Art Is Becoming a Financial Product, and Blockchain Is Making It Happen | Hacker News Reader

Art Is Becoming a Financial Product, and Blockchain Is Making It Happen

nytimes.com

45 pointspatrickxb15 comments

Misleading title. Doesn't cite any example of blockchain making anything happen.

The article mentions blockchain tech only towards the end, and the specific blockchain to which they refer hasn't even started operating yet.

Indeed,

The one example is simply securitizing a work of art, "with the blockchain", where naturally a blockchain is no more useful than a simple contract since blockchains don't guarantee action in the real world.

Which is to say blockchains could never do what the article claims, as you'd expect. It reminds me of people selling digital paper-clips in the 1980's.

Digital paper-clips? Could you explain what that is? I didn't get any results via Google.

Funnily enough I googled it too and Google now brings up your question about digital paper-clips.

Yes. The only advantage I can see for a blockchain (vs. a simple contract) is that shares could be transferred anonymously, rather than requiring legal paperwork (which would reveal the name of the seller and of the purchaser). So perhaps useful for money launderers, or as an alternative to money launderers.

Art is (kinda) already a financial product, since a long time ago, and it never needed blockchain to do that.

> it envisioned how blockchain technology might “change the balance of economic power in the art market” and “integrate art into the financial sector.”

LOL

Typical blockchain specialist talking about stuff they know nothing about.

Here's the intelligence of your average "cryptogenius" https://www.wired.com/story/classic-scam-steals-bitcoin-on-t...

We aren't children, we all know that art is a way to park money. The title is misleading and the subject clickbaity.

As someone who has loved mechanical watches <insert other qualitative hobbies I’m sure> for years and seen them become a financial product over the last decade or so. I’m not convinced making art a financial product is a net positive.

I think the difference is that traditional art, to which I mean paintings, are impossible to recreate exactly. Especially, painters like Pollack and Bacon who edited their work using chance/luck as a tool. You can’t do that with watches. Paintings serve as a unique visual representation or a token that is extremetely effective as a financial instrument. Paintings will always be on the lead when it comes to a financial product.

Watches, even custom ones, serve a different purpose. They rarely show up on Christie’s or Sotheby’s. Instead, they serve as a communication device. I am, possibly incorrectly, conspiring that this is the reason for the death of ultra high end pocket watches. They’re just not as visible.

Good point, I agree on the uniqueness of traditional art being a big factor In it’s ability to be used as an asset.

Watches are pretty common these days at the big auction houses and most if not all have departments specializing in them now. Selling to many buyers who are presumably speculators with little intention to no intention to wear the watch.

https://www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/sothebys-beefs-u...

Art is already and has been for a long time a financial product. As well as old cars, or some wine brands, or original draw of a page of a Marvel book, and things we may not see as financial product.

For instance at a smaller scale I was into investing in perfect replica of light sabers and limited editions of them. They cost around $1000 and I hope to resell them in a few years for more. And if not I am still happy to have them so it’s not that much a loss.

The biggest benefit is depending of your country you can have tax benefits that you won’t have on profits with other more classic financial products.

My gut tels me that modern art is a bubble with no objective way to measure any aspect of it and the market price is artificially inflated by all sorts of actors with conflicting interests.

Have you read a good critic of moder art that you could recommend?

'Duty Free Art' by Hito Steyerl might be of interest to you. It's largely about how artworks are used by the rich to store wealth in tax-free locations, and how that affects and distorts the art market more generally. Steyerl is an artist herself but her work is often critical of contemporary art practices and institutions.

I knew I was on to something! [0]

[0] https://blackbox-1285.appspot.com/hn.html

Wait, people invest in art?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com