Art and commercial success in times of NFT
I personally find the concept of NFT (Non Fungible Token) extremely interesting. Works of art had and have an ideal and thus rather abstract value, which is difficult to capture in "cash". Speculations, hypes, trends and a deeply speculative valuation of artworks by renowned galleries or auction houses are also not new phenomena in the art market.
When, almost exactly a hundred years ago, abstract works of art appeared that no longer depicted visible or tangible objects of the real world, the initial reactions were more than reserved. In this respect, current critiques of NFTs are not surprising, frowning upon them, pointing out that they can be copied multiple times and yet you can't hold anything tangible in your hands or store it in your safe.
In short, all these criticisms are nonsense.
An NFT in the context of art is, in my opinion, the consistent continuation of a consideration and evaluation of "transposed" works of art from the haptic, analog world into a purely visual, digital world. Abstract artworks, especially paintings, sculptures and the like, are still "tangible" - they can be presented in a space of the analog world, enter into a connection with this space and enable the viewer to have a "real" experience or sensory perception; put casually. You can hang such abstract artworks on the wall or place them in the hallway.
It seems to be difficult for us to speak of works of art when they elude our usual observations and experiences. Yet another genre of artwork has long since arrived at a very high level of abstraction, immateriality, and "can't grasp." What do you own when you buy music? I'm not talking about the medium, the vinyl record, the CD, the tape, or even the original sheet music, but about when you would say you own(!) the music. Difficult, isn't it? And the medium in the case of an NFT? Strictly speaking, it's just a series of numbers and digits and a token, which are in some database and on some server, more correctly in many databases and on many servers in digital, intangible and thus not experienceable in any known way.
All in all - Wa(h)re Kunst [German*] - Commodity/True Art
But this pun* brings me to the less interesting, or to put it pathetically, less beautiful part of the whole affair: Art as a commodity. I'm extremely sceptical about the rapid rise of provider platforms (Foundation, OpenSea, Ephimera, etc.), but I think it's basically good and right that these efforts and initiatives exist, even if it's becoming more and more unclear for beginners and certainly also for professionals where it's worth getting involved and where it's not.
I've seen numerous platforms come and go in my 25 years on the internet, and I'm also absolutely wary of what coupling NFT with cryptocurrencies can bring. The commercial success of art and a "lucrative bread and butter" for the artists*, should not be at the mercy of the opaque speculations of some "specialists" or "founding members" of Bitcoin, Ether etc. and the extreme currency fluctuations.
I would be very happy if art in general and very many artists benefit from the NFT approach. But I think it will take a long time before commercial successes, backed by a broad base of consumers, collectors, gallerists, etc., and stable currencies emerge. Current successes are achieved by only a few artists, with very early entrants and experienced cryptocurrency developers turning their Bitcoins and Ethers into "cash coins".
Caution, not rejection, is the order of the day, and for the time being, the arduous path via the "classic", analog and digital, publication and distribution channels.
https://michaelmarek.ghost.io/kunst-und-kommerzieller-erfolg-in-zeiten-von-nft/
