People should think about a series of questions like this: Why do we think art is valuable? Is it because of its physical existence? Or is it because it makes us think? Is it because of its social signals? Or is it because it helps define community communities?
Written by: Matt Hougan, Chief Investment Officer, Bitwise Asset Management Compiler: Perry Wang
Where is the value of NFT? This is a matter of benevolent people. Matt Hougan, Chief Investment Officer of Bitwise Asset Management, took the work “The Currency” by British avant-garde artist Damian Hirst as an example to explain his understanding on Twitter. Su Zhu, founder and chief investment officer of Three Arrows Capital, said that reading this tweet is “the fastest way to get you on the NFT quickly.”
1/12 All those friends who are skeptical of NFTs, you should take a moment to consider the work “The Currency” by Damien Hirst, a representative of British artists.
2/12 Hirst is undoubtedly one of the most successful and important artists of this generation.
Many of his works stand at the intersection of art and money. For example, he created a human skull studded with diamonds-this work was sold for 100 million US dollars.
Is it art or money?
3/12 Given his obsession with the collision of art and money, it is not surprising that he quickly entered the NFT world.
The beauty of Hearst’s “The Currency” project on 4/12 , especially for non-NFT natives, lies in its structure.
Hirst created 10,000 real stipples, put them in a vault, and auctioned the NFT linked to each painting.
The interesting part of 5/12 is: after a year, buyers have to decide: do they want to keep the NFT or the actual painting?
Whichever they choose, the other will be destroyed.
6/12 Hirst has been engaged in stipple drawing for a long time, and these paintings have been sold at high prices for a long time.
Therefore, it is impossible to say that these paintings have no value, and people have always had this kind of attitude towards various NFTs.
7/12 But by forcing people to choose between NFT or painting, Hirst allowed people to face the “value” of art.
Which will be more valuable?
A small dot painting that you can hang on the wall, or an NFT that you can have? This makes people think about the fundamental issues of the nature of art.
8/12 I think the answer is not obvious. In fact, I strongly suspect that NFT will ultimately be more valuable.
Part of the reason is that Hirst’s first NFT has a place in art history, which is undoubtedly much larger than Hirst’s countless stippling works.
9/12 reminds me of the torn painting by the street artist Banksy, which became more valuable after being torn apart than before the “shocking” incident.
10/12 Everyone who is skeptical of NFTs will ask: “What is their value.” They are just jpg photos!
A cute picture of a penguin can be a good example. I can explain its value by talking about networks and social signals, etc., but the answer is complicated.
11/12 But Hirst’s NFT/painting hybrid is undoubtedly valuable, and it directly poses a shocking question to people: Why do we think art is valuable?
Is it because of its physical existence? Or is it because it gives us some thinking? Is it because of its social signals? Or is it because it helps define community communities?
12/12 NFT natives may find this project not so interesting, because it crosses boundaries, instead of fully embracing the NFT ecosystem.
But the approach of this project can help people outside the cryptocurrency world think more clearly about why and how NFTs (and art in general) are valuable.
Source link: twitter.com
Disclaimer: As a blockchain information platform, the articles published on this site only represent the author’s personal views, and have nothing to do with the position of ChainNews. The information, opinions, etc. in the article are for reference only, and are not intended as or regarded as actual investment advice.
