Non-fungible tokens are all the rage in the art market, but the environmental impact is huge
NFTs – non-fungible tokens – are being grandly hyped in the art market. There were headlines globally when a digital artwork by Beeple (real name Mike Winkelmann) was sold by Christie’s in March for $69.3m, along with an NFT – effectively a token proving ownership, which is stored on a blockchain. Blockchains, unalterable and unhackable “digital ledgers” that are also used to store the ownership records of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, are seen as a solution to the problem of how to own, buy and sell digital art – by its nature reproducible and plentiful rather than rare and precious, qualities that traditionally add value to a physical artwork. When a buyer purchases an NFT on the cryptoart market, they purchase something akin to a certificate of authenticity; it is this, not the work itself, that is the rare and precious thing, rather as if they were buying a signature instead of a painting. The image itself may still circulate widely.
Debate rages about NFTs’ surging popularity (Sotheby’s is getting in on the act too, holding a “curated NFT sale” in New York next month). On the one hand, they are seen as indicating a route towards a sustainable income that has so far proved elusive for many digital artists. Use of blockchain technologies ideally cuts out the art world’s middlemen and traditional, often highly excluding structures; offers artists a direct route to buyers; ensures transparent records of ownership history; and improves artists’ resale rights. It is a utopian vision rather like that offered by the early proponents of cryptocurrencies, who have argued that blockchain technology, by removing the need for banking institutions, is fairer for those traditionally underserved by centralised systems.
