The Art Market world has always been about Art as trading assets; and a lot of artists (primarly avant-garde ones) have fought for that to be changed, for example with performance art making it more difficult to be traded, or even video art; and the Art Market has always been able to turn things around and make a profit... So I see this as another oportunity for the art market to take a step into the digital art world and, of course, get the money. As an artist, I see that NFT are good for the short run for us, but in the future it will probably be regulated and centralized to be only profitable for "the big ones".
Imagine a augmented reality heads up display. You can display the NFT art piece in real time in your living room or wherever. At least this is where I envision art will go.
I doubt it. Most art goes on real walls. Itll grow parallel to tangible art. Unless we hit some dystopian society where people jack into a matrix. People said ebooks would kill print media and that didnt happen
In the California gold rush of the 1840s more people got rich from selling the equipment for gold prospecting than actually got rich from gold prospecting.
Great logic in your break down. It seems to me NFTs will really be saturated and unless you’re a well known artist your art work is like a needle in a hay stack or more like another piece of hay among millions of others. I just don’t know how an artist without a lot of exposure and popularity can really benefit. I definitely need to continue to research. Thanks for your video. Very well put together.
Isn't this the same exact predicament for people creating physical art tho? Either way you'd need to be known or have an audience to make selling art profitable
@@bigbrotherallstars43 yeah. many artists are looking for a get-rich quick route, but the reality is you get rich as an artist by making many high-quality pieces and getting your reputation up which is still hard work that takes a lot of networking. and we all know artists are too busy creating art to network. which is why i think nfts are a good solution because networking is so much easier in the cyber space. you don't even need to show your face-- just a build an awesome community who loves what your art stands for.
Ai Weiwei did destroyed art pieces, old Ming vases, as part of his art performance and photograp it. Your video really is a good starting point for reflexions and questions. Thanks!
I was completely ignorant about NFTs until today and this video explained it brilliantly, cheers! It's hard to deny that the financial benefits they create for artists are potentially massive, and I'm all for creators finally getting their dues. However, the potential for digital art theft and unauthorised minting, the environmental impact, and the devaluation (and possible destruction!) of physical art is terrifying.
Or duplicate the artist in a.i form making a digital form of the artist more valuable than physical form of artist (I guess if there going to force us to be cyborgs with nothing but gigs and gigs of memory and ram I guess we're going to have to keep stuff somewhere)
It's going to integrate into the wider system of validation which still includes physical copies. It will become part of a larger protocol that combines old and new ways to certify art. I think beeple's everydays is a good example of how it should work.
Thanks for the fascinating video. I now feel like I fully understand the NFT art situation and I think... I think I hate all of this. It's an extension of the weird art collector community MIXED with horrible tech bro investing culture. It's not about art, it's about money.
It is. The worst part is that people have already minted other people's artworks as their own NFT, creating false ownership from the get-go. Unless you mint every piece you've ever shared, you're still at risk from your art being stolen. Not to mention the massive environmental impact NFT/Crypto/Blockchain has.
definitely one of the better NFT videos out right now! To me this seems like an upside for digital artists specifically and that is why so many people are FOMOing in. Being able to cut out the label, or auction house in some traditional sense is very exciting for those that have been giving their work away for free but have a large audience. So cool to see this conversation here!!!
Very clear. Thanks for the explanation. I can't believe the high cost of the transaction, looses the whole point of making money, especially for amateur artists.
I'm glad to see that you have (to date) the exact same experience that I had - same platform, same high gas fees, and same realization that the sea of NFT's (particularly on Rareable) presents the same old, virtually insurmountable problem of, how does anyone ever find your work?
I agree with what you said at the end of the video. It's supposed to make a revolution for artist but it actually sounds like a lot like trading and more of the same thing that's already happening with the physical art market.
This was extremely insightful. Your points are valid about what effect/affect this is going to have on physical art and artists. Trying to educate myself and this was definitely one of the finer videos I've seen thus far on the topic.
Thank you for going through the trouble as an artist to provide more insightful experience / knowledge for other artists. This has definitely helped me understand what this new trend is all about at the moment and answered some questions I had about weather this market actually aids in protecting the value of authentic work.
I'm not an "artist" perse, I'm a content creator and primarily make photomanip memes for use in my videos but my recovering collector nature puts me off to hyper consumerist nature of NFTs. I am glad artists are able to leverage this now, I can't say I know how I would in a way that represented me as an anti-consumerist artist.
Not into this concept at all as an artist of a physical medium such as photography but for 3D art and such it might be cool, idk... Do you lose the copy right as the creator of the original art work or photo, or is the NFT considerd a stand alone item and you as the creator can still go on and make and sell prints of that photo?
Totally respect your opinion! But how about digital photos? Aren't they digital? You could print a digital artwork, and it would become physical. As for the copyright, it's a good question and one I wasn't fully knowledgeable of to bring up in the video but it's super important and I don't think it's fully established yet about what that involves. I think currently the artist still holds the ability to continue selling prints and what not of the same art piece. Ownership is just applying to the NFT itself. Or at least I believe it should be that way
They might be separated unless otherwise stated, same with editions of different sizes of photographs. You might have a limited edition of a 30x40 sold out and release later on a 40x60 of the same photograph unless clearly stated that the 30x40 edition is the only printing that will ever be made of said photograph.
From my understanding the ownership is only for the NFT itself and the creator retains copyright unless specified otherwise. Kind of like you can own a print of a photo, but it doesn't mean you can go copy it onto other products.
Copyright law does not cease to apply because an NFT has been minted for a digital artwork. The NFT is a digital certificate of authenticity that is stored on a public digital ledger. If you made digital 'prints' (ie, copies) they would either be delivered as a limited edition series (or a second series). The purchase agreement may stipulate that 'the artist reserves the right to release future versions of this artwork' and the market would determine the value of the original versus the print/copies. The buyer may contest if the 'original' loses its value/rarity because the artist dumps 1M copies on the market. But at the same time, they will still own the 'first edition' and that is where part of the value lies.
Here is the way this is going to play out. The most public figures, companies, etc are going to have successful NFTs long term and NFTs will indeed be used for many years. BUT, there is so many flaws to the concept that lesser known artists and everyone in the middle is going to get burned. Just think about a painting. A physical painting is easy to verify. Brush strokes, paint, canvas, date testing can all be verified. Someone uploads a digital painting and I think "wow, that is incredible, I gotta have it..." Here are my questions as a buyer that can't be answered: a) I see that "BobThePainter" uploaded it. How do I know that's the REAL Bob? Maybe the real painter is "BobPainter" and this is someone that is selling his work b) How do I know that BobThePainter actually painted it? Maybe he bought a physical painting, scanned it and is taking credit for it. c) How do I know what he ACTUALLY DID to create it? Maybe he just took someone's work and modified it. Does that make it unique? Maybe, maybe not. Does he owe partial ownership if he used part of someone else's? d) What is to stop BobThePainter from re-uploading this same thing a month after the sale and diluting it? Is the community going to realize that I have the "first" edition? How would I even know what edition it is and how many subsequent copies are out there? If he changes the background from blue to red, does that change it and make mine less valuable? e) Just thinking through copyrights and trademarks and it's going to be laughable. Say you record a video at an NBA game and get an amazing video. Can you just sell it and take 100% of the profit? What about rights from the NBA? What if there are ads in the background, do you need their permission? What about the player? The Team? The Stadium? Think about selling a NFT of the Mona Lisa. Who would get the money from that? The Louve? The French Government? Do descendants of Da Vinci have a claim? Descendants of Mona Lisa herself? Lets say that I buy an original painting from a painter directly. Does that give me the right to sell an NFT of it? I mean, I bought his/her work, so why can't I? Or maybe the artist should have rights in which case, my 1 of 1 painting could now have an additional new owner that believes that they "own" it because they own it digitally when I have it physically. I think the problem is that people think that buying an NFT gives the more "rights" than it does. All you own is a digital trading card. That's it. Nothing else and nothing more. It's kinda like buying a DVD. You only have limited rights to watch the DVD. You don't "own" Star Wars, you only own a media of it. You aren't allowed to make posters from it (even for personal use only). You can't have movie night for the neighborhood and show it without permission, etc. The whole "I'll get royalties for the life of my creation" is BS too. Lets say it's programmed into the Etherium contract for 30%. Okay. It sells a few times and maybe you get a cut and then it goes to Christie's and sells for $20 million. I'm rich you think! Except, you never get a check. Why not? Why would you? Do you think your Etherium Contract KNOWS about the Christie's sale? How could it? It's got to get it's sale price from somewhere and Christie's sure isn't going to make the seller write you a check for $6 million if they don't have to, so they'll just pass it onto the new owner who will enter in $1 as the sale price and you'll get $0.30. What are you going to do about it? Sue Christie's? Did they have a LEGAL obligation to enforce a digital contract? Ha! Good luck with that. These might seem like nit-picky things, but they are EVERYTHING when it comes to collectables. The internet changed the collectable market for good because it put a spotlight on the REAL demand and supply of things like newer baseball cards and beanie babies. People realized that there were far, far more sellers than buyers and the products were FAR less rare than they thought. I'm sure the famous Michael Jordan tongue-out video/image will sell for millions, but eventually it'll drop to very little because it's NOT going to be the only copy ever made. They'll have "Limited Editions" and "Special Editions" and "Collector Editions" and "Anniversary Editions". Ever notice that any products that have a "collector's edition" are usually worthless? There will be many short term winners, but expect to hear "remember when someone paid millions for a digital copy of the first Tweet, what idiots!" in 5-10 years.
