[max48]

>I can easily print out a high-quality Mona Lisa and put it on my wall, and I can enjoy it, but I wouldn't pretend I own it.

Even a half blind person would tell you the print doesn't look anything like the painting. If you want something that looks close to the really thing, it's difficult to make. There is modern art that would be cheap/easy to replicate (eg. a blank canvas made by artist trying to create a debate about what is art or not) but anything that you are likely to want on your wall will easily cost you >500$ to replicate properly in its original size (they are larger than they look).

>It is mathematically impossible to copy the NFT. It isn't the same smart contract, it isn't the same NFT. It is theoretically possible to arrange atoms in the precise location of a physical object, however.

I wrote it poorly, I was referring to the art behind the NFT that you can replicate easily. If I see a very cool picture and want to use it as my wallpaper on my laptop, I don't need to recreate the exact same smart contract with the same wallet key or pay for the NFT, I can just copy the picture in a few clicks. The picture will look the same with or without the NFT

[seibelj]

As I stated before, the art is less important than the proof of ownership. The creator says, “This is the contract. There are only this many. All others are fake.” And for whatever reason I like the creator and want to own it. Just like a perfect print simply isn’t the real thing, I don’t want the saved image, I want the real NFT.

And again, you are fully allowed to disagree, I’m trying to explain the mentality of the NFT purchaser and it’s similarity to the physical art world.