[ad_1]
A BLOCKCHAIN company bought a Banksy artwork and burned it. But instead of destroying the value of the art, they claim to have made it more valuable, because it was sold as a blockchain piece of art.
The company behind the stunt, called Injective Protocol, bought the screen printing from a New York gallery. They then broadcast their burning live on the BurntBanksy Twitter account.
But why would someone buy a piece of art just to burn it? Understanding the answer requires us to delve into the complicated world of blockchain or “NFT” art.
It combines the niche subculture of cryptocurrencies with long-standing philosophical questions about the nature of art. It’s no wonder people have a hard time explaining everything.
In its simplest form, an NFT (non-fungible token) artwork is made up of two things. First, a work of art, usually digital, but sometimes physical. Second, there is a digital token that represents art, also created by the artist.
In the past, artists could have provided a signature or the gallery a certificate to authenticate a work of art. This is a verification or proof method to prove that it really was a painting by, say, Matisse or Klimt.
In 2008, the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, introduced a new verification method known as the blockchain. Blockchains have historically been used to record financial transactions, but they are quite malleable. These days, you can find everything from collectible games to new financing methods, all living on blockchains.
The most important feature of blockchain for art is that blockchains are impossible to change. An artist can provide proof that authenticates a work of art that can never be altered. This proof can be sold at auction and passed from artist to collector, making blockchain art highly liquid.
What collectors buy are “non-fungible” (NFT) tokens. Non-expendable means that one or a limited print run is ever made. NFT tokens cannot be replicated.
In some cases, the art will be stored on the blockchain, but more commonly the NFT will reference an external art. While many people may not consider this to be “owning art,” it is clear that many collectors do. The implication is that NFT’s works of art are rare and therefore valuable.
Newcomers to an NFT market may be surprised by the low quality of the artwork. With no barriers to entry, everyone is free to become a blockchain artist, and it shows. But this is a naive reading of what is happening. Much of the blockchain art is sought after for reasons beyond aesthetics.
For example, many NFTs, like Cryptopunks, are wanted because of their age, like blockchain antiquities. The most expensive Cryptopunk retailed for $ 1,608,032 (£ 1,161,481) and is, on the surface, little more than crudely drawn pixel art.
Cryptopunks are the oldest NFTs and what you want is the data about them, their “metadata”, such as their longevity on the blockchain. You have to look beyond art and look at the medium to understand what is happening.
Other NFTs, like the Nyan Cat meme, which sold for $ 600,000, are already widely distributed memes. But they are prestigious specifically in their NFT form because the creator has “signed” the work on the blockchain.
But why would anyone want to destroy the original art? Well this is what the BurntBanksy collective had to say about it:
“If I had the NFT and the physical part, the value would be mainly in the physical part. By removing the physical piece from existence and only having the NFT, we can ensure that the NFT, due to the blockchain’s smart contract capability, will ensure that no one can tamper with the piece and is the true piece that exists. in the world. . By doing this, the value of the physical part will carry over to the NFT. “
To most, this probably sounds like gibberish. I suspect the collective is acting a bit provocative by reversing our usual preference for the physical over the digital. However, his argument follows perfect blockchain logic. They argue that if we have a work of art and a NFT, then most people will consider the former as the “real” art.
To reverse this, they have decided to burn what many would consider an objectively valuable work of art, a Banksy, and leave the NFT alone. Unlike physical art that can be burned, shredded, or broken, an NFT is a digital token that lives on an immutable blockchain. It cannot be destroyed and therefore, according to your logic, it must be perfectly safe from vandals, like themselves.
With the “real” art work gone, NFT now represents real work. What they are implying, of course, is that this is a potential transition from “real” to NFT in general and their trick highlights this. Interestingly, their act also suggests that they have become artists themselves.
By burning the actual piece, they transform it into the exclusive NFT piece. To see the value of NFTs, we have to look beyond the art itself and the blockchain.
Finally, it is interesting that the collective decided to choose a Banksy artwork to destroy, considering that the artist smashed a piece of his own art live in 2018, immediately after it was sold at auction. Perhaps the work of these vandals is closer in spirit to the original artist than it seems at first glance.
Paul J. Ennis is Associate Professor of Management Information Systems at University College Dublin.
[ad_2]