I like your points. I'm also trying to wrap my head around the royalties thing. To one of your points, if lets say I mint and sell my NFT with a 30% royalty and it sells several times over for higher amounts each time, because of the minting and process of authentication within it's block chain transactions, would I not, as the primary seller,(minter) be given those royalties by an automatic deposit through the block chain after every purchase of it? Then let's say Christie's buys it, sells it for the $20 million, and because of the authentication of the block chain and you being the primary seller who minted the piece, would you not still get an automatic deposit for the 30% royalty after the sale? I'm completely uneducated about block chains and how they work so I could be completely wrong about the process of these selling of NFTs. It'll be a while before I completely understand how this can help me as an artist. I think your points are completely valid. Again, to your point, touching upon the subject of royalties. Once someone buys the NFT, them now being the soul owner of the digital copy, what is to stop them from saving the file onto their hardrive, deleting the NFT from the platform and then re uploading the file and themselves minting what would now be the "first" version of that NFT and being able to set the price and what ever royalties they want? At that point the original "creator" gets nothing as they are no longer tied to the block chain. The whole NFT thing seems very questionable. I can say with confidence I don't fully understand. I've heard a youtuber say in his video about NFTs that they are basically a new way of money laundering.
as an artist , if someone commissions me for a piece wouldn't they officially own it ? , wouldn't our conversations , payment receipt they made , aren't all these things a proof that you own something ?
In that context it would be like a crypto certificate of authenticity, so kind of an extra layer of proof that someone commissioned/owns that piece. Like you can own a Rolex and probably tell if it's legit or fake from context clues like build quality and purchase history, but having a matching certificate makes it that much easier to verify legitimacy and true ownership.
It depends on what you agreed on when making the deal. As an example, if you can sell a commission and allow people to use it in their intended way, but as the owner of the intellectual rights, that piece still belongs to you unless you stated in the contract that you were handing the full rights to the commissioner. Copyright law is a complex subject, but it seems that the point with NFTs to actually handover the rights without the complexity of writing complex contracts on your own. I personally find it interesting, but a bit scary as well, since in a way it seems similar to how record labels work.
i understand the sentiment behind investors and turning your art into a tradable asset, but realistically isn’t that what art on larger scale is? these painters that were nobodies had someone spend money on these paintings with those same hopes. ‘if i purchase this for crazy money, someone else will see that it’s worth that and maybe they’ll buy something for crazy money too. that’ll increase the amount my painting is worth.’ art, unfortunately, has always been a tradable asset / part of someone’s investment portfolio. and while we as artists absolutely create because we love it, at the end of the day having someone bet on us in that way is a goal in some sense. i’m super interested to see what NFT can offer the photography world, hopefully it pushes us as artists to maybe go out of our comfort zone to create something wild for NFT, but at the least hopefully it gives us a way to monetize and create a little bit of (hopefully) residual income. thanks for this video it was an awesome way to start thinking about NFT as a whole
Thanks for watching and I love the points you brought up. Art has always in a way been a tradeable asset, you're right. It's funny how the Banksy piece that was burned was actually a piece that made fun of Art collectors and the crazy amounts of money they would spend on artworks. It sort of comes full circle there. As long as we're not out here trying to burn and destroy every physical artpiece and turn them into NFTs I don't see the harm. It just provides another way for artists to monetize their works. And no one is forcing them to make an NFT anyway!
They are extremely bad for the environment. Look into it before you go that way, and make sure the money you make is worth the actual damage to the planet which you are doing by making them...
@@FaizalWestcott They are extremely damaging to the environment... You may want to look into it and decided for yourself if damaging the planet so deeply is worth a few bucks to you...
i think that currently physical art is already significantly controlled by financial markets. Like as a tax write off here, easy way to transfer money there (i’m buying the artwork that you own not giving you a bribe), small package to physically transport a lot of money, etc. I think there’s an economics explained vid on the art market. But yeah, wrapping it up in virtual currencies definitely has some plenty of financial fancy footwork potential/ motivw
Correct. The other way is to artificially inflate value and it’s later given or “sold” back. It’s safer than doing it with fiancé’s because that can be illegal. Art isn’t regulated like securities, hence people do that to transfer wealth, evade taxes, or give themselves artificial wealth.
I would like to say one thing about career momentum under a capitalistic society. I recently had this conversation with a coworker of mine, and the gist of what we talked about was how the quality of our work, and what we ultimately contribute to society under capitalistic dominated rule, is dominated by the money that can be made by it. This seems rather intuitive and defensible at first, but understand that I am a research cellular and molecular biologist. All of the work that I do is approved by grants and loans which I procure from businesses only out to make money from my passion of creating a better world by further understanding the natural world in which we live in. You as an artist, and the tireless work that you do can boil down to your own turmoils, or the turmoils of the world around you. This is incredibly telling of human existence, yet the value of your art work, and my biological work, is determined by financial interests. This is unfortunate because our passions, which we work and pay through college is ultimately capitalized upon; therefore, making money for those at the top while we simply attain livable wages. This has been my ted talk.
Omg I loveeee your reflection on all of this, your last 5 mins in this video raised some really valid questions and actually helped me understand wtf nft is! Thanks for sharing, and I really enjoyed this intelligent conversation 👍
I think it’s going to be hard for greater society to agree in the value of what is ultimately a blockchain code for an endlessly reproducible jpeg file or piece art and agree that it has value in the same way as a physical piece of art. It’s a trend right now and big artists like Grimes are capitalizing it by releasing boring artworks that people are spending millions on, but in a few years I feel that most of the NFT art being released right now will only depreciate in value. The other problem is the massive amount of energy waste crypto art and crypto currencies also generate. An artist released an NFT work and within a couple hours it used more energy than his entire art studio used over 2 years, people comparing NFTs to the production of physical goods are missing the entire point, digital goods do not need to be nearly this wasteful and environmentally harmful.
You bring up such a good point on the energy waste that crypto currencies generate. I don't think it gets talked about enough and it's entirely unsustainable unless something changes. It seems like NFTs are really hot right now, but it's worth to speculate what people will think of them down the road like maybe in a couple months lol.
I've been reading about NFT's today and wondering if it's viable to jump into as a photographer. You helped me understand this subject a whole lot more. Thank you for this video mate.
Thanks a lot for the vlog,... really valuable for those digital artists like me who are looking at understanding how our art could be always kept unique and can be sold.
We artists are basically being used to give value to their digital (non existent/value less) currency, in hopes that maybe one day someone will buy your art for no where close to what the art of their artist friends was supposedly sold for. Its the grand marketing to promote a new form of currency when we could be making, with all the technology we boast, a moneyless society of abundance for all mankind by creating self sufficient systems of abundance for all.
