I understand what this person is doing with their statement on the state of digital art as opposed to physical art. They've taken the time to create the gif themselves which is many more frames and animation principles then what it was based off of and yet the idea of selling this digital piece of art on eBay seems ridiculous. Especially since there is the gif itself on the article talking about it since you can save the gif as a file whenever you are able to see it such as in the article itself, or in this post.
This image was grabbed from the article speaking about this gif and is the exact gif file that is being sold, notice the lack of any watermark placed on this gif. Unlike a piece of physical art which can only exist in one place at a time this gif can be recreated infinitely, and selling something that can be made infinitely is ill advised.
This is also the reason why pieces of art being printed on shirts and various other things isn't nearly as expensive as the actual painting itself.
Digital art as a medium has always had the problem of monetization since it is so easy to copy the files for them. People have tried to fix that issue through things like NFTs which are also not a viable option since they are effectively selling nothing. They're selling an intellectual property without the ability to actually make content with that property or have any sort of benefit other than a fancy link.
Comments