I have seen several artists think of NFTs as another venue for their works to generate revenue on top of their existing print sales. I initially thought of it as the right approach, but that idea doesn't hold up since they are wildly different and unique markets.

The appeal of limited-edition prints has always been scarcity and authenticity, which is usually verified with a certificate of authenticity supplied with the photograph and is often embedded in print.

The actual print holds a tremendous value for the collectors, especially those who love a tangible experience.

The appeal of NFTs is that the artwork is instantly certifiable for its authenticity and provenance, and the decentralized storage helps in its permanence. The NFT holds value for the collectors, especially those who value absolute ownership.

So between NFTs and Prints, the essential appeal remains the same; for a scarce and easily certifiable work of art. However, releasing a piece of art in both markers breaks that appeal and sacrifices the scarcity and future demand of the concerned artwork.

It's the artist's job to direct the market for a given piece of artwork and eliminate all conflicts of interest among their collectors.

I have seen artists supply 1/1 prints to go along with their artwork, signed and dated, to their primary collectors. That approach doesn't work with me because then the experience for the secondary collector does not satisfy the following parameters: open, trustless, permissionless, ideas that are core to Web3 and NFTs.

That's my approach, and I will continue to value NFTs or Prints that exist only in their individual markets a lot higher than the artwork in both.