I havebeen exploring this NFT conversation for some time now. Blogs, Clubhouse, IG. But it’s a lot of 3D animated/illustrations/manipulated photographic works involving a large community of artists in those lanes. Curious of how it works for traditional visual artists, more specifically as street photographers. Have you seen any other street photography in that space? Do you feel that the value of street photography can increase the more NFTs are made within that genre? So many questions! Haha
This is a great question and I noticed the same. I think it's a great platform for digital artists to finally get paid for their works. A digital artist working with moving visuals can't easily sell a "print" of it as a photographer could. So I do see the value of the NFT marketplace for those artists. Originally I felt like us photographers were sort of being left out, but looking at it this way it seems digital artists are finally getting their due. I do however think street photography can still hold a place in the NFT marketplace and on blockchain. Our work is historically valuable as a visual documentation of life and everything that goes along with it. Having that documentation live on forever in a protected digital network seems like it shouldn't be forgotten. I believe Ephimera is curated NFT marketplace specialized for photographers
@@FaizalWestcott I'm seeing nothing but good things come out of this viral discovery, as of now. Of course there will be kinks to work out with this whole business model but it has ke excited to say the least for digital content makers
I think nfts take advantage of the medium they"live" in, si naturally 3d animations, gifs, combined media will thrive especially because they are"newly" classified as art. I think selling a traditional photo this way is going to be harder, much harder than any of these other assets. If you were to use that photograph, fort example, on a combined media piece, the value and chances of selling it would skyrocket. (IMHO) Still, it would be nice to have part of the cake.
Some really insightful thoughts. I appreciate your perspective as a real artist. I feel NFTs were initially created for digital collectables (digital cards, game items) and as an investment vehicle. I feel like they've hijacked the true meaning, the soul of art and turned into a money making scheme. It is sad and unfortunate, though maybe inevitable given the perpetual digitization of our world.
What would stop two individuals to create a separate NFT of the two copies of a same work item? I feel like the NFT is associated with the authenticity of a certain digital scan or copy, and not really related to the actual item.
you bring up good points. Artists will dab in to make money sharing their art but you will have the market flooded with investors trying to get profits as well.
trading art is a way of spreading art, making it available for more people and more circles. These NFT trading systems are designed so the original artist gets 10% everytime a piece is sold. Fans will most likely never sell, but if they where to sell, it would be of benefit for the artist in at least 2 ways.
I t relies on Blockchain and so it requires a huge number of calculations.. it is very destructive to the environment by using a load of electricity to process... a HUGE load.
The art itself is there. The 0 and 1 that make up a jpeg of a GIF. But, when you display it digitally, you can copy it (even if you screen record / print screen). If you put it up on a television, you would not notice any difference. But, when you sell it, it's a totally different thing. The NFT has an almost unbreakable registration of what happened to that piece. And also has the 0 and 1 that make up the thing. So, when you sell it, people that receive it can see exactly what you saw on your computer. But actually, there are many NFTs that come with a real world piece as well. So, in those cases, the NFT has the registration but the art itself can live outside the digital world.
Thanks for this very useful video! Your explanations were very insightful. It made me think of the whole NFT system once again and... Even though I believe NFTs can be incredibly valuable as a technology to represent art ownership, I do think that this new craze will probably work out only for renowned artists or internet personalities (as it usually works right now). I've seen collectible card NFTs that were blatant meme materials, even with copyrighted figures - and these got sold off for quite much. Crypto, and so are NFTs, are solely dependend on the value people give them - so basically: If there's no interest or value to be found in a crypto coin / NFT art piece, it won't sell off plus it's lost money since you have to pay fees for every transaction you do on the blockchain. (As you showed in the video) In terms of art, at least I can hang and store my art collection for free somewhere in my room to sell it off at a later point If I wanted to, no extra fee's needed :)
I had never hear of NFT - and your explanation was very well described I learned a lot - your style is very educational and easy to understand - many thanks for the content.
I actually hope that this creates a NEW audience/customer base for artists, rather than replacing the current art market (which let's face it is already flawed but that's a different conversation). I don't believe that most people who really appreciate art will ever stop wanting to own the physical piece. If the tech bros want to invest their money in this and in so doing are financially supporting artists/increasing the value of the arts sector then I'm all for it.
thank you Faizal, you know more than you give yourself credit, I've learned a lot despite what I expected, however I appreciate the humble approach, as well.
man i hope this doesn't go mainstream, i am fine with it existing as a niche market that supports artists. i don't want my "save image as" button being taken away in favor of an ebay bid button.
Awesome. Thanks a lot for sharing. I was going to do the same thing, but now by watching this I know what the process is going to be like. Very helpful!🙏🏼
I literally heard about NFTs for the first time yesterday (yes, apparently I do live under a rock). Thanks for going through this process and explaining it to us. The numbers suggest that 1-5% of artists make money and the rest do nothing more than pay fees and live in hope. It does open up a new avenue that gets some artists paid for their work and that's good. But on the whole it looks like more of a pay to play deal for most of us.
I like the theory of burning the Banksy piece to make it into purely conceptual art (although I don't trust it's any more than a post-rationalisation). Recall that artists created performance art, environmental art, ephemeral art, and purely conceptual art in the 60s and 70s as a way of destroying the art object so that it didn't become a speculative fetish object for the super rich. LOL. Not entirely successfully. Capital can co-opt anything. And now it's the speculators who want to dematerialise the object. I think of NFTs like an extension of crypto-speculation, not as an extension of art. Digital is digital. Computers are copy/paste machines. Every function is effectively a copy/paste. Save. Cut. Copy. Paste. Duplicate. Share. Download. There is no point of origin for a work beyond copy/paste. Digital works are like words, not like diamonds. If you want to express yourself, you USE them and then they are public, and ownership is difficult to monetise (because everyone has a copy/paste machine). We rely on social customs from the days of analog to make it seem like nothing has changed.
Thanks for the info, I created an account on opensea and rarible today and made a couple of NFTs for practice. They were terrible. My one question I can't get answered is: Other than being a collectable, what do people actually do with an NFT that they own and keep?
And BTW, the fees you mentioned are just the fees to post your art. If you are lucky enough to actually make a sale, the host site not only take a %15 commission fee but there is another fee to get the crypto-currency put into your "wallet" and your bank will charge you a fee to convert the crypto into real dollars. An artist sold a picture for $289 dollars and after the fees (before the bank) he got $60 in his e-wallet.
I think this will be a lot more in line with collectible trading cards than art in terms of how the pricing and general atmosphere surrounding it will be, at least for the most part. I also think there is 0 opportunity for your average person until outrageous gas fees are eliminated, which is pretty much the major problem ETH has with ever being adopted in any mainstream capacity. It doesn't cost 50$ to make listings or sales anywhere else and the upside just doesn't make it worth the risk without already having a major following.
Hey, i just want to point out that this seems like a perfect way to support artists. Like if you have a following and you post amazing photos online and are followed by thousands of people... they might really like to OWN their favourite photo and to support the artist.
12:57 this is dystopian capitalism at its finest. I can foresee art galleries being filled with big screens and no paintings hanging on the wall in the not to distant future. :/
If you sell an NFT are you, as the creator, still the owner of that ip? If not, is there a way to still own the ip while maybe selling copies of it? Kinda like owning the original of a painting while selling prints
But...? Isn’t this based on the assumption that people would value having an original JPEG on their phone? I might be old school but to me there is a difference between that and having an original art piece on my wall.
Great video, but I really don’t understand how NFTs gives you ownership rights from a low perspective. Would it really stand in court as a legal contract? I really doubt it.
Yes. There is an opportunity for Proof of Stake blockchains (ie, Cardano, Elrond, Tezos) to provide more competitive gas fees in the NFT space. Ethereum is currently untenable.
I have not read all the comments. But here is my opinion. Let’s think of this event (sudden popularity of NFTs) Fourth Dimensionally. Consumer tech,within a decade, will curate what we see. Just like the tech in the film Minority Report. We will decorate empty rooms with NFTs that we exclusively see or allow others to view. Physical art will still exist. However, the majority population will prefer digital.
Hey man, just a heads up that NFT's are massive energy drains due to the amount of processing power that it takes to mine them, and track the blockchain ledger. NFT transactions can have the same environmental impact of idling a car 24/hrs. a day for decades. In addition to this, people have been copying other's art (or just saving the image), and minting that save file as an NFT themselves. There's no protection for any art piece until it's been minted. I understand that making money from your art is valuable, and I'm not knocking you for that, but I think NFT's deserve a lot more scrutiny for their environmental impact as well as the lack of protections/outright theft from opportunists who get their first.
I see a lot of winners and losers in this game... And as far as the “Starving Artist Scenario” goes, I don’t see that changing much. Thanks for the video!
I see a lot of potential for NFT's, and I think the idea that you can bind royalties to it helps creators get that chain of passive income that they sorely need. As far as the market, I think there will be volatility, like the currency being used. However, there is more tangible worth to most people for creative works, as they hold some emotional value. So it helps bolster Ethereum as a currency and tie it to a more tangible asset. As an artist, I personally would feel compelled to destroy my physical materials as part of the NFT, or ship them to the buyer. More leaning to destroy, since it would prevent abuse of the physical object, leaving the digital as the sole asset. IE, preventing someone from taking the physical, making a 1:1 copy, and sidestepping the NFT chain and royalties it provides.
