Alex Estorick, Kyle Waters, and Chloe Diamond on Artnome present an analysis of CryptoArt aesthetics – I think:
We studied the historical data on works of NFT Art across the SuperRare marketplace*. This is what we found.
*Data as of end of March 2021
Futuristic, retro and sci-fi themes are frequently explored and highly coveted by collectors
“3d” art is the most viewed with higher selling points, perhaps reflecting a ‘medium’ specific to crypto art
In general, number of views highly correlates with price: the hype machine is real
As in the traditional art world, NFTs tagged with “drawing” tend to sell for less
The average color palette of NFTs tends toward purple, reinforcing an aesthetics rooted in technostalgia
We have sought to identify, based on available data, what NFTs (non-fungible tokens) are actually contributing to visual culture beyond simply fuel for financial speculation and environmental extraction. Our premise has been that it stands to benefit crypto artists to be aware of their community’s aesthetic and thematic priorities. However, the data may also be of interest to traditional fine artists, who may be looking to migrate to an artistic arena less dependent on intermediaries than the contemporary art scene, and who might bring with them certain conceptual tools which could prove valuable to crypto art’s long-term future.
To which my Arts Editor replies:
Apparently, there’s a sucker born every minute. Only now, they have bitcoin to throw away.
She later said she was feeling Old and Crotchety.
But I think she’s more or less of my mind on this: The ability to easily copy digital arts renders “ownership” a tenuous concept to attempt to transfer from the Real World to the Virtual World.
To my mind, this continuing question, which has plagued real world arts to a lesser, but real, extent, may motivate a re-thinking of the purpose and support of art in society. To an extent, this has happened before. I, who I emphasize has no academic background in Art History, am thinking of the murals of the Great Depression period. A form of public art, the economic support for the artists was not based on the economic model of creating and transferring ownership, which includes control of who may experience the art, but rather government support for art that can be viewed by anyone who can access the venue.
Of course, for those whose opinion of that art is that it’s objectionable for its content, their enforced contribution via taxes is a valid concern. More informal funding mechanisms, such as voluntary contributions, may be more preferable – but are they practical?
Similarly, and perhaps as Beatriz Helena Ramos purposed, CryptoArt needs to undergo a similar transformation. The question that needs to be answered is how to determine the recompense of artists. Will it be the mistaken Marxist The harder they work the more they get? Or how about If I can sell shit in cans to collectors, I’m a great artist?
I’m looking forward to the future explorations of this solution space.
