•   
  •   

Entertainment They blew up the art world, but the question remains: are NFTs bad?

13:47  22 june  2021
13:47  22 june  2021 Source:   crikey.com.au

Why some investors are choosing art over property as the real estate market heats up

  Why some investors are choosing art over property as the real estate market heats up When COVID-19 first hit, Gold Coast artist Tania Blanchard thought the bottom might drop out of the art market. Thankfully her worries were way off the mark.“I was really worried that I wouldn't be busy and people wouldn't be able to afford art," Ms Blanchard said.

  They blew up the art world, but the question remains: are NFTs bad? © Provided by Crikey

What are nonfungible tokens (NFTs), and when did they come into existence?

The key to understanding nonfungible tokens is the definition of the term “fungible”. A good or asset is fungible when it is interchangeable with a good or asset of the same type; it is not unique. Currency — from dollar bills to bitcoins — is fungible. Therefore, nonfungible goods are those that are unique. An original work of art is a clear example of a nonfungible good. NFTs in their current form represent a collision of these two forms: currency, specifically cryptocurrency, and art. According to an article tracing the history of NFTs, they emerged in their current form around 2014, although there are competing timelines and origin stories that would trace their emergence to 2012. Of course, the current mania for them is much more recent—emerging pretty much within the last year.

Alexander Povetkin announces retirement at 41, blaming injuries

  Alexander Povetkin announces retirement at 41, blaming injuries Russian boxer Alexander Povetkin has said he was retiring, citing lingering injuries that require treatment. The 41-year-old was the 2004 Olympic super-heavyweight gold medallist.The 41-year-old was the 2004 Olympic super-heavyweight gold medallist before turning professional. He held the World Boxing Association (WBA) world heavyweight title between 2011 and 2013.

The final key component that allows both cryptocurrency and NFTs to function is a technology that records who owns what: the blockchain. This digital ledger is a decentralized system that, because it is distributed across users and not subject to centralized control, indelibly records transactions. This permanence of digital record-keeping is critical to understanding the interaction between the art market and NFTs.

Why is permanent record-keeping so crucial for the art market?

In his 1935 landmark essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, the philosopher and cultural critic Walter Benjamin describes the importance of the aura of an original, authentic work of art. While Benjamin was commenting on the proliferation of photomechanical and photographic reproductions of works of fine art, his insistence on the importance of an original — be it a painting, drawing, or sculpture — remains central to both the aesthetic and financial values of the art world.

Jason Chaffetz: Hunter Biden's art scam – with his work selling for $500K, we need to know who's buying

  Jason Chaffetz: Hunter Biden's art scam – with his work selling for $500K, we need to know who's buying Who just paid $500,000 to buy a painting from novice artist Hunter Biden? We don't know. Art dealer Georges Berges says the names of various buyers will be kept confidential.  But Hunter’s art is being priced between $75,000 and half a million – an impressive sum for a neophyte, particularly one with no formal training. But before anyone gets too impressed, let's think for a minute how convenient this arrangement might be for anyone wanting to buy access to the president of the United States. GREG GUTFELD: HUNTER BIDEN MASKS HIMSELF AS INJURED PARTY TO CREATE SYMPATHY FOR HIS SLEAZY ACTIONS Art is subjective.

Part of that proof of originality is the concept of provenance, an artwork’s history of ownership. One of the critical ways the art world determines the difference between originals and fakes is by verifying a work’s provenance, ideally from the artist’s studio to the present owner. Without a demonstrated provenance—or one that may be compromised by illegal Nazi-era seizures or the looting of antiquities — works of art can become almost valueless on the open market. In the past, art historians and dealers have had to rely on a paper trail of things like auction catalogs and owners’ or artists’ posthumous inventories to verify an artwork’s provenance.

However, these records are subject to loss or even forgery to pass off fake works of art. Blockchain and its permanent recording of transactions are therefore extremely attractive to the art world — including inspiring start-ups — for its potential to establish a work’s chain of custody and, consequently, its authenticity.

Sydney Harbour ferry features traditional wave designs that recognise local Aboriginal clans

  Sydney Harbour ferry features traditional wave designs that recognise local Aboriginal clans South coast New South Wales artist Warwick Keen is rejoicing at the invitation to showcase Aboriginal clans, past and present, to Sydney tourists and commuters.Keen, from the state's south coast, has incorporated the place names of clans living in and around the harbour for a new wrap on a cruise ferry called Ocean Dreaming 2.

Why are permanent record-keeping and establishing an original work of art even more important for digital art?