If you provide attractive assets. Traditional concepts are going to be different to what's considered valuable nfts. A cat meme might have higher chances of selling than an ansel adams (just saying something). Not all painters front the Renaissance made money or became famous right?
Thanks! It's disturbing that there's so much uncertainty and that you need a public relations campaign or outrageous hook just to get noticed. One other disturbing thing is that people are buying NFTs for tweets. The CEO of Twitter just sold one for $2.9 million! Why would someone want to own someone else's tweet? Except of course for the reason that there are people out there willing to pay even more to buy it from them... but why would those people want to? The whole thing seems creepy, like a mass hallucination.
yes! i agree! Theres also this idea that the NFT market is in a "bubble" but honestly art is subjective and the people that buy it, are the people valuing it. Yes, i agree its an investment and a form of support to your fav artist!
Excellent vid & perfect title !! -- I trip on how authenticity can be validated ... What is stopping someone from making a duplicate and changing the identify to >>the REAL NFT>All the others are fake NFTs> With the fee's this is literally just another trendy storefront
Is this like the Tulip craze back in 18th Century? Whereby Tulip bulbs were highly valuable, simply because Tulip bulbs were presented as a highly valued COLLECTABLE. Until they weren't when they went out of fashion and Kings and Queens got bored of them and were no longer buying them at insane prices for their gardens. As a photographer/film maker I am trying to see the potential in creating media products specifically for sale as NFTS. But as a struggling artist with no social media following, what am I gaining from an NFT that I'm not getting by just selling my photos to a stock photography site? I can kinda understand buying Twitter CEOs first tweet... but I just don't get how you can use that, because you aren't actually buying any kind of image license? And how do you buy a Tweet? what are you buying? a screenshot? So the girl in the photo of the house on fire meme sold the original photo as an NFT. So, I can also understand that in a way, because although it's still a digital copy, with embedded exif data, you can at least know that you have a copy of the original file a creator used. But this would seem to only benefit those already famous? So a big rockstar could 'sell' the original jpg or bmp used for album cover artwork, or demo versions of songs. But That is no different to rock stars selling their memorabilia anyway, it just has a sophisticated digital certificate. What am I missing for new and starting out, small unknown artists/musicians who aren't already in the digital art/meme space?
Man this is cool but also kind of confusing. So the actual value isn't in the art itself but rather the transaction right? Because the art can exist elsewhere (on creators HDD for ex). Or like you said someone could take a screen shot of it. The art can be displayed whether on social media or printed out etc, but even that wouldn't hold any value. The art is basically not important, it's the string of code that says you own it. Like a receipt. Or a deed almost.
Fungible means one item is the same as the another item. If I'm buying soda for a dollar, I can use any of the 3 dollars in my wallet. They can all be used to buy that soda I want to buy. If I'm buying that soda and I'm offering a pen in exchange (assuming pens are accepted by the vendor) then the same could be apply to pens. Pens can be fungible, if for example they all came from the same box of pens. Now... if one particular pen was used by George Washington to sign the declaration of independence... then that pen has become non-fungible with the other pens from the same box, because the "George Pen" is obviously worth a lot of money.
NFTs are fancy name for a password to unlock a folder internet. They will be very useful for Real Estate transactions (and other high dollar contracts) in the future. The big story here is that contract lawyers can now be cut out of transactions.
The gas mining fees at the moment are huge but this is not controlled by rarible.. as Ethereum evolves then hopefully the current mining fees will reduce. it's such early stages of the whole technology. I've just tried Opensea as they have recently changed their process so you only pay the mining fee when you first initialize your account then after that you can upload as many as you want without that fee (some fees occur for buyer or seller depending on transaction if sold.. Again this is the Ethereum network transaction) .. It all depends on how busy the Ethereum network is as to how much that will be and nothing to do with Opensea... Whether I ever sell anything is yet to be seen but the idea that you can set a % to get revenue of all future secondary sales of your work is an exciting prospect for most creators. This is very early on in an ever changing technology so be interesting to see how it all evolves
NFTs make sense when you compare them to the work from the Big Names in the art world (I'm talking Damian Hirst, Cattelan's banana, etc). I'm waiting for Cattelan to make an NFT. Not to be too cynical, but fine art has been a money laundering/investment scheme for a long time. I think NFTs will continue then, but the market for them might be niche (like nerds paying tons of money for pokemon cards). Digital art is a really interesting space and I think there are opportunities to make some really cool stuff but I don't believe that NFTs (or whatever comes next) will fully replace physical art. People still buy records after all!
I like the IDEA of NFTs but the flux of the price is stupid. not to mention.......gas fees. I want something like a NFT that verifies my art and its a 1:1 that doesn't cost me money or little money. As of 5 mins ago to upload a NFT mint was like $104 bucks. I just want a custom stamp that verifies the art piece. I dont care about crypto stock market spazzed out lunatics'. Make digital art > Make NFT or something like it to say its a 1:1 > sell it/dont sell it > keep going
I like the experiment of filming the destruction of the Banksy piece. Does the original video of the burning Banksy piece still exist? I suspect they would not destroy it. If so the NFT is still just a copy that itself cannot be duplicated. I’m still wrapping my head around of selling NFTs. One doesn’t sell the copyright, therefore the NFT is really just a verified copy of an original.
I think the best way I’ve heard this described (if I remember correctly) is that interchangeability is like if I give you $10 and you repay me with two $5 notes, I’m no worse off because they’re recognised as the same value/interchangeable. But the rarity/scarcity of these items, and physical art, makes them hold value of their own that isn’t just purely monetary.
I dont get the taking a photo of a Picasso as an analogy because you then have a digital copy of a real tangible item,two completely different things.Even a fake Picasso by a counterfeiter are two totally different things.A download of a little digital graphic or video clip seem much the same to me.
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [1/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vLGjxFL6U_I/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 พฤศจิกายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wPd7VFfWHIA/mqdefault.jpg)
The Art Market world has always been about Art as trading assets; and a lot of artists (primarly avant-garde ones) have fought for that to be changed, for example with performance art making it more difficult to be traded, or even video art; and the Art Market has always been able to turn things around and make a profit... So I see this as another oportunity for the art market to take a step into the digital art world and, of course, get the money.
As an artist, I see that NFT are good for the short run for us, but in the future it will probably be regulated and centralized to be only profitable for "the big ones".
Imagine a augmented reality heads up display. You can display the NFT art piece in real time in your living room or wherever. At least this is where I envision art will go.
You should see the movie, Ready Player One
I doubt it. Most art goes on real walls. Itll grow parallel to tangible art. Unless we hit some dystopian society where people jack into a matrix. People said ebooks would kill print media and that didnt happen
Matrix is just around the corner
@@stefanbendik26 we cant even convince people to wear a simple mask or get a vaccine. imagine convincing people to jack into the matrix
This is not where art will go.
Thanks for being the guinea pig. At least I finally know what it is.
Haha, no problem!
In the California gold rush of the 1840s more people got rich from selling the equipment for gold prospecting than actually got rich from gold prospecting.
@@VicTags1 True
i guess Im kinda randomly asking but do anyone know a good place to stream newly released movies online ?
@Creed Riley i would suggest Flixzone. You can find it by googling :)
@Keagan Hassan definitely, I've been watching on FlixZone for months myself :)
@Keagan Hassan Thanks, signed up and it seems like a nice service =) Appreciate it !!
Great logic in your break down. It seems to me NFTs will really be saturated and unless you’re a well known artist your art work is like a needle in a hay stack or more like another piece of hay among millions of others. I just don’t know how an artist without a lot of exposure and popularity can really benefit. I definitely need to continue to research. Thanks for your video. Very well put together.
Isn't this the same exact predicament for people creating physical art tho? Either way you'd need to be known or have an audience to make selling art profitable
@@bigbrotherallstars43 yeah. many artists are looking for a get-rich quick route, but the reality is you get rich as an artist by making many high-quality pieces and getting your reputation up which is still hard work that takes a lot of networking. and we all know artists are too busy creating art to network. which is why i think nfts are a good solution because networking is so much easier in the cyber space. you don't even need to show your face-- just a build an awesome community who loves what your art stands for.
