Talk:Everydays: the First 5000 Days

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who is "Ben Davis"?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Ben Davis in particular doesn't need to be mentioned. There's abundant sources that highlight that the work has questionable imagery, like here - and here. You can add those sources in mainspace if you want to be helpful instead of adding "clarification needed" tags. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NFT[edit]

I may be misunderstanding this, but the article seems to have this backwards:

Its associated non-fungible token (NFT) was sold for $69.3 million at Christie's in 2021, the most expensive NFT and among the most expensive works by a living artist.

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

The artwork was sold for $69.3 million at Christie's in 2021, during which its associated non-fungible token (NFT) was transferred to the buyer. This makes it the most expensive transaction involving NFT and ranks the image among the most expensive works by a living artist.

Any thoughts? --hroest 13:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think an edit along the lines of what you suggest would more accurately reflect the source. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference artnet20210317 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).