[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.

[seibelj]

Just noting that someone on HN says that considering the Mona Lisa a better piece of art than squares-and-circles nonsense "an uniformed position to take". Art people have been a consistent source of absurdity in my life!