NFT’s are a get rich quick scheme. The real people that are making money off this are the service fee chargers.
it seems to be about turning art into a form of digital currency.
not to mention the crazy amount of energy it costs to create an NFT- the carbon footprint is crazy - super bad for the enviroment
No
@@BeauTardy yes
nah that just for the ETH fees
Ai Weiwei did destroyed art pieces, old Ming vases, as part of his art performance and photograp it. Your video really is a good starting point for reflexions and questions. Thanks!
I was completely ignorant about NFTs until today and this video explained it brilliantly, cheers! It's hard to deny that the financial benefits they create for artists are potentially massive, and I'm all for creators finally getting their dues. However, the potential for digital art theft and unauthorised minting, the environmental impact, and the devaluation (and possible destruction!) of physical art is terrifying.
Going further, it might not take long before they "burn" the artist as well so that the value of the artist is transferred to his NFT creations!
Or duplicate the artist in a.i form making a digital form of the artist more valuable than physical form of artist (I guess if there going to force us to be cyborgs with nothing but gigs and gigs of memory and ram I guess we're going to have to keep stuff somewhere)
Haha -I'm sure some artist is already working on that. Look to Marina Abramovic to imolate herself - coming to a screen near you.
It's going to integrate into the wider system of validation which still includes physical copies. It will become part of a larger protocol that combines old and new ways to certify art. I think beeple's everydays is a good example of how it should work.
VR reality will shift that Perspective
People would see the art in an augmented reality
Thanks for the fascinating video. I now feel like I fully understand the NFT art situation and I think... I think I hate all of this. It's an extension of the weird art collector community MIXED with horrible tech bro investing culture. It's not about art, it's about money.
It is. The worst part is that people have already minted other people's artworks as their own NFT, creating false ownership from the get-go. Unless you mint every piece you've ever shared, you're still at risk from your art being stolen. Not to mention the massive environmental impact NFT/Crypto/Blockchain has.
Agreed, unfortunately capitalism rears it’s ugly head again.
definitely one of the better NFT videos out right now! To me this seems like an upside for digital artists specifically and that is why so many people are FOMOing in. Being able to cut out the label, or auction house in some traditional sense is very exciting for those that have been giving their work away for free but have a large audience. So cool to see this conversation here!!!
Thanks man! It's been really great to see everyone's opinions about it here.
Glad we could get a perspective on this topic from an artist instead of a marketer
Very clear. Thanks for the explanation. I can't believe the high cost of the transaction, looses the whole point of making money, especially for amateur artists.
I'm glad to see that you have (to date) the exact same experience that I had - same platform, same high gas fees, and same realization that the sea of NFT's (particularly on Rareable) presents the same old, virtually insurmountable problem of, how does anyone ever find your work?
I agree with what you said at the end of the video. It's supposed to make a revolution for artist but it actually sounds like a lot like trading and more of the same thing that's already happening with the physical art market.
This was extremely insightful. Your points are valid about what effect/affect this is going to have on physical art and artists. Trying to educate myself and this was definitely one of the finer videos I've seen thus far on the topic.
More People should hear this, he makes a great point at the end.
Thank you for going through the trouble as an artist to provide more insightful experience / knowledge for other artists. This has definitely helped me understand what this new trend is all about at the moment and answered some questions I had about weather this market actually aids in protecting the value of authentic work.
I'm not an "artist" perse, I'm a content creator and primarily make photomanip memes for use in my videos but my recovering collector nature puts me off to hyper consumerist nature of NFTs. I am glad artists are able to leverage this now, I can't say I know how I would in a way that represented me as an anti-consumerist artist.
Damn, was just wondering on this topic the other day, you summed it up real good 😌
Glad it helped!
Not into this concept at all as an artist of a physical medium such as photography but for 3D art and such it might be cool, idk... Do you lose the copy right as the creator of the original art work or photo, or is the NFT considerd a stand alone item and you as the creator can still go on and make and sell prints of that photo?
Totally respect your opinion! But how about digital photos? Aren't they digital? You could print a digital artwork, and it would become physical. As for the copyright, it's a good question and one I wasn't fully knowledgeable of to bring up in the video but it's super important and I don't think it's fully established yet about what that involves. I think currently the artist still holds the ability to continue selling prints and what not of the same art piece. Ownership is just applying to the NFT itself. Or at least I believe it should be that way
They might be separated unless otherwise stated, same with editions of different sizes of photographs. You might have a limited edition of a 30x40 sold out and release later on a 40x60 of the same photograph unless clearly stated that the 30x40 edition is the only printing that will ever be made of said photograph.
From my understanding the ownership is only for the NFT itself and the creator retains copyright unless specified otherwise. Kind of like you can own a print of a photo, but it doesn't mean you can go copy it onto other products.
You set your royalties too . . . You can get income on every future sale versus art in a collection that sits hidden away.
Copyright law does not cease to apply because an NFT has been minted for a digital artwork. The NFT is a digital certificate of authenticity that is stored on a public digital ledger. If you made digital 'prints' (ie, copies) they would either be delivered as a limited edition series (or a second series). The purchase agreement may stipulate that 'the artist reserves the right to release future versions of this artwork' and the market would determine the value of the original versus the print/copies. The buyer may contest if the 'original' loses its value/rarity because the artist dumps 1M copies on the market. But at the same time, they will still own the 'first edition' and that is where part of the value lies.
Here is the way this is going to play out. The most public figures, companies, etc are going to have successful NFTs long term and NFTs will indeed be used for many years.
BUT, there is so many flaws to the concept that lesser known artists and everyone in the middle is going to get burned. Just think about a painting. A physical painting is easy to verify. Brush strokes, paint, canvas, date testing can all be verified. Someone uploads a digital painting and I think "wow, that is incredible, I gotta have it..." Here are my questions as a buyer that can't be answered:
a) I see that "BobThePainter" uploaded it. How do I know that's the REAL Bob? Maybe the real painter is "BobPainter" and this is someone that is selling his work
b) How do I know that BobThePainter actually painted it? Maybe he bought a physical painting, scanned it and is taking credit for it.
c) How do I know what he ACTUALLY DID to create it? Maybe he just took someone's work and modified it. Does that make it unique? Maybe, maybe not. Does he owe partial ownership if he used part of someone else's?
d) What is to stop BobThePainter from re-uploading this same thing a month after the sale and diluting it? Is the community going to realize that I have the "first" edition? How would I even know what edition it is and how many subsequent copies are out there? If he changes the background from blue to red, does that change it and make mine less valuable?
e) Just thinking through copyrights and trademarks and it's going to be laughable. Say you record a video at an NBA game and get an amazing video. Can you just sell it and take 100% of the profit? What about rights from the NBA? What if there are ads in the background, do you need their permission? What about the player? The Team? The Stadium? Think about selling a NFT of the Mona Lisa. Who would get the money from that? The Louve? The French Government? Do descendants of Da Vinci have a claim? Descendants of Mona Lisa herself?
Lets say that I buy an original painting from a painter directly. Does that give me the right to sell an NFT of it? I mean, I bought his/her work, so why can't I? Or maybe the artist should have rights in which case, my 1 of 1 painting could now have an additional new owner that believes that they "own" it because they own it digitally when I have it physically.
I think the problem is that people think that buying an NFT gives the more "rights" than it does. All you own is a digital trading card. That's it. Nothing else and nothing more. It's kinda like buying a DVD. You only have limited rights to watch the DVD. You don't "own" Star Wars, you only own a media of it. You aren't allowed to make posters from it (even for personal use only). You can't have movie night for the neighborhood and show it without permission, etc.
The whole "I'll get royalties for the life of my creation" is BS too. Lets say it's programmed into the Etherium contract for 30%. Okay. It sells a few times and maybe you get a cut and then it goes to Christie's and sells for $20 million. I'm rich you think! Except, you never get a check. Why not? Why would you? Do you think your Etherium Contract KNOWS about the Christie's sale? How could it? It's got to get it's sale price from somewhere and Christie's sure isn't going to make the seller write you a check for $6 million if they don't have to, so they'll just pass it onto the new owner who will enter in $1 as the sale price and you'll get $0.30. What are you going to do about it? Sue Christie's? Did they have a LEGAL obligation to enforce a digital contract? Ha! Good luck with that.
These might seem like nit-picky things, but they are EVERYTHING when it comes to collectables. The internet changed the collectable market for good because it put a spotlight on the REAL demand and supply of things like newer baseball cards and beanie babies. People realized that there were far, far more sellers than buyers and the products were FAR less rare than they thought. I'm sure the famous Michael Jordan tongue-out video/image will sell for millions, but eventually it'll drop to very little because it's NOT going to be the only copy ever made. They'll have "Limited Editions" and "Special Editions" and "Collector Editions" and "Anniversary Editions". Ever notice that any products that have a "collector's edition" are usually worthless?
