NFTs (thread now extremely NSFW)

gee, i hope elon musk's butthole rises in value today

a rising butthole lifts all shits

i have brought this upon myself

he may have turned to the dark side, but lol

https://davidoreilly.medium.com/the-definitive-nft-medium-article-500855317d8a

list of links at the bottom hits kinda hard after all that

It is from this turning point that I began a journey of discovery that opened my eyes to the danger and cost of this technology. Make no mistake — NFTs are not harmless and not benign, and have zero to do with artists making money. They are — and I do not say this lightly — without a doubt the single greatest threat that planet Earth has ever faced.

not that any of this justifies NFTs, it's just quite funny

Oh, I kept reading. Well I’m still the king

for you Karl

paddington bear has made an NFT (New Friend Today)

— Paddington Bear Updates (no affiliation) (@fakepaddington) March 30, 2021

One of my favorite crypto-asshole arguments is that crypto is actually GOOD for the environment because the demand it creates for renewable energy is driving innovation, or something.

every fucking dipshit is using NFTs as their april fools joke, brilliant work marketing people

NFTs may finally bring about the magical economy, where everyone in the world's income is derived from taking in everyone else's laundry buying and selling NFT-tagged images.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-04-03/robot-s-nft-art-sells-for-over-688k-video

https://artreview.com/why-the-artworld-loves-to-hate-nft-art-beeple-christies-grimes/

good ^^

I feel like even calling it "NFT Art" is a misnomer. It's digital art. An NFT is just a thing you sell that is nominally attached to a piece of digital art.

But what kind of digital art is valued by NFT investors? So far you aren't seeing NFTs for Sothebys-style art make much of an impact.

i prefer "NFT Art", because it carries with it the meaning "this is shitty art, in addition to the shitty people who buy and sell it"

But what kind of digital art is valued by NFT investors? So far you aren't seeing NFTs for Sothebys-style art make much of an impact.

modern art institutions are coming around to digital art in slow motion (comparable to how it took decades for the "art world" to come around to "motion pictures" at art, or the excruciating "conversation" around the idea of "games" as art now)

imo a good artist should reject NFTs and crypto-bullshit, but they sure as fuck better be rejecting whatever "art world" previously existed as well.

trying to sell good digital art to a NFT turd is like selling pogs to a rich adolescent

NF(art)T

http://blog.seanbonner.com/2021/03/12/wtf-nft/

it's hard to believe someone is comparing the environmental cost of cryptocurrency with the entirety of the global banking system
bitcoin's total value right now ~$1 trillion, I wonder how much the entire global banking system processes in a year?

Whenever I see this thread title I immediately think of newts and efts, as in this article. Once my brain saw this connection, it cannot unsee it.

from that artreview piece

https://backend.artreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/b1e-1230x586.jpg
"A popular internet meme of 2020 features an outraged bowtied figure who insists to another figure (representing the US Federal Reserve) that he can’t just ‘artificially inflate the economy by creating money’. To which the Fed character, next to a printer busily printing dollars, grins ‘haha, money printer go brrrrr’. Billions have been minted by central banks to support the incomes of people suffering the economic effects of the lockdown response to COVID-19. But printing money means that interest rates for fiat currency are effectively zero. In those circumstances, it’s not hard to see the attraction of moving fiat currency into cryptocurrency, or flipping virtual artworks that might increase rapidly in value, as Beeple’s CROSSROADS did in February, when it was resold for $6.6m, from an original sale of $66.6k. Cryptocurrency, NFTs and visual art have, without the artworld quite grasping it, combined at a moment when fiat currency has, in essence, become worthless, wages are dead and there is no reason for most people to save for a future that seems utterly without promise."

zero interest rate means money is worthless. right.

I always trust artists to have a firm grasp of Central Bank monetary policy. I would like the author of that piece to do a performance art piece where they destroyed piles of 'worthless fiat currency" to prove their point.

hard to put into words how fucked america is, but this article headline almost thoroughly does it pic.twitter.com/INMg4zyvz4

— Younger (@JustinYounger) April 8, 2021

the subheadline does it too

https://babbykense.medium.com/a-response-to-jisus-nft-superdocument-33ac27a5ad38

catching up to this one, in the wake of catching up to Jisu's popular 'voice of reason' / 'voice of the younger & minority NFT middle class'

blockchain is good because decentralization is good. what do NFTs ultimately decentralize? they decentralize authentication

When I see artists I admire promote N f Ts now I just smh

RIP NFTs

https://crypto.jayandsilentbob.com

just saw an artist friend has started doing this, guess he has no other way to stay afloat, sad times all round.

Is there any possible doubt in anyone's mind that these are going to be looked at as the pogs of 2021?
feel free to quote this to me in 2030 when beeple is president

I agree, but I thought bitcoin would be a joke by now.

bitcoin benefited from arriving on the last train before the end of capitalism, social media overload and nihilism as smart business
i imagine a sunspot is gonna wipe every server on earth and then all this shit will be so much dust in the wind aka SOON A CLEANSING

great news for "success kid" and "bad luck Brian"

https://www.yahoo.com/now/disaster-girl-meme-nft-214005699.html

the only nfts i deal in are nerds in the Fucking trashcan. suck my Dick

— wint (@dril) April 30, 2021

Interesting interview between curtator Michelle Kuo and artist Seth Price on NFTs here:
https://www.moma.org/magazine/articles/547

relevant quote

SP: You were talking about getting at some idea of what art is, or how it behaves. Actually, there is one way that contemporary art is kind of the perfect vehicle for NFTs. A financial instrument is a contract between people. That’s literally all it is, a highly abstract agreement. And that’s what art is, too. There’s a weird consonance there. Art has no consistent agreed-upon value, there’s no common definition of what art even is. So an NFT artwork is a pretty complex social agreement that, first of all, this is art; second of all, it has value; third, we’ll transfer it into this even more crazy realm. All of this transformation is a kind of suspension of disbelief, or a kind of magic. It’s like, the more we dematerialize everything, the more potential material we can get. We don’t really have a cosmology that can hold all these weird contradictions we’re making. That’s the paradox of the moment we’re in.

