<100 subscribers
Imagine you are visiting the Museum Of Modern Art in New York, Manhattan. You just spent over half an hour by staring at a mesmerising real time data-sculpture by Refik Anadol. Finally, you decide to move on, unless you are a Member and can come and go whenever you please, you may want to resume your visit. You walk upstairs and find a totem where you can redeem, digitally and for free, a digital poster of this show.
This is actually what happened at MoMa, from October 2022 to December 2023. The technology behind that was powered by FeralFile, at the time a one-stop shop for everything digital art and NFTs, including a semi custodial wallet. That show, incredibly, was viewed by almost 3 million visitors, distributing almost 300,000 digital assets that were given away for free. In other terms, one out of every hundred visitors walked out with a digital souvenir, without knowing anything about crypto or blockchain.
The cases of museums following this path are growing year by year. But the digital art movement doesn't need institutional validation, as the most enthusiasts claim. And I do personally agree, but I also acknowledge that it helps. It's nice and feels fair to have institutions playing their role. For the sake of this argument, I will ignore the technology layer of blockchain and the various chains out there: Ethereum, Base, Avalanche, Tezos, Bitcoin, and so on. It does not really matter.
Also, let's discuss the financialisation of art. It is no secret that for centuries, art has been used by many as a store of value. The nature of digital art exposes and exploits this nature, but oddly enough, it adds a more 'transparent' layer on it. So if it's true that a Picasso, Monet, Warhol, Hirst, and Koon will always have a perceived value and will be sought after, the same is true for digital art. No need to name names, but I want to reiterate the monetary and speculative aspect: while some assets are more valuable and desirable than others for their significance and intrinsic qualities (1/1, early editions, and so on), others, from the same big names, do not have to while being still quite valuable and desirable.
Platforms like Rodeo attempt to open up different models, with efforts to monetize artworks while ensuring they stay affordable. Previously renewed artists, including the top-selling ones, experimented with more affordable, long-form, or time-limited edition sales within their practice. This is part of what I call the democratisation of fine digital art. Some collectors, galleries, and players may believe this leads to artists' dilution, given the time of abundance we live in. But, honestly, I think it does not necessarily have to be that way.
Posca the cat 250107 photo + javascript code
Take as an example a very - subjectively - high edition number minted on Rodeo in the past year. Depending on the day or a given time (e.g. the artist is more active, having a new show, and so on), a piece that was previously widely available and easy to buy for near to nothing may become extremely hard to procure at the same price levels it used to be (sub-dollar to a few dollars). But how does this apply to fine art?
Put simply: the cheapest Andy Warhol object might sell for under $500 but only few exist. In contrast, digital artworks by artists like Jack Butcher, XCOPY or Justin Aversano can cost just a few dollars or even cents, with hundreds or thousands of editions available. Yet this abundance doesn’t harm the market. On the contrary, affordable art often serves as a gateway for new collectors, sparking their interest and leading them toward rarer, more valuable works over time.
luke
486