The real value in having an authentic painting comes from the history of the piece, that it is the same canvas and pigments that were touched by the (famous/reclusive/dead) artist (or at least one of their assistants)
The same could be said of any museum piece. There is a weight and responsibility attached to that physical item that is carried with it.
With an NFT, the digital asset you hold can never convey anything tangible about the creative process and history of the work; it's not like owning that unveils the PSD file and Youtube livestream of the artist at work with their Cintiq. The stream of bits is the stream of bits. Everyone gets access to the same stream of bits, except one person gets to wear a special hat while they look at them.
It's like you started with a print or reproduction of the masterwork, but on a new canvas. Like you're saying this is print #00001, and you get to have that specific one. Sort of.
What I'm saying is that NFT _itself_ does not embody any aspect of the creative process or context. With the exception of the fact the artists issued an NFT in the first place on such-and-such date, and that might mean something in the future when we look back on this topic.
What if the artist issues the NFT during a live stream of the creation of the digital artwork? It seems odd to me that we would consider a physical painting to “embody” the creative process, but somehow the creative process of a digital painting is lost forever?
It's not just art... It's why otherwise ordinary items have sentimental value. Like a specific stuffed animal, or a mile marker. NFTs lack an intrinsic to convey this that goes beyond the digital item itself. Having or looking at a digital asset can itself be nostalgic, but the NFT does not specifically effect this, except in the sense of the act of buying it.
Again, it’s the fact that the artist issued the NFT. Why are autographs from famous people valuable (sentimentally, and sometimes financially) even though signing autographs doesn’t require much creativity or effort, and signing autographs has nothing to do with why the people are famous?
They're valuable because that meant the autographer had to be present and see and individually touch whatever was being signed. Often times it is a memento of a fan meeting their idol.
If you’re talking about NFTs that weren’t authorized by the artist, then of course I agree. I have been talking about NFTs that are deliberately issued by the artist.
The real value in having an authentic painting comes from the history of the piece, that it is the same canvas and pigments that were touched by the (famous/reclusive/dead) artist (or at least one of their assistants)
The same could be said of any museum piece. There is a weight and responsibility attached to that physical item that is carried with it.
With an NFT, the digital asset you hold can never convey anything tangible about the creative process and history of the work; it's not like owning that unveils the PSD file and Youtube livestream of the artist at work with their Cintiq. The stream of bits is the stream of bits. Everyone gets access to the same stream of bits, except one person gets to wear a special hat while they look at them.
It's like you started with a print or reproduction of the masterwork, but on a new canvas. Like you're saying this is print #00001, and you get to have that specific one. Sort of.
So really it's not at all the same.