maybe I misunderstand, but quote seems to imply that the creation of the NFT is "transferring it into this even more crazy realm" and "dematerializing". But the NFT is doing the opposite. it's taking something less material, say a moment in time, and making it material by sending light over a network that then instructs computers to reorganize some electrons into a state that is maintained. If all of the computers containing the distributed ledger were destroyed, the NFT would cease to exist.

sold an NFT of the meme for roughly $500,000 worth of Ether

yeah, but where's she going to store all those cans, eh??

and even the "art" that's less material generally has something more material but less scarce than the an NFT associated with it, such as a digital image or video from the moment. it's like we all rode splash mountain and had fucking hell of a great time doing so. disney makes an NFT for "riding splash mountain". person who buys that NFT should be concerned that everyone who loved it already has a picture of themselves riding splash mountain in their living room.

maybe I misunderstand, but quote seems to imply that the creation of the NFT is "transferring it into this even more crazy realm" and "dematerializing". But the NFT is doing the opposite. it's taking something less material, say a moment in time, and making it material by sending light over a network that then instructs computers to reorganize some electrons into a state that is maintained. If all of the computers containing the distributed ledger were destroyed, the NFT would cease to exist.

― If you value Vox, we have an axe (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 30 April 2021 19:57 (thirteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i would go even further than this. I can't get over conceptual hurdle that one must accept that the relationship between (the photograph) and the NFT is somehow real which is kindof hard to take when every piece that illustrates this story illustrates it with a picture of that photo As the use of the image in the article intimates, the image can continue to operate just as it did and is not itself altered by the fact of the NFT. The relationship between them seems really one way, with the value of the nft deriving from the image but nothing about the image is derived from its new status as underwritten somehow by the nft.

The concept of an NFT attaching itself to this image is an abstract relation and a 'new' one and a social one that needs to be weirdly manufactured. like we are to believe in some way that the 'creation' of the nft in some way officiates this relation? this doesn't feel especially credible to me and I'm a little bit mystified by the source of the credulousness. you know if we accept that all value is a kind of social value, i just dont understand what social agreement really underwrites this particular instance.

maybe I misunderstand, but quote seems to imply that the creation of the NFT is "transferring it into this even more crazy realm" and "dematerializing". But the NFT is doing the opposite. it's taking something less material, say a moment in time, and making it material by sending light over a network that then instructs computers to reorganize some electrons into a state that is maintained. If all of the computers containing the distributed ledger were destroyed, the NFT would cease to exist.

― If you value Vox, we have an axe (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, April 30, 2021 12:57 PM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

I feel like he might be talking about physical artworks, in which case the quote makes some more sense.

Tbh, I don't really understand how any of this works, and every explanation I read just sounds more and more like bullshit. I just thought the interview was interesting.

i would go even further than this. I can't get over conceptual hurdle that one must accept that the relationship between (the photograph) and the NFT is somehow real which is kindof hard to take when every piece that illustrates this story illustrates it with a picture of that photo As the use of the image in the article intimates, the image can continue to operate just as it did and is not itself altered by the fact of the NFT. The relationship between them seems really one way, with the value of the nft deriving from the image but nothing about the image is derived from its new status as underwritten somehow by the nft.

yeah, I think we would agree that a material object that is generated as part of the creation of the art is necessary to give it a meaningful relationship to that art. People can use an image from a painting you own without your consent, if they have the consent of the artist (or other rights holder). But if that image is the art, it still could not have been expressed and shared without that painting you own.

you can point at your painting and say "all of that came from this". Even if you make an NFT at the same time as you make the art, it's still very clear that you could have made the art without making the NFT at all.

the art, such as it is, is conceptual in every way and is mostly represented by the action of playing along by taking part in the charade of capitalism

I’ve enjoyed NBA Top Shot. I don’t really care about art or collecting, just making money. I buy all the packs I can and almost immediately flip the moments for a profit. Off my initial $9 investment, I’ve turned it into 4-figure profits. So every pack I buy is playing with house money at this point.

The great thing about Top Shot is the ease of on boarding. No need to have any knowledge of the intricacies of crypto transactions, just sign up for an account, attach a credit card, and hope you get lucky on pack drops.

On the other hand, I’ve been trying to get into Zed Run, but the barrier of entry is much higher. I’m finally trying to buy a horse today. To do that, I had to figure out what MetaMask is, connect it to Zed Run, purchase some ETH, convert it to wETH, all of which had associated fees.

That’s all I’ve dabbled in. Everything else has been way too expensive to get started.

I’m finally trying to buy a horse today.

Still trying to get one, this release has been a shitshow.

Heavy Metal comic magazine now doing this shit so you too can burn down a rainforest in order to pay through the nose to "own" a hyperlink to a page from a comic with a woman who has her massive tits out.

https://oncurio.com/collections/heavy-metal