[jbluepolarbear]

I think people are just confused. Like, I didn’t know if who Beeple was and after seeing their work I can say it’s pretty offensive. So why is it worth anything? Is it because it’s a great work of art or did somebody with too much money take a gamble on Vaporware?

[cwkoss]

What about the art offended you?

[jbluepolarbear]

Did you read the article? Sexist, racist, and bigoted content.

[cwkoss]

I read the article and the critic is obviously trying to do a takedown, but none of the examples appear racist or sexist to me.

Do you agree with everything the critic said?

[jbluepolarbear]

Really? Because they made posts using the word homo, a picture of Hilary Clinton naked with a penis, Dalai Lama performing sexual acts...

[cwkoss]

Yeah, the "homo" caption seems in poor taste if Beeple is straight.

The other two are crude, but I don't think I'd call them sexist.

[seibelj]

Why is this worth $85mil? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprematist_Composition

Honestly looks like a piece of shit to me, something my child could do. Value of art doesn't have to do with skill.

[UncleMeat]

Sure.

But usually a piece like this goes for 85m long after the artist has achieved major notoriety in the art community and their work has been a clear influence on later art. In this case the 85m sale was 100 years after the creation of this piece.

That may be a stupid reason, but it isn't a circular reason. Beeple, on the other hand, appears to be famous for selling art at ridiculous prices through NFTs.

[jbluepolarbear]

The value of art is dictated by only a few players (really rich people). Generally, expensive art is from an influential artist; specifically, the pieces that were atypical or experimental.

[eutropia]

As someone who enjoys abstract art, I'd like to have a print of this. It's very pleasant.

But I'm pretty sure most art dealings are just money laundering.

[postalrat]

Is there a painting you think is worth 85 million?

[Grustaf]

Anything Leonardo even touched should be worth at least that.

[seibelj]

Is there a reason why the painting I linked is $85mil, and the Beeple NFT isn't? My argument is that the value of a collectible (NFT, painting, baseball card) is actually because of what it represents, rather than the object itself.

[tablespoon]

> Is there a reason why the painting I linked is $85mil, and the Beeple NFT isn't? My argument is that the value of a collectible (NFT, painting, baseball card) is actually because of what it represents, rather than the object itself.

Probably because that artist and his work were actually influential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich

When looked at as an artist, Beeple appears to be the digital art equivalent of some forgettable late-Rococo painter.

[nl]

> My argument is that the value of a collectible (NFT, painting, baseball card) is actually because of what it represents, rather than the object itself.

Well... yeah?

Has anyone ever argued that the Mona Lisa is worth whatever its raw materials are worth?

The real question is if the Beeple work is interesting as art or is if just a speculative bubble. https://www.ft.com/content/1563d643-332f-3887-8c6e-caf7435f3...

[seibelj]

Many would argue that the Mona Lisa required an immense amount of skill and technique, and is a very high quality piece of art. Modern art (squares and circles) that anyone can make, I just don't see why it has the same value.

But it does! And that's my point about NFTs.

[nl]

> Many would argue that the Mona Lisa required an immense amount of skill and technique, and is a very high quality piece of art. Modern art (squares and circles) that anyone can make, I just don't see why it has the same value.

No art critic or collector makes that argument, and it's an uniformed position to take. People don't pay for the skill - there is no shortage of (very poorly paid) people who can do a convincing forgery of a daVinci.

Something to consider.