There will be many short term winners, but expect to hear "remember when someone paid millions for a digital copy of the first Tweet, what idiots!" in 5-10 years.
I like your points. I'm also trying to wrap my head around the royalties thing. To one of your points, if lets say I mint and sell my NFT with a 30% royalty and it sells several times over for higher amounts each time, because of the minting and process of authentication within it's block chain transactions, would I not, as the primary seller,(minter) be given those royalties by an automatic deposit through the block chain after every purchase of it? Then let's say Christie's buys it, sells it for the $20 million, and because of the authentication of the block chain and you being the primary seller who minted the piece, would you not still get an automatic deposit for the 30% royalty after the sale?
I'm completely uneducated about block chains and how they work so I could be completely wrong about the process of these selling of NFTs. It'll be a while before I completely understand how this can help me as an artist. I think your points are completely valid.
Again, to your point, touching upon the subject of royalties. Once someone buys the NFT, them now being the soul owner of the digital copy, what is to stop them from saving the file onto their hardrive, deleting the NFT from the platform and then re uploading the file and themselves minting what would now be the "first" version of that NFT and being able to set the price and what ever royalties they want? At that point the original "creator" gets nothing as they are no longer tied to the block chain. The whole NFT thing seems very questionable. I can say with confidence I don't fully understand. I've heard a youtuber say in his video about NFTs that they are basically a new way of money laundering.
Well NFTs are dead now so not even 5 years were necessary
as an artist , if someone commissions me for a piece wouldn't they officially own it ? , wouldn't our conversations , payment receipt they made , aren't all these things a proof that you own something ?
In that context it would be like a crypto certificate of authenticity, so kind of an extra layer of proof that someone commissioned/owns that piece. Like you can own a Rolex and probably tell if it's legit or fake from context clues like build quality and purchase history, but having a matching certificate makes it that much easier to verify legitimacy and true ownership.
@@StonedWandererAZ I also did a live event about NFTs yesterday but Faizals explanation is easier and makes more sense.
It depends on what you agreed on when making the deal. As an example, if you can sell a commission and allow people to use it in their intended way, but as the owner of the intellectual rights, that piece still belongs to you unless you stated in the contract that you were handing the full rights to the commissioner. Copyright law is a complex subject, but it seems that the point with NFTs to actually handover the rights without the complexity of writing complex contracts on your own. I personally find it interesting, but a bit scary as well, since in a way it seems similar to how record labels work.
there are plenty of fakes out there - I am prepared to say that at least 30% of Bansky sh*t is fake...
i understand the sentiment behind investors and turning your art into a tradable asset, but realistically isn’t that what art on larger scale is? these painters that were nobodies had someone spend money on these paintings with those same hopes. ‘if i purchase this for crazy money, someone else will see that it’s worth that and maybe they’ll buy something for crazy money too. that’ll increase the amount my painting is worth.’
art, unfortunately, has always been a tradable asset / part of someone’s investment portfolio. and while we as artists absolutely create because we love it, at the end of the day having someone bet on us in that way is a goal in some sense.
i’m super interested to see what NFT can offer the photography world, hopefully it pushes us as artists to maybe go out of our comfort zone to create something wild for NFT, but at the least hopefully it gives us a way to monetize and create a little bit of (hopefully) residual income.
thanks for this video it was an awesome way to start thinking about NFT as a whole
Thanks for watching and I love the points you brought up. Art has always in a way been a tradeable asset, you're right. It's funny how the Banksy piece that was burned was actually a piece that made fun of Art collectors and the crazy amounts of money they would spend on artworks. It sort of comes full circle there. As long as we're not out here trying to burn and destroy every physical artpiece and turn them into NFTs I don't see the harm. It just provides another way for artists to monetize their works. And no one is forcing them to make an NFT anyway!
They are extremely bad for the environment. Look into it before you go that way, and make sure the money you make is worth the actual damage to the planet which you are doing by making them...
@@FaizalWestcott They are extremely damaging to the environment... You may want to look into it and decided for yourself if damaging the planet so deeply is worth a few bucks to you...
i think that currently physical art is already significantly controlled by financial markets. Like as a tax write off here, easy way to transfer money there (i’m buying the artwork that you own not giving you a bribe), small package to physically transport a lot of money, etc.
I think there’s an economics explained vid on the art market. But yeah, wrapping it up in virtual currencies definitely has some plenty of financial fancy footwork potential/ motivw
Correct. The other way is to artificially inflate value and it’s later given or “sold” back. It’s safer than doing it with fiancé’s because that can be illegal. Art isn’t regulated like securities, hence people do that to transfer wealth, evade taxes, or give themselves artificial wealth.
I would like to say one thing about career momentum under a capitalistic society. I recently had this conversation with a coworker of mine, and the gist of what we talked about was how the quality of our work, and what we ultimately contribute to society under capitalistic dominated rule, is dominated by the money that can be made by it. This seems rather intuitive and defensible at first, but understand that I am a research cellular and molecular biologist. All of the work that I do is approved by grants and loans which I procure from businesses only out to make money from my passion of creating a better world by further understanding the natural world in which we live in. You as an artist, and the tireless work that you do can boil down to your own turmoils, or the turmoils of the world around you. This is incredibly telling of human existence, yet the value of your art work, and my biological work, is determined by financial interests. This is unfortunate because our passions, which we work and pay through college is ultimately capitalized upon; therefore, making money for those at the top while we simply attain livable wages. This has been my ted talk.
Really love the way you edit and take a photos❤️ - Philippines
Omg I loveeee your reflection on all of this, your last 5 mins in this video raised some really valid questions and actually helped me understand wtf nft is! Thanks for sharing, and I really enjoyed this intelligent conversation 👍
I think it’s going to be hard for greater society to agree in the value of what is ultimately a blockchain code for an endlessly reproducible jpeg file or piece art and agree that it has value in the same way as a physical piece of art. It’s a trend right now and big artists like Grimes are capitalizing it by releasing boring artworks that people are spending millions on, but in a few years I feel that most of the NFT art being released right now will only depreciate in value.
The other problem is the massive amount of energy waste crypto art and crypto currencies also generate. An artist released an NFT work and within a couple hours it used more energy than his entire art studio used over 2 years, people comparing NFTs to the production of physical goods are missing the entire point, digital goods do not need to be nearly this wasteful and environmentally harmful.
You bring up such a good point on the energy waste that crypto currencies generate. I don't think it gets talked about enough and it's entirely unsustainable unless something changes. It seems like NFTs are really hot right now, but it's worth to speculate what people will think of them down the road like maybe in a couple months lol.
Lol you realise prints are a thing? I can buy a print in any shape or form of the Mona Lisa. Is theona Lisa worth less because of this? No
I've been reading about NFT's today and wondering if it's viable to jump into as a photographer. You helped me understand this subject a whole lot more. Thank you for this video mate.
I never heard about NFT, I thought ETF .... and listen to your whole video .... very interesting
Escape the Fate pog
Thanks a lot for the vlog,... really valuable for those digital artists like me who are looking at understanding how our art could be always kept unique and can be sold.
We artists are basically being used to give value to their digital (non existent/value less) currency, in hopes that maybe one day someone will buy your art for no where close to what the art of their artist friends was supposedly sold for. Its the grand marketing to promote a new form of currency when we could be making, with all the technology we boast, a moneyless society of abundance for all mankind by creating self sufficient systems of abundance for all.
I havebeen exploring this NFT conversation for some time now. Blogs, Clubhouse, IG. But it’s a lot of 3D animated/illustrations/manipulated photographic works involving a large community of artists in those lanes.
Curious of how it works for traditional visual artists, more specifically as street photographers. Have you seen any other street photography in that space? Do you feel that the value of street photography can increase the more NFTs are made within that genre? So many questions! Haha
This is a great question and I noticed the same. I think it's a great platform for digital artists to finally get paid for their works. A digital artist working with moving visuals can't easily sell a "print" of it as a photographer could. So I do see the value of the NFT marketplace for those artists. Originally I felt like us photographers were sort of being left out, but looking at it this way it seems digital artists are finally getting their due. I do however think street photography can still hold a place in the NFT marketplace and on blockchain. Our work is historically valuable as a visual documentation of life and everything that goes along with it. Having that documentation live on forever in a protected digital network seems like it shouldn't be forgotten. I believe Ephimera is curated NFT marketplace specialized for photographers
@@FaizalWestcott I'm seeing nothing but good things come out of this viral discovery, as of now. Of course there will be kinks to work out with this whole business model but it has ke excited to say the least for digital content makers
I think nfts take advantage of the medium they"live" in, si naturally 3d animations, gifs, combined media will thrive especially because they are"newly" classified as art.
