Blockchain-based works such as Plantoids by Primavera De Filippi help us imagine the consequences of organising social systems through automated, gamified, incentive mechanisms Image: courtesy of Furtherfield
Beeple and Christie’s recently minted and sold their first NFT work of art for millions of dollars worth of cryptocurrency. We know that NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens, or blockchain-based units of authenticity) make the digital internet ownable, which is making artists, commentators and early-adopter collectors alike lose their minds over potential new wealth. But the reality is much more nuanced and dangerous.
The move by Christie s et al into cryptoart is a sign of the stagnating established Art world markets and associated industries finding new ways of manufacturing wealth (and highly launderable wealth at that). However, viewed through this lens the only relevant characteristic of this type of “Art” is its capacity to act as a vehicle for financi
mar 03, 2021
In May 2014, artist Kevin McCoy sold a GIF onstage at Rhizome’s Seven on Seven conference to Anil Dash, and published the transfer of ownership of a GIF on the Namecoin blockchain. The data written to the blockchain included a link to the license, a link to the work, a hash (a kind of digital fingerprint) of the work, and a plain English assertion of ownership, as part of a system McCoy called Monegraph. Dash paid the entire contents of his wallet for this early experiment in selling unique digital works via the blockchain, which amounted to $4.
Fast forward to May 2018. Amid the sweltering euphoria of New York City’s early summer, an auction took place at the Knockdown Center, a sprawling warehouse in Maspeth, Queens, as part of a cryptocurrency conference. Fueled by amicable competition among notable investors in the room, bidding reached $140,000 for an artwork by Guile Gaspar that featured a kind of digital collectible called a CryptoKitty. A hardware wallet