By Adriana Vélez
The art world has been reinventing itself since its inception. It craves and survives on change. From the printing press to photography, the way we consume and create art has been constantly evolving while simultaneously relying on technological inventions. Recently, the art world has introduced its latest frontier, Non-Fungible Tokens. But in a world of ever-changing trends, is it sustainable? The answer to that question, however, is not as pressing as whether the ecological harm caused by NFTs justifies this new commodity.
NFTs are a type of cryptocurrency token that can include practically anything that is digitally native. This can include videos, GIFs, Tweets, and most importantly, art. These tokens cannot be traded for anything and are solely purchased with Ethereum, a cryptocurrency similar to Bitcoin. NFTs are purchased through blockchain technology, which is a database that cannot be edited and records every transaction being made. Through a process called minting, the blockchain is consistently building on top of itself as it adds tokens, creating an incorrigible “chain” of information of all buyers and sellers.
By purchasing an NFT, a buyer is getting ownership of an original digital file, but it can still be copied and shared without the badge of authenticity. NFTs give the artist the ability to continue profiting from one single piece by enabling a digital closure that pays them whenever the NFT is resold. This aspect is quite revolutionary for the art world since, traditionally, artists are only paid for selling a piece once. Collectors seem to get the short end of the stick as there is no guarantee NFTs will continue appreciating in value or if the market will crash without warning.
Quite frankly, everything I have just described sounds like an overly complicated scheme possibly created by only a handful of people to create profit and generate discourse during a time where the digital world is all everyone is talking about due to obvious reasons. The fact that digital art is being celebrated and respected to such a high degree is a considerable achievement. However, the method through which this is coming to fruition is questionable at best.
Ethereum, like most cryptocurrencies, has a massive carbon footprint. According to the Ethereum Energy Consumption Index, one single transaction is the equivalent to the carbon footprint of 71,721 VISA transactions or 5,393 hours of watching Youtube. This is due to the difficult and extensive mining process. To mine one single Ether, one would consume around 14,570 W of electricity per hour. In a world where the ice caps are rapidly melting, hundreds of animal species are going extinct, and low income coastline communities are losing everything, it is hard to justify such consumerism at such an extreme level.
Nonetheless, this is not only the art world’s cross to bear. The responsibility of the impacts of blockchain and cryptocurrency is shared among many industries and individuals, in addition to the one hundred corporations that are responsible for 71% of all carbon emissions. However, we also have a personal responsibility in choosing to engage or promote such an environmentally harmful process. Many artists, such as Joanie Lemercier, have decided to back down from producing and selling NFTs after learning about their impact. One can only hope that this sense of community and environmental consciousness is transmitted to others and that they follow suit.
Furthermore, an important aspect of this discourse is who has the resources to mine cryptocurrency and subsequently buy NFTs. The computer equipment needed to mine cryptocurrency is valued at the tens of thousands of dollars, which is obviously not accessible to most. The monetary investment needed is substantial and it indicates that those participating in the NFT market, much like the traditional art market, are those in upper class circles. Once again, NFTs are relatively new to the art world and have no guaranteed longevity. The boom in sales seems to be motivated by the upper class’ increasing boredom while in a global pandemic. This new market feels like a new way to keep art inaccessible to the average consumer in a world where digital artists are more accessible than ever thanks to the internet. The average consumer is able to buy prints, commission, and tip an artist for their original work, invalidating the argument that NFTs are the only way for artists to be properly compensated for their work. The feature to consistently profit from a piece could also be implemented in the traditional art world and is a possibility to further explore that does not have to be limited to NFTs.
Despite all these points, it’s a fact that the NFT market is not going away any time soon for the simple reason that it is too profitable. If anything, it will continue expanding and evolving, just like the art world has done for centuries. We can expect to see more news of NFTs selling for millions, just like with Beeple.