[noobquestion81]

Putting aside “real” art for a moment: for many mediums, I do. It’s the same difference that explains why an original acrylic painting costs a fortune while a print is $30 in the gift shop. In many mediums a digital copy cannot capture the texture, light effects, and other features originally intended by the artist. In these mediums I think only the originals can capture the human intentions of the artist themselves, and a great deal of value stems from the fact that you hold in your physical hands a piece of a person. Only the owner can see these things. This certainly does not apply to all artistic mediums, but it does seem to apply more to the art I see in the price ranges common to NFTs.

[chii]

what about reproductions of sculptures, where the texture is perfectly reproduced?

I think authenticity has some value, but that value does not lie in the art itself.

[insert_coin]

Art is not the object, never has been, art is not the materials. Art is not a chord progression. A dictionary of all the words is not War and Peace. Art is not the raw data from a cmos sensor. NFTs are nothing like art.

[berberous]

There are many art forgers that have cranked out fakes that have fooled many art experts, i.e. they are truly indistinguishable. And yet, their value, once discovered to be a fake, is negligible next to the cost of the "original". So no, most of the value (at least to the market, maybe not you personally) is not in the technical quality, but in the provenance -- in that it's the "original".

[dogma1138]

That’s because they are forgeries, a good reproduction costs a lot of money, not as much as the original but it’s quite common to commission reproduction copies of famous paintings ones that will use period materials and techniques can cost a small fortune on their own.

This is also very common with statues that are even more expensive due to the materials and labor cost, a good copy of say David that isn’t a cast can cost high six figures easily.