![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think we need to clarify for the global reader who Ben Davis is? The article states:
In an article published to Artnet, Ben Davis asserted that some of the 5,000 images comprising the work revealed various racial, misogynistic, and homophobic stereotypes. [1]
Is Ben Davis an art critic? (if so, for what entity?). An art buyer? A cultural critic? A writer who get's paid by writing pieces for webzines? A professor of some academic discipline at some particular university? The reader just can't know. And with no clarification, there is no particular reason to think that "Ben Davis" is different, or less WP:UNDUE than if "John Doe" stated this opinion in an opinion piece written for the webzine Artnet. After all, Artnet is an online auction, and might just have some incentive to rain on the parade of other art, or art connected to new-fangled paperwork-replacement technology like NFTs. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 21:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I may be misunderstanding this, but the article seems to have this backwards:
It is not the token who was sold for 69 M but the artwork that was sold. The token simply goes along with the artwork, similar to a certificiate that says "this artwork is authentic and owned by XXX" but its not the token itself that people pay for but the artwork. Saying that the NFT was sold for 69 M dollars is like saying that the paper on which a contract (or the paper on which the certificate of authenticity was printed, or a notarized entry in a land register) was written was sold for XX million dollars. It is not the notarized entry you pay for, but the actual object (a house, land, art) that you actually receive. Maybe I misunderstand something here but I suggest to change this to
Any thoughts? -- hroest 13:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think we need to clarify for the global reader who Ben Davis is? The article states:
In an article published to Artnet, Ben Davis asserted that some of the 5,000 images comprising the work revealed various racial, misogynistic, and homophobic stereotypes. [1]
Is Ben Davis an art critic? (if so, for what entity?). An art buyer? A cultural critic? A writer who get's paid by writing pieces for webzines? A professor of some academic discipline at some particular university? The reader just can't know. And with no clarification, there is no particular reason to think that "Ben Davis" is different, or less WP:UNDUE than if "John Doe" stated this opinion in an opinion piece written for the webzine Artnet. After all, Artnet is an online auction, and might just have some incentive to rain on the parade of other art, or art connected to new-fangled paperwork-replacement technology like NFTs. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 21:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I may be misunderstanding this, but the article seems to have this backwards:
It is not the token who was sold for 69 M but the artwork that was sold. The token simply goes along with the artwork, similar to a certificiate that says "this artwork is authentic and owned by XXX" but its not the token itself that people pay for but the artwork. Saying that the NFT was sold for 69 M dollars is like saying that the paper on which a contract (or the paper on which the certificate of authenticity was printed, or a notarized entry in a land register) was written was sold for XX million dollars. It is not the notarized entry you pay for, but the actual object (a house, land, art) that you actually receive. Maybe I misunderstand something here but I suggest to change this to
Any thoughts? -- hroest 13:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)