constraints are what drives the scarcity, it is not artificial.
So yeah, the photographer usually thinks, “I can probably sell 15 of these, but I’m not sure, I’m gonna make 10 so that way I have more guarantees it will be worth buying the material and taking the time.” And then they write “3 of 10” so they would become the asshole if after that they decide to make 20 more
Creating art costs time, money, and some of the artists soul. I think we can all understand and agree on that.
How is that going to be funded? Should it be state funded? Or by private money? And who dictates the content of the art in those situations?
Equally, saying that it should be accessible to all, merely means that
a) people ‘value’ it even less, and it is more likely to become less special and more mundane, content that is merely consumed as opposed to prized and cherished
b) the most ‘popular’ is funded more, i.e. whatever gets most plays on Spotify gets most money, that kinda thing
c) we get more and more of the same, and it becomes a race to the lowest common denominator, and it is bad for variety in the market
Indeed, and scarcity doesn’t only apply to art. Take champagne as another example - something we associate with special occasions and good times - which is deliberately kept at a high price point. If there is too much of it one year and that would reduce the price, the champagne brands destroy a bunch of it. If it’s made cheap and cheerful instead, they might not afford to make it as good, we’ll all devalue it and it becomes less special.
If someone has a lot of money to spend on something, let them. It will often help fund more things you can enjoy.
As for someone being ‘dead to you’ for choosing to promote their work a certain way, I really think that you should consider toning down your language. If you like music and art, try to be supportive or constructive without invoking the idea of their death because they’re trying something new.
I haven’t ventured into the crypto / nft world myself, but I know friends and artists who have, and it’s really helped them.
Indeed, this is the point I was also making - there are more interesting ways that some artists do it to add something unique and build more of a human connection.
And seriously, used as a mechanism of selling copyright, it’s a very interesting space to consider.
Beyond that, as I mentioned, artists can set their NFTs so that they get a portion of any future resales too… So if someone starts to profit from selling on their work in future, it means they get more income. Which helps claw some more money from the rich, straight into the pocket of an artist.
Let’s also remember that this is often without record labels, managers, galleries, promoters etc all taking their cut…
Yeah, but that’s what I tried to suggest above. The same happens with some of the better NFTs. Yes there’s a lot of crap out there, but there are a lot of crap photos on Instagram too. When creating a high value NFT, some artists put in just as much time etc. And even for those that don’t and just list it plainly, if they choose to value the time spent creating their artwork that way, because traditional systems aren’t working for them, that’s also ok.
“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art…”
― Ursula K. Le Guin
I think you’re taking me a little too literally. I don’t wish anyone’s death. But, fine: I am disappointed with any big artist enough that I care a lot less (to the point of not at all in a lot of cases) about their work.
I have friends too who discuss minting NFTs. I implore them not to and give my case. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn’t. In the event that it doesn’t, I have to admit my feelings shift a bit.
We should value it on its artistic merits, not whether it’s accessible or not.
Fine but that’s not how the current streaming system works: the most popular artists get everyones money, whether theyre listening or not. That’s one of the biggest complaints against streaming. Anyway in our current system the labels use their resources to concentrate all ears onto a few artists.
That’s a bit too subjective a take for me. anyway on our beloved Bandcamp there is no lack of diversity.
I totally agree… NFTs are a useless scam. It’s not even a file. It’s a blockchain entry with a URL to a platform with no authority. If that platform is offline there is nothing left other than a website showing a 404 or even less so that means that it’s not even decentralized (that’s why it was supposed to be great, right?). Single point of failure. Nobody but the platform itself looks at that blockchain entry anyways.
Not really related but … crypto is a real mess right now
One (of many) problems with that is that the 1% have the resources to keep telling the 99% (or the (95%) that NFTs are “the future”, regardless of whether they’re actually a good idea or not. It doesn’t bother them to be wrong. They can afford to fail: and some of them can afford to fail and still go play on their yacht at the weekend. (I’m not against yachts… just the imbalance between how available they are)
Meanwhile, everyone else feels encouraged/bullied into using a system that fucks the environment. At a time when those 1% could (and, frankly, should) use their resources to find and fund systems for everything else that don’t fuck the environment. And artists and musicians are helping them, by selling NFTs.
There’s other ways to make money.
People in the Thom Yorke thread were complaining about the £15 price tag for The Smile’s recent streaming shows. I think that’s the kind of solution the top % of musicians should be exploring, rather than minting NFTs. Create memories; create human activity; make new art; make it (somewhat) communal. More people get paid for using skills and tech that actually works and probably has less environmental impact (mostly because it’s already amortised over 1000000s of person-years of use and reuse).
Sorry for posting a dang podcast, but this conversation is an excellent breakdown of why crypto and NFTs are absolutely useless garbage. A great listen even if you know how this stuff works (I learned a thing or two, namely how Beeple’s multi-million sale at Christie’s was in fact a publicity stunt): Scam Economy: 1: Scam Economy 101: The ABCs of Crypto (w/ David Gerard) on Apple Podcasts
To me this is such a clusterfuck, because with the example above or any other “high value NFTs” that you talk about, I just can’t see what NFT means anymore because I just see a new piece of art created by the artist. The crafted thing you get is just a token for the actual cryptothing in the chain thing, yet artists create those elaborate tokens to motivate buyers and give more value to the actual NFT. So will there be NFTs to identify the owner of the piece of art that was created to symbolise the NFT of another piece of art now?
Stupid libertarian bullshit, them bloody nfts. I’m glad there’s still functioning neurons about and not everyone buys into the dumbest trend I’ve seen this decade. Nfts…
(I know I do!!)
