One of the interesting things I got out of this article is that Beeple and his wife actually ended up creating physical artifacts to send out to the people who bought their art. In a way that feels like the more salient (and obvious) innovation: it gives buyers of digital art a way to show lay-people that they actually own the piece itself and not just a print.
It's also interesting that these nfts are rarely presented as solutions to prove the ownership of non-digital art. There are millions of people who own (very convincing) prints of Mondrians, and yet when we enter the home of someone rich enough to buy an actual Mondrian we usually just assume all the art hanging on their walls are originals.
That's what seems counterintuitive about all this: In a sense this is the most successfull instance of NFTs being used to sell digital art yet, but also the most unnecessary. If you are a crypto millionaire from Singapore you don't need NFTs to convince anyone you actually own the Beeple piece you say you own.
(Although an obvious use of all this is that it turns digital art into a store of value that buyers can potentially sell at a higher price.)
It's also interesting that these nfts are rarely presented as solutions to prove the ownership of non-digital art. There are millions of people who own (very convincing) prints of Mondrians, and yet when we enter the home of someone rich enough to buy an actual Mondrian we usually just assume all the art hanging on their walls are originals.
That's what seems counterintuitive about all this: In a sense this is the most successfull instance of NFTs being used to sell digital art yet, but also the most unnecessary. If you are a crypto millionaire from Singapore you don't need NFTs to convince anyone you actually own the Beeple piece you say you own.
(Although an obvious use of all this is that it turns digital art into a store of value that buyers can potentially sell at a higher price.)