I think selling a traditional photo this way is going to be harder, much harder than any of these other assets.
If you were to use that photograph, fort example, on a combined media piece, the value and chances of selling it would skyrocket. (IMHO)
Still, it would be nice to have part of the cake.
Some really insightful thoughts. I appreciate your perspective as a real artist. I feel NFTs were initially created for digital collectables (digital cards, game items) and as an investment vehicle. I feel like they've hijacked the true meaning, the soul of art and turned into a money making scheme. It is sad and unfortunate, though maybe inevitable given the perpetual digitization of our world.
What would stop two individuals to create a separate NFT of the two copies of a same work item? I feel like the NFT is associated with the authenticity of a certain digital scan or copy, and not really related to the actual item.
Pretty simple, you can trace the chain to the original seller. If the original seller isn't the owner, then you know it's fake.
you bring up good points. Artists will dab in to make money sharing their art but you will have the market flooded with investors trying to get profits as well.
Thank you for your very honest review of this new art platform. ... “ because I am cool” I love that statement. ✌🏽❤️👏
trading art is a way of spreading art, making it available for more people and more circles. These NFT trading systems are designed so the original artist gets 10% everytime a piece is sold. Fans will most likely never sell, but if they where to sell, it would be of benefit for the artist in at least 2 ways.
quick question does the art itself reside on the blockchain or just a piece of code that "proves" your ownership of it?
I t relies on Blockchain and so it requires a huge number of calculations.. it is very destructive to the environment by using a load of electricity to process... a HUGE load.
The art itself is there. The 0 and 1 that make up a jpeg of a GIF. But, when you display it digitally, you can copy it (even if you screen record / print screen).
If you put it up on a television, you would not notice any difference.
But, when you sell it, it's a totally different thing. The NFT has an almost unbreakable registration of what happened to that piece. And also has the 0 and 1 that make up the thing. So, when you sell it, people that receive it can see exactly what you saw on your computer.
But actually, there are many NFTs that come with a real world piece as well. So, in those cases, the NFT has the registration but the art itself can live outside the digital world.
Thanks for this very useful video! Your explanations were very insightful. It made me think of the whole NFT system once again and... Even though I believe NFTs can be incredibly valuable as a technology to represent art ownership, I do think that this new craze will probably work out only for renowned artists or internet personalities (as it usually works right now). I've seen collectible card NFTs that were blatant meme materials, even with copyrighted figures - and these got sold off for quite much. Crypto, and so are NFTs, are solely dependend on the value people give them - so basically: If there's no interest or value to be found in a crypto coin / NFT art piece, it won't sell off plus it's lost money since you have to pay fees for every transaction you do on the blockchain. (As you showed in the video) In terms of art, at least I can hang and store my art collection for free somewhere in my room to sell it off at a later point If I wanted to, no extra fee's needed :)
I had never hear of NFT - and your explanation was very well described I learned a lot - your style is very educational and easy to understand - many thanks for the content.
Such a great video man! - this has been on my mind a lot recently, thanks for this!
I actually hope that this creates a NEW audience/customer base for artists, rather than replacing the current art market (which let's face it is already flawed but that's a different conversation). I don't believe that most people who really appreciate art will ever stop wanting to own the physical piece. If the tech bros want to invest their money in this and in so doing are financially supporting artists/increasing the value of the arts sector then I'm all for it.
Great explanation of what an NFT is and what the blockchain is to art as we know it! You nailed it for me. Thank you.
thank you Faizal, you know more than you give yourself credit, I've learned a lot despite what I expected, however I appreciate the humble approach, as well.
You are very good and you explained very well the subject as far as i know.
man i hope this doesn't go mainstream, i am fine with it existing as a niche market that supports artists. i don't want my "save image as" button being taken away in favor of an ebay bid button.
Perfect timing! I just listened to an NPR Planet Money podcast talking about NFTs.
Did it sell
Awesome. Thanks a lot for sharing. I was going to do the same thing, but now by watching this I know what the process is going to be like. Very helpful!🙏🏼
I literally heard about NFTs for the first time yesterday (yes, apparently I do live under a rock). Thanks for going through this process and explaining it to us. The numbers suggest that 1-5% of artists make money and the rest do nothing more than pay fees and live in hope. It does open up a new avenue that gets some artists paid for their work and that's good. But on the whole it looks like more of a pay to play deal for most of us.
I like the theory of burning the Banksy piece to make it into purely conceptual art (although I don't trust it's any more than a post-rationalisation). Recall that artists created performance art, environmental art, ephemeral art, and purely conceptual art in the 60s and 70s as a way of destroying the art object so that it didn't become a speculative fetish object for the super rich. LOL. Not entirely successfully. Capital can co-opt anything. And now it's the speculators who want to dematerialise the object. I think of NFTs like an extension of crypto-speculation, not as an extension of art. Digital is digital. Computers are copy/paste machines. Every function is effectively a copy/paste. Save. Cut. Copy. Paste. Duplicate. Share. Download. There is no point of origin for a work beyond copy/paste. Digital works are like words, not like diamonds. If you want to express yourself, you USE them and then they are public, and ownership is difficult to monetise (because everyone has a copy/paste machine). We rely on social customs from the days of analog to make it seem like nothing has changed.
What I don’t understand- when people are going on about a $3mil sale in NFT, that isn’t real money or even able to withdraw it in anyway, correct? 🤔
You know NFT isn't the currency right? You use ethereum to buy the nft
Thanks for the info, I created an account on opensea and rarible today and made a couple of NFTs for practice. They were terrible. My one question I can't get answered is: Other than being a collectable, what do people actually do with an NFT that they own and keep?
Hold it as an investment at best, launder money/buy political influence at worst
The same thing people do with stocks they own
And BTW, the fees you mentioned are just the fees to post your art. If you are lucky enough to actually make a sale, the host site not only take a %15 commission fee but there is another fee to get the crypto-currency put into your "wallet" and your bank will charge you a fee to convert the crypto into real dollars. An artist sold a picture for $289 dollars and after the fees (before the bank) he got $60 in his e-wallet.
I think this will be a lot more in line with collectible trading cards than art in terms of how the pricing and general atmosphere surrounding it will be, at least for the most part. I also think there is 0 opportunity for your average person until outrageous gas fees are eliminated, which is pretty much the major problem ETH has with ever being adopted in any mainstream capacity. It doesn't cost 50$ to make listings or sales anywhere else and the upside just doesn't make it worth the risk without already having a major following.
Hey, i just want to point out that this seems like a perfect way to support artists. Like if you have a following and you post amazing photos online and are followed by thousands of people... they might really like to OWN their favourite photo and to support the artist.
Do you have to be verified to sell?
12:57 this is dystopian capitalism at its finest. I can foresee art galleries being filled with big screens and no paintings hanging on the wall in the not to distant future. :/
If you sell an NFT are you, as the creator, still the owner of that ip? If not, is there a way to still own the ip while maybe selling copies of it? Kinda like owning the original of a painting while selling prints
a very honest review, tks bro. I believe the whole thing about NFT is just like other bubble in history.
You’re wrong:)
Great intro introduction.. Guess over time we will observe and explore the potential of NFTs...
But...? Isn’t this based on the assumption that people would value having an original JPEG on their phone? I might be old school but to me there is a difference between that and having an original art piece on my wall.
Great video, but I really don’t understand how NFTs gives you ownership rights from a low perspective. Would it really stand in court as a legal contract? I really doubt it.
Interesting overview! Those "gas fees" definitely make it not very appealing to try.
Yes. There is an opportunity for Proof of Stake blockchains (ie, Cardano, Elrond, Tezos) to provide more competitive gas fees in the NFT space. Ethereum is currently untenable.
I have not read all the comments. But here is my opinion. Let’s think of this event (sudden popularity of NFTs) Fourth Dimensionally. Consumer tech,within a decade, will curate what we see. Just like the tech in the film Minority Report. We will decorate empty rooms with NFTs that we exclusively see or allow others to view. Physical art will still exist. However, the majority population will prefer digital.
Wow, really good intro vid - I had only heard of NFTs before I watched. Super interesting ideas here.
