Hacker News Reader

Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

Counter point - art itself has absolutely zero non-monetary applications. If you disagree, then you must admit NFTs can be appreciated as art. If so, the argument of the OP is refuted.

If you think art can be appreciated without being an NFT, then why pay any amount of money for any physical art when a super high resolution PNG does the same thing?

View on HN

> If you disagree, then you must admit NFTs can be appreciated as art. If so, the argument of the OP is refuted.

This seems to be an object/reference mistake: NFTs (as we've been repeatedly told) are tokenizations of an asset, not the asset itself. You can tokenize anything, so of course there exist things represented by NFTs that are themselves are.

But NFTs themselves? They're not art, at least not until the Andy Warhol of SHA256 shows up.

Can you do ascii art in 256 bits?

Anyone whose been to a museum knows that super high resolution images are not the same as art. They have a limit amount of color information, can’t be displayed in the same way unless you print them (which is difficult to do well), and don’t have any 3d features (like brush strokes).

That said, people are willing to pay irrationally large amounts of money for art for pretty similar reasons to why they pay money for NFTs.

Art itself often has material and labour value. And labour from real skilled worker. Not some arbitrary energy input.

NFTs as tokens not really. The art used in conjunction maybe. But the token is not art.

I see NFT as an alias to a file.

The NFT art is art.

The NFT itself isn't - it's in fact just a .. wait for it now .....financial tool to monetize said art.

got 'em

Reply on news.ycombinator.com