While this possibility to pinpoint authenticity is helpful for paintings or sculptures, it is perhaps even more critical for the new frontier of digital art. The distinction between an actual oil-on-canvas painting by Vincent Van Gogh and a digital picture of that same Van Gogh is easy enough for even the nonexpert to detect. However, it is much harder (or even impossible) to distinguish between an original digital artwork, which may be a standard GIF file, and the GIF of that same image that became an internet meme. Consider “Nyan Cat”, which made headlines as one of the first significant NFT sales. By creating an NFT of “Nyan Cat” — an animation of a cat-Pop-Tart hybrid that became a meme in 2011 — that could be indelibly recorded on the blockchain, suddenly a digital artwork whose proliferation was impossible to control — and therefore made any “original” valueless — could have an authentic original with the kind of financial value assigned to original paintings. “Nyan Cat” and a Van Gogh are now much more similar as valuable art assets than before.

Who Really Owns An NFT? It May Come Down To A Jay-Z Court Case

  Who Really Owns An NFT? It May Come Down To A Jay-Z Court Case 'Ownership' has become a prickly concept in the world of NFTs, with many of those selling NFTs not really owning the images and concepts being auctioned off to the highest bidder. Until now there hasn't been any real legal challenges attempting to define digital ownership in the modern age (or what rights NFTs grant owners), but a new lawsuit lodged against Roc-A-Fella Records studio co-founder Damon Dash for reportedly selling a Jay-Z album as an NFT could change that.

Now the astute reader may be thinking: “But wait, the experience of standing in front of a real Van Gogh is clearly different from seeing an image on the screen. The experience of seeing the original ‘Nyan Cat’ GIF or an identical copy of that same gif is basically the same.”

This is true; there is no distinction between the aura of the original and the copy that Benjamin described. Therefore, the primary difference is, in effect, financial. One is a certified authentic asset; one is not. The NFT of “Nyan Cat” is, in short, a certificate of authenticity for “Nyan Cat”. The viewing experience is no different, but that authenticity makes a world of financial difference. Suddenly, viral artworks — or other digital entities like tweets, Facebook posts, etc — can be assigned the monetary value of one-of-a-kind assets priced in ways similar to more traditional artworks or important archives, like original copies of historical documents. In short, a whole new area of the market for art and archives has been established.

There are many complicated artistic, financial, and environmental ripple effects from this shift. Commentators ranging from artists themselves to ecological activists, criminal justice experts, and academics have started to grapple with these knock-on effects. The remainder of this explainer will focus on some of those issues — the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Crown whistleblower Jenny Jiang questions why royal commissions haven't called her to give evidence

  Crown whistleblower Jenny Jiang questions why royal commissions haven't called her to give evidence A former Crown employee who blew the whistle on the casino giant and helped spark an inquiry has revealed she has not been called as a witness at either of the royal commissions underway in Victoria and Western Australia. (Supplied) A former Crown employee who blew the whistle on the casino giant has revealed she has not been called as a witness at either of the royal commissions underway in V "I am a critical witness," Jenny Jiang told 7.30."I have a lot more to say, but nobody has asked me.

First, the good: what are the possible benefits of NFTs for protecting artists’ intellectual property and that of other cultural producers?

Artists have often struggled to protect their intellectual property and earn money from works of art that become famous but that they initially sold at a low price early in their career. In essence, if a work of art becomes a success, it is often the collector of that work of art — usually a wealthy private individual — who ends up capitalizing on an increased resale value. One of the famous examples of artists’ frustrations with this is when the pop artist Robert Rauschenberg confronted the New York collector Robert Scull after the blockbuster auction of the latter’s collection. Scull had bought works from the young Rauschenberg for a pittance and was later making a fortune on their sale — the artist was convinced this was unfair profiteering, even if it would help raise prices for new work he produced.

For more than a century, artists and their descendants have tried to assert their rights to capture a portion of this resale value through something known as the droit de suite, but enforcement is complex, and its success is limited. Some artists managed to integrate their rights into the structure of a work to enforce their intellectual property rights — the most compelling example is conceptual artist Sol LeWitt’s wall drawings. The work itself is not the wall drawing but rather a certificate that a person or institution purchases that grants them the right to install a specific wall drawing wherever they please. To sell the work, they have to sell the certificate and paint over the installed wall drawing. Transactions were policed by LeWitt’s studio and are now regulated by his estate, which can create some conflict — as it did in Houston a few years ago, when a family began to uncover a painted-over LeWitt in their home.

Art Gallery of NSW exhibition of work by Swedish artist, spiritualist and medium Hilma af Klint a ‘wake up call’

  Art Gallery of NSW exhibition of work by Swedish artist, spiritualist and medium Hilma af Klint a ‘wake up call’ Hilma af Klint was a pioneer of abstract art ahead of Kandinsky and Mondrian, painting large-scale and sophisticated works under what she claimed were instructions from higher spirits.Her visual language – marked by botanical illustrations, refractions of light and colour, spiralling snail shells and swans, coded letters and colours – tilts at the complexities of the human experience and our place within the cosmos but defies the brain's attempts to pin down meaning.

