3 ms·
If the artist is a very strong believer in crypto, and the art itself is mostly notable because it's an NFT, or directly references something only NFT people kn
by eternityforest 5y ago
If the artist is a very strong believer in crypto, and the art itself is mostly notable because it's an NFT, or directly references something only NFT people know, then it becomes somewhat relevant where it is.
Like, if a painting is OF the Louvre, and also in the Louvre, and the whole thing was intentional, the self reference becomes relevant.
A lot of NFTs seem to be part of a series specifically meant for blockchain. I'm sure there's at least a few blockchain specific cultural elements some include. But I don't actually pay any attention to NFTs so I don't know.
I'm not at all a NFT fan... but I don't think it's completely impossible that the location isn't part of the piece, it's almost equivalent to the frame in some cases.
- solarkraft 5y agoI don't dispute that NFT-specific works can be art. I (and I think a lot of others) have an issue with counting a sale of the related token as a sale of the original work. I guess (for me) it depends on whether the creation and honoring of the token was a fundamental reason for creating the art work (as mentioned by you) and comes with typical properties of ownership. But since an NFT can be created for everything and anything (you just make a token and say it's about something), at best the NFT sale is at best something like the sale of an art copy. It all depends on social factors. The author has to commit that an NFT will be the only one for a work; ideally the NFT would be created before the work is finished. All typical ownership rights (copyright) would have to be transferred. Then I could see people accepting NFTs as proper certificates of ownership. But current NFTs seem to be pretty far from that (consider all the fraudulent ones).