NFTs
Out of context: Reply #393
- Started
- Last post
- 844 Responses
- palimpsest1
@Nairn
On exchanging further....When the first articles about NFTs popped up, the most common way of explaining them was using the example of the Mona Lisa. The idea was that an NFT was comparable to the original painting while its replicates were cheap copies of it. While viewing the original or the copy of the painting is a different experience it can be argued that there is no difference when viewing a digital work on one screen or another (staying within reasonable boundaries).
I've repeated too many times here that I don't consider NFTs as the artwork or containing the artwork but for the sake of argument I will leave that opinion aside for now.
If we look at video works we can separate them into two broad categories. There are works that are dependent on the setting and material used, like the works of Bill Viola. And there are other works that can be experienced in any setting. The first that comes to mind is the video works of Ivan Argote. I first saw Argote's work at the Perrotin gallery on a 24" monitor much like the one I use at home for work. The experience of this artwork does not depend on what it's projected on. I have posted a video of his work on QBN before and you can get the same experience by watching it at home as I did in the gallery. As a spectator there is no difference when experiencing the "original" and the "copies". When it comes to digital work there is no original. When viewing digital files side by side there is no difference, which can't be said for a painting.
In the traditional artworld, as an owner of a digital artwork you are buying the rights to the work rather than the object itself. The work could be provided on a USB, DVD or a download link, the support itself is not important to this type of work. If someone were to exhibit the work, the owner wouldn't even need to send the physical objects, a link would suffice, since there is no difference in the file in the DVD or one on the cloud. If you were to consider the original working file (AI or PSD for example), you wouldn't need to go through an NFT, you could just quote the client for the job and send them the files as we do as graphic designers everyday. NFTs do replace a contract of the transfer of rights. As I see it NFTs provide no innovation as regards to selling art.
I am no expert on NFTs, I haven't seen many of them and the few I have seen have not provided anything valuable, to my eyes, as regards to creating art. What did catch my attention was microkorg's work NFT Tartans:
https://www.qbn.com/reply/401398…
He worked directly with the medium and the idea of collecting. He even set up a difference in price between a member and a chief. The artwork associated with it was not the selling point, it was rather the sales material for the NFTs which he did a great job on.Bringing in back my opinion on an NFT not being technically or legally capable of containing or representing the ownership of an artwork:
I believe it is as stupid for NFT creators to claim they are selling art as for the buyers to believe they are buying art and for the naysayers to claim they own the NFT because they have a copy of a jpg from the internet. The only value I see in a NFT at the time is for small-scale patronage, much like Etsy, where the buyer is sending money in exchange for a digital autograph from the creator. Or for yet another speculative system which I have no interest in exploring. "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's".My interest is in art. Warhol's Brillo Boxes asked the question of what made his boxes art as opposed to the ones found in the supermarket. To the naked eye there is no difference between Warhol's and the supermarket boxes. However, Warhol's boxes are art because they had precisely started this discussion.
I will leave you with a couple of quotes from Robert Irwin :
"Art is a continual inquiry into the potential of human beings to perceive another world with an aesthetic bias. What we see is the artworld which is not art per se, it is the process of how art is being innovated, and corrupted at the same time, into the world.""When one makes an object, you’re not really making the object as much as you are honing your own sensibility to make the object, your ability to decide and make choices."
- NFTs have nothing to do with art. Buying NFTs is buying some receipts. Just a scam to increase crypto adoption giving a front to launder crypto+money.grafician
- The fact that best selling NFTs are sketches of rocks or pixel avatars and NOT real digital art says it all.
Digital art was the bait & people fell for itgrafician - Art is just the first big adopter of NFTs.
Next will be Gaming. Then it'll be absolute mainstream.microkorg - QBN is amazing. There is no art in NFTs. But I'm glad I left it open enough for enough for you to make your own conclusions.palimpsest
- Erratum:
NFTs do NOT replace a contract of the transfer of rights.palimpsest - I would like to know your views on what NFTs contribute to art. Ideally in a post rather than multiple sidenotes.palimpsest
- "[NFTs] have not provided anything valuable, to my eyes, as regards to creating art."palimpsest