(heads up I didn't see a word amount, but regardless I had a lot to say about the topic...)
I really enjoyed the article, especially that it was short and to the point: asking how we determine the value of any art, let alone digital art. It’s a valid question, and as a primarily digital artist that’s something I have to consider when I do things like commissions. Unlike traditional art, there’s no physical piece unless I print it, and even then it’s not unique like a painting or a sculpture; I can make as many as I want to. However, while that’s all very interesting I don’t feel the need to go at length about it– I want to talk about NFTs, since they were brought up in class.
From every source I’ve encountered attempting to explain this phenomenon (even from biased cryptobros themselves), I have learned that, at best, they seem to be the newest grift for people that want to make money without providing a good or a service. At worst, Non-Fungible Tokens are the product of almost comedic, supervillain-esque need to show that you have money to burn, and at the expense of the environment in horrific amounts (have you seen a cryptomine?).
(I’m under the assumption that you have an idea of what an NFT is, but also providing my opinion on it as a digital artist who sells their work, and what I’ve learned ever since these have come about.)
There’s been many ways people have tried to simplify what an NFT is, some are more confusing than others. The best analogy I’ve heard so far that was short and easy to understand was comparing it to something you may have done as a child: buying a star.
You go to a company that proclaims to have the ability to sell you a star, you pay them money, and they give you a certificate that states you are the owner of this star at XYZ coordinates, somewhere out in the universe. Of course, you understand you don’t own the star, you can’t sell that star, it’s not even tangible to you. The only authority on you “owning” it is this random company’s records, and when that company no longer exists one day, you “owning” this star will also cease to exist. Now for the technical terms… In this analogy, the digital art you see being “bought” and “sold” is the star. The NFT, however, is the certificate of your ownership of said star. Similarly, the company’s database that holds the information of your ownership is the blockchain, so on and so forth.
I think this is the major thing that catches most people who see the NFT craze and want to try it out for themselves– the prospect of owning art (or anything else that people turn into an NFT). However the truth is that you don’t own the art. You don’t own any rights to it at all. If you were to, for example, mint an image of mickey mouse and say you own that character? You absolutely do not, and Disney would probably be quite upset if you tried to profit off of it. That’s why I think this NFT nonsense is so ridiculous, it’s passing around fake certificates with fake money, whereas these people with the money could commission real artists to just… make real art that they can actually own, produce, and profit from. And as much as I wish they would disappear, it seems that everyone and their mother’s favorite band is releasing an NFT.
I don’t have a nice conclusion for this, I just don’t like NFTs and I wanted to voice that, and that I think digital art is just as valuable as traditional art. But this is not the way to represent that, just pay digital artists the same you would for any other type of artist.
Comments