LeWitt’s use of certificates for wall drawings is the closest analog equivalent to how NFTs can allow artists to track the trajectory of their work and capture some of the resale value every time the work is sold. The NFT serves as a permanent certificate of authenticity that follows the work through its lifetime — something even more indelible than LeWitt’s closely monitored certificates. This can be a windfall for artists, particularly digital artists, seeking to retain ownership over what they create. Several commentators, notably New York University Professor Amy Whitaker, have made this argument about the blockchain and NFTs.

The bad: how can NFTs create an unregulated market that can be used to sell stolen goods, launder money, and generally provide financial shelter for ill-gotten gains?

The art market is, compared to the larger market for securities, much less regulated. While some rules are certainly in place, people or shell companies can buy art and use it purely as a financial asset to shield money from tax bills or even launder it. The use of free ports, storage facilities that exist outside of customs oversight, has fueled this use of art as an opaque asset. Given the art market’s track record as an unregulated place for large financial transactions, it is worrying that NFTs have put it on a collision course with cryptocurrency, which is even more unregulated. As has already been observed, the combination of an art market commanding huge prices that must be paid in cryptocurrency may be a perfect storm for facilitating criminals’ money laundering or tax evasion and make law enforcement’s work of tracking financial crimes or cutting off bad actors’ financial resources even more difficult.

The ugly: what is the environmental impact of an NFT?

NFTs’ dependence on cryptocurrency and blockchain, predominantly the Ethereum blockchain, demands an enormous amount of computer power. Like mining for a bitcoin, the creation of an NFT requires large amounts of energy, which in turn has a considerable carbon footprint. The exact size of this carbon footprint and whether NFTs can be made greener is debatable. Digital artists themselves are aware of the problem and have begun advocating for more energy-efficient approaches. Nonetheless, for the foreseeable future, NFTs will have an enormous carbon footprint. Like environmental pollution generated by other economic markets, this energy use represents a significant negative externality that has to be considered when making and purchasing NFTs—like mineral mining or the airline industry.

Stolen Picasso, Mondrian Works Found 9 Years After Theft

  Stolen Picasso, Mondrian Works Found 9 Years After Theft The paintings were swiped during a high profile art heist nearly a decade ago.The police statement did not provide any details on the condition of either painting, and no announcement has been made on whether any arrests have been made for the crime.

So what’s next for NFTs in terms of the environment, money, and art?

First: the environment. For better or worse, this question is tied up with much larger questions about energy efficiency and how we generate energy moving forward. The fate of NFTs’ carbon footprint is almost certainly directly related to the fate of increasing efficiencies in computing power and the future of green energy. Artists and coders with environmental concerns may be able to innovate a more efficient way to create NFTs in the short term, but in the long term, the source of energy used to make them—and how green that source is—will have the clearest effect.

Next: the money question. Over the long term, as a general class, art tends to be a less-than-thrilling investment. Its returns are respectable, but on average, they are not outstanding. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule and individual works that stand out for their appreciation—but these are not the norm. Therefore, on the whole, one would expect the long-term market for NFTs to follow this pattern. There will be exceptional sales, but the market returns will probably look like art market returns on average. Of course, if dark money wants to flock to this asset because of its lack of regulation, that could artificially inflate values, which is a phenomenon that fueled New York City luxury real estate prices for years.

For the art world, there is—as described above—a genuine interest for artists to engage with NFTs as a form to capture the value of otherwise reproducible digital work and to use the blockchain to track their rights to the value of artworks that they create. The incentive for them to continue to engage with this technology is there. Still, the strength of that incentive depends on whether or not blockchain delivers on its promise to be an indelible ledger. If these records can provide income and steady returns for artists, one would expect them to continue to use them.

There is — once again — a risk that the value generated by NFTs will instead create a new market for digital art that primarily allows collectors, dealers, and auction houses to capture any profits. Christie’s certainly saw this opportunity when it sold pioneering digital artist Beeple’s “Everydays: The First 5000 Days” for $69 million. And, as we know, there are NFTs that have been sold that could be just making the rich richer, including Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, although he donated the proceeds of that sale to charity. Unfortunately, the long-run track record of the art market favors enriching wealthy collectors and intermediaries—only time will tell if NFTs can finally be a democratizer that empowers artists.

The post They blew up the art world, but the question remains: are NFTs bad? appeared first on Crikey.

Stolen Picasso, Mondrian Works Found 9 Years After Theft .
The paintings were swiped during a high profile art heist nearly a decade ago.The police statement did not provide any details on the condition of either painting, and no announcement has been made on whether any arrests have been made for the crime.

usr: 0
This is interesting!