random We Need A General Section For Random Stuff Like This

[Alfred]

I’ll just leave this here…

[William Overington]

How do non-fungible tokens work please?

From what bits i have read, though I am unclear on this, it seems something like as follows.

If I were to generate some original artwork in Affinity Designer and then export a png file of the artwork, then because it can be copied, it cannot be exclusively owned by someone in the same manner as if I got a physical canvas and painted a picture using paint and brushes and someone can own that exclusively.

But someone could own exclusively a non-fungible token declaring that exclusive ownership. Is that correct?

So is the non-fungible token then something like owning the copyright in the image that is in the png file?

Or what?

William

 

 

 

[PaulEC]

As I understand it (and I may be entirely wrong) an NFT does not confer copyright of anything on the owner of the NFT. It simply means that they "own" the original of something which may have many copies.

EDIT (Quote from article mentioned above): 

"NFTs are a form of crypto asset which can record the ownership of a digital file such as an image, video or text.

There is no guarantee of an NFT’s value and the market is rife with scams, fraud, counterfeits and market manipulation."

[iconoclast]

As far as I understand NFTs are a kind of virtual claim of ownership or easement. I don't think that it is an operating principle that is unlimited transferable to everything, because it may collide with applicable laws of some countries. For example in Germany the author's rights are not transferable. The Author will always keep the rights on his/her creation for the whole life. The authors can only make a contract about the utilization of their single creations. That may seem like sophistry to many people, but it has some meaningful impact. E.g. it means that nobody is authorised to manipulate the certain pieces of work. Or to misuse it in a way that would impair the reputation of the author. And they also don't owe the original piece of work, except they purchased it too.

So I think that NFTs will be something like an easement. But it looks very diffuse and unsafe to me. And it causes lots of climate-damaging emissions.

[Archangel]

On 3/12/2021 at 11:21 AM, VectorVonDoom said:

That's the case with the vast majority of modern "art", I wouldn't hang it in my loo. The rubbish gets the attention and seemingly the money but there are still artists out there with artistic talent too.

But at least a bit of effort went in to it unlike the people who painted a canvas a one or two colours like Robert Ryman, Barnett Newman and Mark Rothko and made millions.

Yes, I wish I had the talent that you creatives possess.  I'm a poet, not really an artist. I could never really get the hang of vector art. You guys are phenomenal.

[Archangel]

On 3/20/2021 at 3:12 PM, dannyg9 said:

I respectfully disagree with you on Barnett Newman and other artists that basically comes up and to Basquiat and Keith Haring (graffiti art to put it at its most basic term). There was a movement amongst abstract expressionists (and Cubists, to a degree) to break down the norms of "Painting" or "Art" and culminating with single canvases of one color. Is it monumental? That depends on your judgement, but in the context of art history they did it FIRST. Same goes for Warhol. When art has been broken down to Rothko canvases or Pollock drip paintings (any drips AFTER Pollock is just copycat), what's left? Elevate the everyday and mundane objects such as Brillo boxes and Campbell soup cans and objectify them as art. I also like to think that with certain pieces by modern era artists that in private conversations they were possibly laughing up their sleeves. Duchamp putting a urinal on a pedestal at an exhibition comes to mind. So too the piece from Beeple. Absolutely nothing ground-breaking in regards to originality or even some sort of remarkable creativity. BUT whomever posted it and sold it was or seemingly IS the first person to do that. I'd be laughing all the way to the bank at the person crazy enough to pay that amount for something not even tangible, much less original. 

And also keep in mind, just because some cash-crazy individuals with gobs of money to burn purchase new or old art, doesn't mean that the work is elevated just because of an auction house price tag. Don't confuse scarcity of "product" and "Status-Greed" with actual worth. Case in point, there are collectors the world over who have bought vintage guitars at outrageous prices and locked them away in a vault, purely as an investment. Scarcity of some instruments, such as a 50s Gold Top Les Paul, DO bump up the value and price, but think about this: some of those vintage instruments sound terrible. Also when musicians can bring forth beautiful music (whatever floats your boat) out of a Stradivarius, a Steinway, or a Gibson, and those said instruments are relegated to collectable objects, then I believe the worth is diminished. They become items locked away and never to be touched or heard.

Art is very subjective and we each have likes and dislikes. I love the talent of Bob Ross and the inspiration he brought to so many in the simplest way. I think he could have stopped when his paintings were about 85% finished and not pushed them over the top with ONE MORE TREE. . . but I digress. In my teenage years, my mind was set that everything after the Renaissance was nothing. Studying and learning about art history is a powerful thing. It also disclosed that many of the Renaissance work was technically commercial in that the very rich or the church commissioned them.

Reminds me of the One Foot in the Grave episode with the bird poop painting.

[Mark Ingram]

On 7/4/2022 at 8:04 AM, William Overington said:

How do non-fungible tokens work please?

This is off-topic for the "Share your work" forum. 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=NFTs