Article review for: One Year After Beeple, the NFT Has Changed Artists. Has It Changed Art?
Hardly at all. Write by Blake Gopnik
In this article Blake Gopnik starts by using different examples from art history that changed the game of the art world, whether that’s newer technology or finding better techniques. Gopnik makes a point of mentioning this to demonstrate how the art world is constantly evolving. He then explains that our modern art world changed when Mike Winkelmann sold a collage of computer illustrations for $69 million which led to the newest art craze taking hold of the world: NFTs. The author states “In the 12 months since, something like $44 billion has been spent on about six million NFTs…” He then argues that NFT art has a little impact on what art “looks like” and what it “means”. His explanation for this is because NFT art simply does not exist.
NFT stands for a non-fungible token which is basically equivalent to a certificate of ownership. The author uses the example of a deed to a house and explains that the deed of the house says who owns it and a bit of information on the house but nobody would consider that deed separate from the house, one would just own the house. Same thing can be argued for NFTs, it’s not about NFT it’s more about art, one would own the art. Now the difference between this type of art and the deed to a house is that owning an NFT means very little compared to owning a house. The author argues that you’re not just buying the NFT you’re buying the art but for an extremely inflated price with the façade of owning an NFT or certificate. The author said this type of digital art has always existed and then freely traded between artists and clients, however now the addition to an NFT seems to change things on a digital level but not a physical one. Therefore since the art and style already existed, the addition of NFTs to the art world may change the practices of sales within the art world however does not affect the actual art at all.
