RAMROD 117,302 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 DWUW in 2085 will be too (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ✧*:･ﾟ ᶠʳᵒⁿᵗ ᵗᵒʷᵃʳᵈ ᵉⁿᵉᵐʸ (*´艸｀*) ♡♡♡ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LilMonst3r 5,688 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 24 minutes ago, TimisaMonster said: I will never understand how people spend millions on things like this when people in this country right now can't even afford basic food... Money laundering? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CautiousLurker 19,732 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 I'm surprised people on here are so lukewarm about this - thought you gheys liked when artists got paid (potentially) It's a joke! When you give me that look, it's a joke! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WhoDoWeHaveHere Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 2 hours ago, MagneticMoon said: Is people okay nowadays? You spelled the artist wrong… it's beeple not people Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defmix100 7,108 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 this is the same artist who made that Plastic Doll visual snippet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAMROD 117,302 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 2 hours ago, CautiousLurker said: I'm surprised people on here are so lukewarm about this - thought you gheys liked when artists got paid (potentially) Read the liner notes. Only when white pop queens did it. I saw the trends. (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ✧*:･ﾟ ᶠʳᵒⁿᵗ ᵗᵒʷᵃʳᵈ ᵉⁿᵉᵐʸ (*´艸｀*) ♡♡♡ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorSwift 162,744 Posted March 2, 2021 Author Share Posted March 2, 2021 3 hours ago, CautiousLurker said: I'm surprised people on here are so lukewarm about this - thought you gheys liked when artists got paid (potentially) This 6.6M got person who resold this video, not artist. https://store.taylorswift.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastNight 5,943 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 I don't really understand enough to fully articulate my thoughts, but I think the subject of art and ownership in the digital age is fascinating, especially when compared to collecting and owning 'traditional', physical art. Ok yes someone can buy a postcard of the Mona Lisa, but it doesn't compare to actually owning the original because that is a tangible object, touched by the artist; and yet applying that same logic here doesn't feel quite the same for some reason, despite there also being an original version created by the artist. Is it because there's a computer between artist and art, and then the final result is so easily accessed by others? Any of us can watch the video and even screen record it and "own" a copy of it ourselves, but it's still not THE original. Is it the same thing, is it not? I don't know but I think it's a really interesting topic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bebe 17,289 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 5 hours ago, myluis617 said: Money laundering? 100% this is the answer no doubt. Playing devil's advocate for no reason though; I kind of do understand the appeal of buying something that, due to its unique digital signature, is essentially impossible to forge. Take the first google result for "art forgery" "The unravelling of a string of shocking old master forgeries began in the winter of 2015, when French police appeared at a gallery in Aix-en-Provence and seized a painting from display. Venus, by the German Renaissance master Lucas Cranach the Elder, to describe the work more fully: oil on oak, 38cm by 25cm, and dated to 1531. Purchased in 2013 by the Prince of Liechtenstein for about £6m, Venus was the inescapable star of the exhibition of works from his collection; she glowed on the cover of the catalogue. But an anonymous tip to the police suggested she was, in fact, a modern fake – so they scooped her up and took her away. The painting had been placed in the market by Giuliano Ruffini, a French collector, and its seizure hoisted the first flag of concern about a wave of impeccable fakes. Ruffini has sold at least 25 works, their sale values totalling about £179m, and doubts now shadow every one of these paintings..... What was most unnerving about the alleged fakes sold by Ruffini was how many people they fooled. The National Gallery in London displayed a small oil painting thought to be by the 16th-century artist Orazio Gentileschi – a battle-weary David, painted on an electric-blue slice of lapis lazuli; the work is now suspect. A portrait of a nobleman against a muddy background was sold by Sotheby’s in 2011, to a private collector, as a Frans Hals; the buyer paid £8.5m... The works were full of striking, scrupulous detail. On Jerome’s arm, for example, dozens of faint horizontal cracks have appeared; every so often, a clean, vertical split intersects them. In French canvases from the 18th century, cracks in paint tend to develop like spider webs; in Flemish panels, like tree bark. In Italian paintings of the Renaissance, the patterns resemble rows of untidy brickwork. On the Saint Jerome, the cracks match perfectly. Prof David Ekserdjian, one of the few art historians who doubted that the painting was a Parmigianino, said he just didn’t feel the prickle of recognition that scholars claim as their gift: the intimacy with an artist that they liken to our ability to spot a friend in a crowd. “But I have to be frank, I didn’t look at it and say: ‘Oh, that’s a forgery.’” https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/15/how-to-spot-a-perfect-fake-the-worlds-top-art-forgery-detective Imagine paying millions for a piece of work that has been authenticated, has been hung in reputable museums, has been inspected by hundreds of experts only to find out later that this asset is a fake and have it's value plummet to nothing in a matter of seconds. There are people talented enough to reproduce any work of art, no matter how incredible. The accuracy of the reproduction does not matter though as it is generally understood that it doesn't have the history behind it, it wasn't produced by the hand of the person who imagined the work or its creation wasn't directed by the genius behind it. The Mona Lisa is arguable the most famous painting in the world and is estimated to be worth around $660 million. An admitted replica sold for half a million. I'm not great at math, but that's a difference of about $659.5 million. I'm not taking into account the exchange rate between $/£ however the point stands. It took just as much skill to create the replica, it is just as beautiful but the original is accepted to have vastly more value than any replica (no matter how good). If you had the money to invest in art, knowing that it's value grows over time, would you prefer to spend millions on some abstract painting of horizontal lines that could turn out to be a forgery or would you prefer to spend millions on a digital artwork with a unique signature that can't be replicated? Being able to own a piece of art and say, undoubtedly, "This is the original creation and all other's are replications and copies of this work" is a big deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharamon 6,839 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 And here i am struggling to get money to pay for bills Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CautiousLurker 19,732 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 6 hours ago, 777777777777777777 said: This 6.6M got person who resold this video, not artist. I saw that - it's not what I'm referring to... That's not the issue people brought up, but the fact someone would pay this money for digital art - considering how often digital artists get lambasted for 'not making real art', one would think this story would be a positive since at the very least people can't use the 'there's no original, it can't be sold like traditional art' anymore.. Guess not, 6.6M is just too damn much It's a joke! When you give me that look, it's a joke! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.