nonfungible tokens - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Discuss literary and artistic creations, or post your own poetry, essays etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By froggo
#15174433
This baffles me in certain regards, but surprises me not at all.
I grew up playing video games in which there were simulated economies which drove the plots of the video games, and in such places it was not uncommon to boast and flaunt wealth, since every person who attains wealth in a simulated game circumstance is 'nouveau riche' within its context (so there is no quiet dignity of inherited legacies).
As cryptocurrencies transitioned from simulated to reality -even though it had always intended on becoming reality, its kernel was just a hope- it is not surprising to see that reality (ownership of art) is transferring to the simulated.
What does this mean for the world; that it is sufficient for material gratification to be achieved in pixellated format, so then what is the need to produce tangible products at all besides those which provide our sustenance and comfort?
religion used to be the opium of the masses, but now its games, and i mean that expansively, essentially, the entire world has been game-theorized so that the line between what is game schematics and what is reality is nonexistent. The world is just a process of probability and rationality, and we were always just avatars, but the bonus of digitized existence is we needn't acknowledge our physical needs. We can separate our physically operative world, where we work sleep and fuck, from our digital trancelike existence where we collect and hoard all of our worth. Are we all dual citizens now?

It is not surprising that with the prevalence of digital art that a method would be devised which could attribute originality to the artwork, because if digital art was a labour of love much the same way a painting was, then obviously the artists pride would be damaged by the ease of replication of that artwork. NFTs make it so that the original can be verified. What strikes me as most discouraging is the fact that art that is distributed through digital means is never as thoroughly engrossing as art which is witnessed in person. The medium by which digital art offers itself is designed for spontaneous introduction to be swiftly replaced by the next image which momentarily occupies our ever shortening interest. So that we never thoroughly contemplate the image that we see. We react to it "do i like this?" "do i not like this?" and once we have been presented with the image and assessed our reaction, there is a tendency to move onto a new image that we may react to.
Do you remember what you saw on instagram 2 weeks ago?
Perhaps not... but i still remember the Dali I went to go see (and how even standing in front of it for 15 minutes i felt as though there were still unsolved mysteries in the painting), and i still remember how the emily carrs made me feel while standing in front of them, as though i was transported to the depths of the ancient forests.
One could argue of course, that a proficient artist is one who encapsulates the Zeitgeist within their works, so that NFTs will be regarded as a significant moment in art because it does show us in our present state regardless of whether or not it is the most significant form of art aesthetically.

While there will presumably forever be a market for NFT artists, and there will assuredly be 'classical' artists who create physical representations of their artworks, I suspect that there will permanently be a debate over which artworks merit more regard. And just as before all this, there will be the collectors and admirers of Old Masters, there will be those who would prefer the progressive.
User avatar
By froggo
#15174545
As a curious continuation, paying homage to what made Andy Warhol so significant, it seems likely that soon celebrities will inevitably hold NFT sales of their instagram histories. Will this be considered art, i suppose it doesn't matter what people think it is; the commodification of digital imagery caters to a willing market.
User avatar
By colliric
#15174562
Image

She deserved to make half a million dollars for it. I'm surprised she didn't make several million.

Glad she got payed.

If you create comedy, unintentional or not, you deserve to get payed if people liked it and share your image of yourself.

Not even @wat0n denies that the IDF and Israeli […]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]