What I'm seeing is ST calling out that no art has any actual value beyond that determined by those dealing in it. No intrinsic value, whether it's painted on a canvas, brick wall, bitmap, or vector line. Make fun of they guy buying the NFT, or make fun of the guy buying an original Hunter Biden, it's all the same.
Though I'll admit there are far more people who would value tangible art more than NFT, simply because it's tangible. I don't disagree, I think NFTs are a scam. But, so is the art world. Is the Mona Lisa really such an amazing painting? I don't think so, but the painter sure was interesting, and historically significant, and that's what gives it extrinsic value.
It has some semi-intrinsic value for laundering money, but that's still very much dependent on laws. With no need to launder the value plummets.
Excellent points.
I just want to say I don't think the Mona Lisa is a good painting, but I think due to its reputation it probably was one. Maybe one day someone will scrape off the foot of varnish on it that is clouding it and making it dark and yellow but until then we will never know.
"art has actual value" ...this is correct. Unfortunately, the value isn't what people understand it as. The value for all art is how society can use and enjoy it.
Once there's a monetary value assigned to it, it ceases to be art and becomes nothing but another item.
(post is archived)