Existing in Etherium: The autographic ontology of NFT artwork

Elizabeth Kovacs

Institute of Certified Specialists

Cite: Kovacs E. Existing in Etherium: The autographic ontology of NFT artwork. J. Digit. Art Humanit., 2(2), 61-66. https://doi.org/10.33847/2712-8148.2.2_5

Abstract. This paper examines the concept that legitimate autographic identity may be granted to digital images created as a non-fungible token (NFT). The blockchain technology coded permanently into minted NFT’s keep track of the legitimacy of authorship and ownership, keeping them from being duplicated and removing them from the realm of allographic art. Questions arise of what ‘legitimacy’ and ‘ownership’ for a digital image—which are so easily reproduced and circulated—even look like. The main question that must be answered is whether the backend coding of a digital file is sufficient to alter its ontology into a token of one-of-a-kind autographic work, or if it only what is visible to the viewer of the image matters for its replicability and allographic ontological natures.

Keywords: Digital art, non-fungible token, blockchain technology, digital image, authorship, ownership, crypto art, digital artwork, allographic.

References

  1. “Blockchain Infographics.” 2021. Blockgeeks (blog). 2021. https://blockgeeks.com/blockchain-infographics/.
  2. Davis, Noah. 2021. “Everydays: The First 5000 Days.” Christie’s (blog). March 11, 2021. https://onlineonly.christies.com/s/beeple-first-5000-days/beeple-b-1981-1/112924.
  3. D’Cruz, Jason, and P.D. Magnus. 2014. “Are Digital Images Allographic?” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 72 (4): 417–27.
  4. D’Cruz, Jason. n.d. “Preserving the Autographic/Allographic Distinction.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 73 (4): 453–57.
  5. Duque, Alex. 2021. “Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT) Talk.” Lecture Slideshow, Lynn University, April 12. https://spiral.lynn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&=&context=commdesign_lectures&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fhl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%25252C23%2526q%253Dminting%252Bprocess%252Bof%252Bnft%2526btnG%253D#search=%22minting%20process%20nft%22.
  6. Goodman, Nelson. 1968. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company.
  7. Irmak, Nurbay. n.d. “Authorship and Creation.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaac/kpab004.
  8. Jhala, Kabir. 2021. “A Grey Single-Pixel ‘work’ Sells for $1.3m at Sotheby’s Maiden NFT Sale.” The Art Newspaper, April 15, 2021. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/sotheby-s-voyage-nft-sale-nets-usd16-8m.
  9. Mag Uidhir, Christy. 2009. “Unlimited Additions to Limited Editions.” Contemporary Aesthetics. https://contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=527.
  10. Zeimbekis, J. Digital Pictures, Sampling, and Vagueness: The Ontology of Digital Pictures. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 70 (1): 43–53. 2012.
  11. Zeimbekis, J. Why Digital Pictures Are Not Notational Representations. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 73 (4): 449–53. 2015.

Published online 29.12.2021