> For modern graphic arts, the value has always come from being part of a serialized limited edition.
The value to whom? To the artist the actual negative is clearly the most valuable to own. Original Ansel Adams negatives are actually very very valuable.
Things, actual things, have value because they are physical, and the closer to the original the more value they have. Negatives have the most value, prints have less value, and a digital jpeg of an Ansel Adams photo has almost no value. I know, I "own" several.
> and the closer to the original the more value they have.
Do you see the step you've just taken?
It's no longer about authenticity, it's about proximity to authenticity. Would a reproduction from the original negative by someone other than Ansel Adams be more valuable than a different type of reproduction? If so, why?
I am fully aware of what I am saying: things have value not only because of what they are or what they are made of, they have value for other reasons.
NFT people claim things only have value because of what they are, an art piece has value because it is an art piece, because it is beautiful to look at or whatever, and that visual property can be stored on the blockchain. That is where they are failing. They are missing 99% of the reasons things have value, and why they cannot understand two seemingly identical things having widely different values.
I think there is a flaw in your reasoning but it's hard to be sure because your last sentence is rather hard to parse.
> They are missing 99% of the reasons things have value,
Can you clarify?
> they cannot understand two seemingly identical things having widely different values.
We're not talking about the value in a piece of art - or even the value of owning an original piece of art.
Ownership itself is a social construct. Back to my limited edition print comparison:
You own one of a series of 100 prints or a photograph by a famous artist.
I "own" a reproduction of the same work that is high enough resolution to be indistinguishable from your print.
Assuming you can prove the authenticity of your print (maybe there's a chain of custody you can verify) - your print is worth thousands and mine is worth simply the cost of making another copy.
The value to whom? To the artist the actual negative is clearly the most valuable to own. Original Ansel Adams negatives are actually very very valuable.
Things, actual things, have value because they are physical, and the closer to the original the more value they have. Negatives have the most value, prints have less value, and a digital jpeg of an Ansel Adams photo has almost no value. I know, I "own" several.