| > An original Picasso... vs a hash number. I agreed that physical objects have unique properties that digital objects cannot match. But presumably we can appreciate digital artworks nonetheless? It is also true that the nature of the digital object means that ownership of the NFT is somewhat disconnected from whether a .jpg is physically in your computers memory at any given time. But the choice is not between an original Picasso and a random hash number, but rather: - An original Picasso painting vs an equally enjoyable copy.
- An NFT of Picasso's digital illustration vs an equally enjoyable copy. Are you able to experience that same intangible connection with history by looking at a blockchain entry, as you might be standing in front of an old painting? Maybe not. But you may experience a version of it, in the same as you might by looking at the first websites. > Would I rather have the basketball that Lebron dunked in a game or some random basketball that Lebron issued an NFT for? Sure. What about a unique NFT of a sword that was used to win in a watershed eSports event? Note that this would be a digital object that does not merely represent the sword, but it is the sword, i.e. I can now use it in the game. I think people would value that through largely the same mental mechanism as the basketball. |