Glad you enjoyed! Lots and lots of stuff to discuss
Hey man, just a heads up that NFT's are massive energy drains due to the amount of processing power that it takes to mine them, and track the blockchain ledger. NFT transactions can have the same environmental impact of idling a car 24/hrs. a day for decades. In addition to this, people have been copying other's art (or just saving the image), and minting that save file as an NFT themselves. There's no protection for any art piece until it's been minted. I understand that making money from your art is valuable, and I'm not knocking you for that, but I think NFT's deserve a lot more scrutiny for their environmental impact as well as the lack of protections/outright theft from opportunists who get their first.
What about theft?
An artist creates a painting or illustration, puts it on Deviantart. Can someone then screenshot it and sell it as NFT???
I see a lot of winners and losers in this game... And as far as the “Starving Artist Scenario” goes, I don’t see that changing much. Thanks for the video!
I see a lot of potential for NFT's, and I think the idea that you can bind royalties to it helps creators get that chain of passive income that they sorely need. As far as the market, I think there will be volatility, like the currency being used. However, there is more tangible worth to most people for creative works, as they hold some emotional value. So it helps bolster Ethereum as a currency and tie it to a more tangible asset.
As an artist, I personally would feel compelled to destroy my physical materials as part of the NFT, or ship them to the buyer. More leaning to destroy, since it would prevent abuse of the physical object, leaving the digital as the sole asset. IE, preventing someone from taking the physical, making a 1:1 copy, and sidestepping the NFT chain and royalties it provides.
May we all know the website you use to bid? Thanks !
What a time to be alive.
Why does this stress me out. i couldnt launch a successful brand on social media despite multiple tries, how could i sell nfts?
Everything is going digital it seems... But you are at the beginning of the digital renaissance you will make good money on your NFT.
If you provide attractive assets. Traditional concepts are going to be different to what's considered valuable nfts. A cat meme might have higher chances of selling than an ansel adams (just saying something).
Not all painters front the Renaissance made money or became famous right?
Hey there! I'm in the NFT space already but I was wondering if you could talk about building an audience? Thanks!
They should make the art piece redeemable rather than destroying it. My humble opinion
Great video! Proof that ETH is being not a good choice as blockchain :) i think i’ll try Cardano NFT projects ;)
Thanks! It's disturbing that there's so much uncertainty and that you need a public relations campaign or outrageous hook just to get noticed. One other disturbing thing is that people are buying NFTs for tweets. The CEO of Twitter just sold one for $2.9 million! Why would someone want to own someone else's tweet? Except of course for the reason that there are people out there willing to pay even more to buy it from them... but why would those people want to? The whole thing seems creepy, like a mass hallucination.
The art market is far from being art apreciation for a long time, museum art is not bought and sold for its value, but as an investment
yes! i agree! Theres also this idea that the NFT market is in a "bubble" but honestly art is subjective and the people that buy it, are the people valuing it. Yes, i agree its an investment and a form of support to your fav artist!
Excellent vid & perfect title !!
-- I trip on how authenticity can be validated ... What is stopping someone from making a duplicate and changing the identify to >>the REAL NFT>All the others are fake NFTs> With the fee's this is literally just another trendy storefront
do you have a link to you NFT?
Someone purchased it 😆 but my page is here: rarible.com/faizalwestcott
Honest & very informative. Thanks for sharing!
Is this like the Tulip craze back in 18th Century? Whereby Tulip bulbs were highly valuable, simply because Tulip bulbs were presented as a highly valued COLLECTABLE. Until they weren't when they went out of fashion and Kings and Queens got bored of them and were no longer buying them at insane prices for their gardens.
As a photographer/film maker I am trying to see the potential in creating media products specifically for sale as NFTS. But as a struggling artist with no social media following, what am I gaining from an NFT that I'm not getting by just selling my photos to a stock photography site?
I can kinda understand buying Twitter CEOs first tweet... but I just don't get how you can use that, because you aren't actually buying any kind of image license? And how do you buy a Tweet? what are you buying? a screenshot?
So the girl in the photo of the house on fire meme sold the original photo as an NFT. So, I can also understand that in a way, because although it's still a digital copy, with embedded exif data, you can at least know that you have a copy of the original file a creator used. But this would seem to only benefit those already famous? So a big rockstar could 'sell' the original jpg or bmp used for album cover artwork, or demo versions of songs. But That is no different to rock stars selling their memorabilia anyway, it just has a sophisticated digital certificate.
What am I missing for new and starting out, small unknown artists/musicians who aren't already in the digital art/meme space?
Man this is cool but also kind of confusing. So the actual value isn't in the art itself but rather the transaction right? Because the art can exist elsewhere (on creators HDD for ex). Or like you said someone could take a screen shot of it. The art can be displayed whether on social media or printed out etc, but even that wouldn't hold any value. The art is basically not important, it's the string of code that says you own it. Like a receipt. Or a deed almost.
A piece of digital land on the Blockverse will be a one of the best buy in the digital space
Fungible means one item is the same as the another item.
If I'm buying soda for a dollar, I can use any of the 3 dollars in my wallet. They can all be used to buy that soda I want to buy.
If I'm buying that soda and I'm offering a pen in exchange (assuming pens are accepted by the vendor) then the same could be apply to pens. Pens can be fungible, if for example they all came from the same box of pens.
Now... if one particular pen was used by George Washington to sign the declaration of independence... then that pen has become non-fungible with the other pens from the same box, because the "George Pen" is obviously worth a lot of money.
NFTs are fancy name for a password to unlock a folder internet. They will be very useful for Real Estate transactions (and other high dollar contracts) in the future. The big story here is that contract lawyers can now be cut out of transactions.
Nice video thanks a lot! So you have to pay the fee for every single art you upload?
yes
Can you upload a picture that was already been published? 🤔 Like in another platform like Instagram
The gas mining fees at the moment are huge but this is not controlled by rarible.. as Ethereum evolves then hopefully the current mining fees will reduce. it's such early stages of the whole technology.
I've just tried Opensea as they have recently changed their process so you only pay the mining fee when you first initialize your account then after that you can upload as many as you want without that fee (some fees occur for buyer or seller depending on transaction if sold.. Again this is the Ethereum network transaction) .. It all depends on how busy the Ethereum network is as to how much that will be and nothing to do with Opensea... Whether I ever sell anything is yet to be seen but the idea that you can set a % to get revenue of all future secondary sales of your work is an exciting prospect for most creators. This is very early on in an ever changing technology so be interesting to see how it all evolves
NFTs make sense when you compare them to the work from the Big Names in the art world (I'm talking Damian Hirst, Cattelan's banana, etc). I'm waiting for Cattelan to make an NFT. Not to be too cynical, but fine art has been a money laundering/investment scheme for a long time. I think NFTs will continue then, but the market for them might be niche (like nerds paying tons of money for pokemon cards). Digital art is a really interesting space and I think there are opportunities to make some really cool stuff but I don't believe that NFTs (or whatever comes next) will fully replace physical art. People still buy records after all!
I like the IDEA of NFTs but the flux of the price is stupid. not to mention.......gas fees. I want something like a NFT that verifies my art and its a 1:1 that doesn't cost me money or little money. As of 5 mins ago to upload a NFT mint was like $104 bucks. I just want a custom stamp that verifies the art piece. I dont care about crypto stock market spazzed out lunatics'.
Make digital art > Make NFT or something like it to say its a 1:1 > sell it/dont sell it > keep going
I like the experiment of filming the destruction of the Banksy piece.
Does the original video of the burning Banksy piece still exist? I suspect they would not destroy it. If so the NFT is still just a copy that itself cannot be duplicated.
I’m still wrapping my head around of selling NFTs. One doesn’t sell the copyright, therefore the NFT is really just a verified copy of an original.
Thank you.. That was an excellent explanation..
NFT make abundance scarce again...
2:17 how can it be „not interchangeable“ if i can sell them/ change them for money?
Not interchangeable for other NFTs I guess? you do raise a good point here though lol
I think the best way I’ve heard this described (if I remember correctly) is that interchangeability is like if I give you $10 and you repay me with two $5 notes, I’m no worse off because they’re recognised as the same value/interchangeable. But the rarity/scarcity of these items, and physical art, makes them hold value of their own that isn’t just purely monetary.
@@lukethomasson bingo
I dont get the taking a photo of a Picasso as an analogy because you then have a digital copy of a real tangible item,two completely different things.Even a fake Picasso by a counterfeiter are two totally different things.A download of a little digital graphic or video clip seem much the same to me.
I still dont get it, where tf is the base information, its like the info is dynamic and kind of all over the place. I'm probably overthinking...