Out of context: Reply #249
- Started
- Last post
- 252 Responses
- palimpsest0
# NFTs: A Tool for Commerce, Not Art
## My Initial Thoughts
**22 March 2021**
*"Oil paint changed art by allowing artists to paint bright scenes outdoors with new pigments. The work gained plasticity. It even led to doing away with representation. Painting transformed and reinvented itself thanks to oil painting."***22 March 2021**
*"NFTs are the folding table where you prop your stale work in your wife's boyfriend's yard sale."***23 February 2022**
*"I'm sure if some celebrity put their ass on the blockchain people would buy it just for the clout. It makes more sense than gifs."***20 January 2022**
*"NFTs are speculation & conspicuous consumption laid bare. That's why they're a great comparison and mirror to all lesser forms."***23 February 2022**
*"An NFT does not technologically or legally hold anything outside itself. And that's the beauty of it."*## Note
These chaotic comments were the starting point. With ChatGPT’s assistance, I’ve worked to make sense of these raw ideas, developing them into the structured critique that follows.---
## NFTs: A Tool for Commerce, Not Art
The rise of NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) in the art world was heralded as a revolutionary moment. Proponents claimed they democratized the art market, giving power to artists and decentralizing the gatekeeping traditionally held by galleries and auction houses. But as the hype has faded and the speculative bubble has burst, a clearer picture has emerged: NFTs are tools for commerce, not art. They have not transformed the act of artmaking, nor have they granted artists meaningful autonomy or agency. Instead, they exemplify what Yanis Varoufakis calls **technofeudalism**—a system where platforms extract value from creators under the guise of decentralization.
### The NFT Hype: A Cultural Phenomenon
At its peak, the NFT phenomenon captured global attention, propelled by celebrity endorsements and astronomical sales. High-profile moments, such as Jimmy Fallon and Paris Hilton showcasing their Bored Ape acquisitions, cemented NFTs as a cultural trend. For a time, the public was captivated by the promise of digital ownership and the allure of quick riches.
However, this hype was driven not by artistic innovation but by speculative interest. The value of NFTs was never tied to the art itself but to the novelty of blockchain technology and the perceived scarcity it created. As of today, the monetary value of NFTs has dwindled, leaving many collections effectively worthless. This decline exposes the reality that the NFT market was less about empowering artists and more about fueling a speculative gold rush.
---
### NFTs: A Tool for Commerce
NFTs are, at their core, a mechanism for validating and commodifying digital assets. They serve to:
1. **Prove Ownership**: By recording transactions on the blockchain, NFTs provide a way to establish provenance and authenticity for digital works.
2. **Facilitate Transactions**: They enable the buying and selling of digital assets in a manner akin to trading cards or other collectibles.
3. **Drive Speculation**: The promise of scarcity and uniqueness created a speculative frenzy, overshadowing any intrinsic artistic value.What NFTs do *not* do is influence the act of artmaking. They offer no new creative tools or methods. Artists who mint NFTs are not changing their craft—they are simply using a new marketplace to sell their work. This is a commercial innovation, not an artistic one.
---
### Technofeudalism: The New Lords of Digital Art
While blockchain technology is decentralized by design, the platforms that dominate the NFT ecosystem—like OpenSea, Rarible, and Foundation—are anything but. These platforms act as centralized gatekeepers, controlling access, visibility, and transactions in the NFT market. Artists must rely on them to reach buyers, paying fees and adhering to their terms.
This dynamic reflects what economist Yanis Varoufakis describes as **technofeudalism**. In a technofeudal system:
- Platforms do not own the products or services but dominate the infrastructure.
- Creators are dependent on these platforms for survival, much like vassals reliant on feudal lords.
- The promise of decentralization is an illusion, as real power remains concentrated in the hands of a few entities.NFT platforms operate as the "Amazons of art," extracting value from creators while presenting themselves as enablers of artistic independence. The narrative of artists bypassing traditional gatekeepers to gain autonomy is hollow when these new gatekeepers hold the same, if not greater, power.
---
### The Commerce-Art Relationship
Commerce has always been intertwined with art, acting as both a resource and a gatekeeper. Patrons, galleries, and markets have long influenced what is seen and valued as art. However, this relationship does not mean that commerce inherently shapes the creative process. Art exists independently of its commercial context, though its perception and distribution are often dictated by market forces.
NFTs fit squarely within this dynamic:
- They act as tools for commerce, facilitating the sale and distribution of digital art.
- They do not transform the essence of artmaking or introduce new creative possibilities.
- Their role is transactional, not revolutionary.---
### The Illusion of Decentralization
One of the most persistent myths surrounding NFTs is the idea that they decentralize the art market. Proponents argue that NFTs empower artists to sell directly to a global audience, bypassing traditional intermediaries. In reality, this claim does not hold up:
- **Centralized Platforms**: NFT marketplaces control the infrastructure, much like galleries or auction houses control the traditional art market.
- **Dependency on Platforms**: Artists must rely on these platforms for visibility, community, and transactions, giving up a share of their earnings in the process.
- **Speculative Buyers**: The NFT "community" was never about supporting artists. Buyers were primarily interested in flipping assets for profit, not in the art itself.NFTs did not decentralize the art market—they created new centralized entities that dominate the ecosystem. This is not a revolution; it is a rebranding of traditional gatekeeping under a veneer of blockchain technology.
---
### A Tool for Commerce, Not Art
Ultimately, NFTs are tools for commerce. They address logistical challenges like proving ownership and facilitating transactions but do not influence the creative process or expand the boundaries of art. The hype around NFTs as a revolutionary force in the art world has been proven unfounded. Instead, NFTs have served as a speculative bubble that commodified digital art while reinforcing existing power dynamics through technofeudalism.