Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by AnIdiotOnTheNet 1644 days ago
> The idea that buying art is anything BUT supporting an artist is pretty funny.

Traditionally people bought art to possess it, look at it, and display it for others.

> Buying art was always meant to just let the artist do his thing!

No, that's kinda what patronage was all about. We have crowd sourced versions of that.

> Selling digital art before NFTs was a complete pain! Before them you had to go with an agency or gallery, they took a cut, they had to like your stuff.

That wasn't necessary though, you could sell art all sorts of ways. You could even just set up your own online store if you wanted. All NFTs seem to have done is take advantage of the hype-chasing and speculation crowds.

> there is an honest revolution in digital art happening right now

You've lost me here. Literally nothing about what you're describing requires NFTs other than convincing people to pay money for the NFTs by tangentially tying them to art. It is enabling artists to hack human psychology for money, not enabling brand new kinds of art.

1 comments

Hacking human psychology for money is really important, and it makes a difference in people’s life’s whether you can do it or not. That’s essentially it, we do agree, but fundamentally you think there’s something “wrong” with this. Artists don’t make millions of dollars generally so them making more money is good enough for me.
Yeah, I guess we are on the same page, and yes I do think there's something wrong with it, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that part.