Last year, Wikipedia editors decided NFTs are not art. And, I have to agree. But, I'm not saying digital art is not art. Digital art can very much be art. The problem is the weird economy of art.
In recent years, the concept of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has been gaining traction in the art world. NFTs are digital tokens that represent a unique asset or piece of art. They are created by encoding a digital asset onto a blockchain, which makes them publicly verifiable, immutable, and traceable.
However, many people are confused about the purpose of NFTs and view them as art in themselves. This is a misconception. NFTs are tokens that represent proof of ownership of an asset — which includes works of art.
The value of an NFT lies in the asset it represents, not in the token itself. An NFT does not possess any intrinsic value; instead, the value of an NFT is derived from the asset it represents. It is the artwork that is being bought and sold, not the NFT.
For example, when you purchase an NFT, you are buying the "rights" to the asset, not the NFT itself. In the case of artwork, you are not actually buying the artwork, as it remains in the possession of the artist or creator. The NFT only provides proof that you own specific "rights" to the artwork.
For example, when you buy a music CD, you receive the rights to play the music contained on the CD without paying additional fees. But, you cannot copy the CD or give or sell it to someone else. You do not own its contents,
Thus, the real question is whether or not the work of art represented by NFTs is "art. And, since the majority of the work currently represented by NFTs is digital art, the question is aimed specifically at questioning whether digital art is art. But, before I go further, let me say this: there's no reason an NFT can't represent non-digital assets. Someone could create an NFT for Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa".
So, what is "art"? Art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty and/or emotional power. An art instructor told me that art begins and ends with emotion; and that everything in between is simply the technology for creating it.
When it comes to art, there is often a distinction between artistic skill and artistic talent. Artistic skill refers to the ability to use a certain artistic medium, like oil and acrylic paint, while artistic talent is the ability to use a skill to create a work of art. Both artistic skill and artistic talent are important to master in order to create a successful work of art.
Artistic skill is the ability to use a medium to create artwork. This includes learning how to use the tools and materials associated with a particular medium, like oil paints, acrylic paints, or charcoal. It also includes learning how to create different textures and effects. Artists must practice and hone their skills in order to become proficient in using these mediums.
On the other hand, artistic talent is the ability to use a skill to create artwork. This includes being able to visualize and interpret ideas, as well as having a good understanding of composition, color, and perspective. Talent is the ability to bring together the different elements of an artwork to create a unified piece. It is the ability to transform an idea into a tangible work of art.
While artistic skill and artistic talent are both important, they are not the same. Artistic skill is the ability to use a particular medium to create artwork, while artistic talent is the ability to use a skill to create artwork. Both are necessary in order to create successful art, and artists must practice both in order to become successful.
Digital art is simply another artistic skill. Music and books are forms of art that benefitted from the digital age; whereas, the visual arts lagged behind. So called experts still question whether digital art is art.
The value of art is based on demand. Music and books increase in value as more copies are created and sold. Whereas, visual art loses value when more copies are created. In fact, the death of a visual artist can increase the value of the artist's existing or incomplete works because the artist won't be creating any new works Again, adding more value because of limitations.
In other words, it's basic economics — supply and demand. Demand drives the value in all cases. But, with certain types of art, supply can increase or decrease value. With visual art, the value is set strictly by high demand and limited supply. Whereas, the value for music and books are set by high demand and high supply.
The first person to buy a one-of-a-kind visual art piece — such as a painting or sculpture — is taking the most risk. Over time, the demand will either increase or decrease. And, it becomes more predictable and the value becomes easier to assess.
NFTs provide a way to control the availability of rights and copies that can be bought and sold. Thus, the theory is that even digital art can achieve the same value as the physical versions. And, as I said earlier, there's no reason that NFTs cannot be used as proof of ownership for physical art.
The bottom-line is this: NFTs do not decrease, nor increase, the risk of investing in art. If you are going to invest in visual arts, then you need to understand what makes visual art valuable. NFTs merely provide proof of who owns the rights to the art. And, it gives digital art a chance to be called "real art."
Unfortunately, visual art is stuck in an egotist realm of "I have the only real copy and you don't; nah, nah" syndrome. But, it doesn't mean we can't all enjoy looking at it — and, you can decide, for yourself, if it is art. It is my personal opinion that digital art should be judged by its composition, content, and message, and not by the medium used to create it — nor, by the number of copies in circulation.