As an avid Twitter user, I’m constantly bombarded with random discussions (thanks, Elon Musk) that hardly come with context or breakdown points. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that my timeline is usually flooding with very predefined POVs regarding Art NFTs, even though I personally had no idea of what all the fuss was about. I just know that it was important for me to pick a side and chose if I think they’re good or bad (there’s no between!), and if you’re anything like me you probably considered doing some quick research before making a personal statement, but got a little demotivated by the long tech magazine articles and cryptocurrency terms.
In simple terms, NFT stands for non-fungible tokens, which basically means that instead of creating a cryptocurrency that you can actually trade and share value, whatever you own as an NFT is unique and it belongs only to you. That concept gets blurry when we see NFTs being applied towards digital art, that can be pirated, copied, replicated, screen-captured, tweeted, you name it. In other words, the NFT itself isn’t the art you own, but something that proves you own it, a form of document that can’t be copied. What do you do with that? Brag about it, I guess.
On the other hand, there’s a promising side, as crypto transactions get more popular over time and promise a more technologically advanced future. Some understand NFTs as a digital art collecting culture, that include bids as high as $69 million. It’s is an interesting way to put value to digital artists that are creating innovating content that might’ve experienced piracy before.
Get to know if I’ve decided how I feel about it in my next posts.
AdminGreenburg
ahlheimma538