(no title)
greatwave1 | 2 years ago
> To that, I'd respond "scarcity."
What is your definition of valuable here?
If you're referring to value to culture/society, I think you're very far off-base. The most culturally valuable artistic works are ubiquitous, the opposite of scarce. Art isn't really able to have any culture influence if it only impacts a small number of people.
If you're referring to monetary value, you're also dead wrong lmao. Look at the top 100 most-paid artists of the last decade, and tell me how hard it is to find and appreciate their entire artistic catalogue for yourself.
The argument that scarcity = artistic value doesn't have any basis in fact, and is the sort of thing that would only be shilled by someone trying to con you into buying an NFT.
> It's hard to imagine highly valued art (either culturally or monetarily) without scarcity.
hahahaha what? Compare the monetary and cultural impact of that one "ultra-scarce" Wu-Tang album (monetary: $2m, cultural: none) to the impact of Taylor Swift's last album, which is available on every streaming service (monetary: $200m+, cultural: very high)
ethbr1|2 years ago
> The most culturally valuable artistic works are ubiquitous, the opposite of scarce.
Not so. Copies of those works are ubiquitous, but there is a singular, definitive work.
Name me a handful of world-famous works for which there are multiple, almost-indistinguishable but distinct copies.
The Mona Lisa has a few original alternates, and yet they pale in value to the famous one. Which itself, ironically, became popular famous mostly through being stolen (scarcity).
> Look at the top 100 most-paid artists of the last decade, and tell me how hard it is to find and appreciate their entire artistic catalogue for yourself.
> [Once Upon a Time in Shaolin] vs [Speak Now (Taylor's Version)]
Total artistic renumeration, especially in the modern period, is dominated by distribution volume.
But if we're talking about single work valuation, the Wu Tang album costs $2M.
Taylor's album costs $15.
That's the premium for scarcity.
greatwave1|2 years ago
When referring to recorded music, this isn't a distinction that has ever actually mattered in the real world, just a fiction made up to shill NFTs.
Are you going to pretend that anyone actually cares about a "singular, definitive FLAC file" that all of the streaming services' FLAC and MP3 playbacks are based on? This is pure fantasy, the copies are the same thing as the original piece.
The idea that Mona Lisa's (or any other artwork's) cultural influence comes from its scarcity is hilarious. Literally anyone can visit the Louvre and appreciate it for themself. Do you think it would have anywhere near as much influence if it was hidden behind closed doors and only 1 person was able to see it?
> But if we're talking about single work valuation, the Wu Tang album costs $2M. Taylor's album costs $15.
Last time I checked, the sum of revenue from their discography is how artists and labels get paid, not based on the maximum amount that 1 person is willing to pay.
Speak Now is a single work, and it generated like 100x as much monetary value as Shaolin (with like 10,000x as much cultural impact). And those estimates are extremely conservative, when you consider that you can tour and sell merch off an album that people can actually listen to lol.