By Pierce Johnson
Merits, ownership, content, and others, NFTs are a confusing concept in the digital art world, perhaps unnavigable for the average individual. They are a wrench thrown into the art world, creating controversy amidst the infamous sale of one by Mike “Beeple” Winkelmann for approximately $70 million, making his Everydays: the First 5000 Days the third most expensive work of any living artist. But, why then is everyone pissed, especially now, as NFTs, otherwise known as Non-Fungible Tokens, have been around for a couple years now?
For a start, let us look at what exactly an NFT is, and what exactly does ownership of one entail. A non-fungible token, otherwise known as an NFT, utilizes blockchain technology to track ownership of an image, and certify that a digital image is the original, just as an art gallery will verify they own an original work by providing paperwork, bills of sale, historical documents, and so on. Sounds simple, right? Great! It only gets more mind-boggling from here. For a start, there are arguably two types of NFTs that are important to understand, as what you really own is dependent on the type you get. The first is perhaps a more “classic” form of ownership; you buy the NFT, you now own it, and you can do what you want with it, like license out the artwork, resell it, or even make dividends on it, as was the case with a person who bought 5% of a digital racetrack in a video game, making money for them whenever someone uses that track. The second is where ownership is… weird, to put it simply.
This second kind is what I think of as “NFT rights” to a work, but even this I am uncertain of. As stated by economics YouTube phenom Economics Explained, who was perhaps the best resource to understand an NFT in layman’s terms, this second kind of NFT has the buyer basically receive a token, but not ownership of the work itself. This means they basically have this token, and can say they are the owner of “blah blah blah,” but in reality, they cannot actually do things like use the work as they see fit or license it for any use, and should they try to do these things, they could have legal action taken against them. For example, the NBA got in on the NFT craze, and sold images and clips from throughout basketball history to make a payday while the trend was hot. But that does not mean Carl Rogers of Tucson, Arizona, can call Gatorade and offer clips of Michael Jordan for commercial use, as all he owns, is a token tied to whatever clips he purchased off the NBA.
If you are still confused by all this, I do not blame you. In fact, I somewhat envy the man who does not have to research these and wrap their head around it all. But I guess let us look deeper into NFT’s to date, and explore their content, starting with Beeple himself. Beeple, the artistic name of one Mike Winkelmann, recently came into a decent bit of money when he sold a collection of 5,000 images wrapped into one for about $69-70 million, making this work the third most valuable amongst those sold by living artists. Once more, there is controversy not only because they were sold as an NFT, but because the content of Beeple’s work has been described as “controversial” at best, and outright offensive at worst. Even I, looking at these images, wonder if they belonged to a piece with a price tag in the tens of millions, or if they belonged on an edgy political subreddit. After all, I do not wish to think one of our generation-defining works will include the image of a cyborg Hillary Clinton feeding a baby Trump through some kind of plastic tube coming from presumably mechanical genitalia. Nor do I wish an influential image to be one of the Dalai Lama alongside the caption, “the dalai lama should give some girl the peace sign but then like totally finger fuck her.” And while I could go on a tirade about Beeple and his controversial work, I think it is time to ask the question of the day: is there a saving grace for the NFT?
The answer: kind of. One of the struggles of artists over centuries has ultimately been financing their work, whether it be seeking a wealthy patron to be their artistic sugar daddy, or living commission-to-commission hoping someone comes by to request your services. However NFTs have allowed artists to subvert the patron or commissioner by allowing them to create as they please, and sell it as an NFT. This is where they often get a majority cut of the original sale price, and make royalties on their work whenever it is sold again to another buyer/collector. This means that digital artists could see a regular cash flow. They could focus on their creative work and artistic profession, and not have to worry too much about finances. Perhaps they could claim “artist” as their sole occupation. So, in a market where there is little regulation, and anyone can turn their work into an NFT to be sold, what could possibly go wrong? …Wait, actually, quite a bit.
For a start, like cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, electricity is required for NFTs to exist and be traded. If you are in Iceland, with an abundance of renewable geothermal energy, you may have a smaller carbon footprint. However, most nations will use some form of electricity reliant upon a carbon-emitting substance, meaning one could say NFTs do have a negative environmental impact. “Okay, but beyond ecology, what is wrong with NFTs?” I hear you say, Jimmy.
Just like a cryptocurrency or a stock, NFTs are an investment. They appreciate or depreciate in value, and can be sold on a market whenever their owner pleases. And this has raised concerns over where NFT’s value lies. Is it in their imagery and content, its merits and composition, or is it just a highly decorative investment? In an article on artnet news where he viewed all 5,000 individual images in Everydays, Ben Davis talked to one of the people involved in the Beeple purchase, Twobadour, who said, “We didn’t need a preview.” And in that very same article, without ever seeing the work before its purchase, Twobadour had confidence in saying, “This is going to be a billion dollar piece someday.” This very much brings into question any artistic merit in the NFT market, as if investors seek to buy without viewing a work, then what do they rely on? Why not just photograph every object in my house and make every photo an NFT? Can I just photograph my body hair in different kinds of light and positions, and call it a premium NFT collection? Who knows anymore? But before I am accused of being a pessimist, I do see some of the merits in NFTs, like artists being able to more easily earn their fill and make an actual living. And I imagine that there are a number of artists who have made quality images that anybody would buy regardless of it being an NFT. However, the big concern is probably best described as worrying what will become of NFTs. Will they become diamonds in the rough, a single beauty amongst smut, or one of myriad descriptions that boil down to the same idea: for every hundreds, or even thousands of works, only a handful of NFTs will be worthy of artistic merit.