Wikipedia Editors Have Voted Not to Classify NFTs as Art, Sparking Outrage

[Hydrogen]

The editors chose not to include Beeple and Pak on the free encyclopedia’s list of the most expensive art sales by living artists.

Following a public debate, a group of Wikipedia editors has voted not to categorize NFTs as art—at least for now.

The row began last month, according to the crypto news outlet Cointelegraph, when editors of a page dedicated to the most expensive art sales by living artists questioned whether examples such as Christie’s $69 million sale of Beeple’s Everydays, or Pak’s $91.8 million NFT “merge,” should make the list. (Jasper Johns and Damien Hirst currently top the ranking.) Their conversation quickly took a turn toward semantics, with debaters wondering whether NFTs constituted tokens or if they represented artworks themselves.

As is common for classification disputes on the free online encyclopedia, the question was put to a vote. Five out of six editors voted not to include NFTs on the list. (As of press time, the page on Wikipedia had not yet been updated.)

“Wikipedia really can’t be in the business of deciding what counts as art or not, which is why putting NFTs, art or not, in their own list makes things a lot simpler,” wrote one editor on the discussion page, echoing the prevailing sentiment of the nay voters.

The lone supporter, meanwhile, pointed to reports in credible media sources like the New York Times, which referred to Beeple as the “third-highest-selling artist alive” after his Christie’s sale.

Though the vote occurred between just a half-dozen people, all volunteers, on a secondary page, the conversation epitomized a larger cultural debate around newfangled forms of digital art and their relationship to traditional modes of artistic production—and for this reason, people paid attention.

The conclusion angered some in the crypto community, in particular. “Wikipedia works off of precedent. If NFTs are classified as ‘not art’ on this page, then they will be classified as ‘not art’ on the rest of Wikipedia,” wrote Duncan Cock Foster, a co-founder of the popular NFT platform Nifty Gateway, amid a long series of posts on Twitter. “Wikipedia is the global source of truth for many around the world. The stakes couldn’t be higher!”

Cock Foster followed up with a call to action, asking the NFT community to “rally and let the Wikipedia editors know that NFTs are, in fact, art!”

“Digital artists have been fighting for legitimacy their whole lives. We can’t let the Wikipedia editors set them back!” he wrote.

The issue is not closed for good, however. Following the vote, the Wikipedia editors agreed to revisit the conversation at a later date.

https://news.artnet.com/market/wikipedia-editors-nft-art-classification-2060018

....


This sounds like a parody piece but as far as I know its 100% real.  

Still the question can be asked:  "should NFTs be considered real art"?

Years ago, someone took a crucifix of Jesus and submerged it in a container of their own urine:

Piss Christ

Immersion (Piss Christ) is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a small glass tank of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[1] which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects.

The work generated a large amount of controversy based on assertions that it was blasphemous. Serrano himself said of the controversy: "I had no idea Piss Christ would get the attention it did, since I meant neither blasphemy nor offense by it. I've been a Catholic all my life, so I am a follower of Christ."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

A photograph of said crucifix suspended in human pee won at least 1 award on artistic merit.

If that is award winning art, then it makes the case harder for why NFTs should not be considered art, I think.

[1714678675]

1714678675

[1714678675]

1714678675

[1714678675]

1714678675

[jackg]

The only way I see this as a question is if by "art" it means the original copy.

I think I'd consider it on a category of its own though but maybe so should "normal art" be devised into genres with most expensive pieces being listed there (by genre) and not as an overall thing.

I'd consider nfts art but I might consider a lot of other things that wouldn't meet the standards of Wikipedia editors too, and then there's the question of where you'd place animated nfts (if those exist).

[mk4]

That's weird. Say what you want about Beeple's designs(I find them fugly, but art being good/bad is totally subjective) but not classifying it as art just because it's an NFT? It seems like they're acting upon their opinions on NFTs(though I get why people dislike it) instead of facts.

I'd consider nfts art but I might consider a lot of other things that wouldn't meet the standards of Wikipedia editors too, and then there's the question of where you'd place animated nfts (if those exist).

Pretty much any media format can be an NFT including audio and video.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I'm familiar with the Piss Christ piece, and that's an example of real transgressive art, the kind I haven't heard much about in the last 5-10 years at least. 

Art is subjective, and NFTs are brand-spanking-new.  In addition, Wikipedia is just a website.  If there's a debate going on as to whether NFTs are a new form of art, so be it, but whether the Wiki community wants to include an entry on them....first of all, who cares, and second, it's a trivial news story.

Anyone see the movie Don't Look Up?  I'm sure a lot of you have.  This would be perfectly placed in it as something that grabs people's attention instead of the much bigger, vastly more important issues that are going to affect them in the not-too-distant future if they would only just masturbating for entertainment with their smartphones.  So this is a non-issue for me, but if I had to give an opinion I'd say that there's nothing that distinguishes an NFT from a simple jpg file, and as such the NFT and jpg file represent forms of storage for art, not art in and of themselves.

[davis196]

Everything can be viewed as art.
About the question "Are NFTs art?" I would say yes and no.
Yes,because we can't deny the creative effort,that was put in most NFTs(I exclude all the plagiarized ones)everything can be viewed as art in one way or another.
No,because most NFTs are created with the sole purpose of being sold.
Pieces of art like paintings and sculptures are created with the same purpose,but this is NOT their MAIN purpose.The main purpose is the artist expressing himself and his views about the world(or something else) in that particular piece of art.
There's a great video from the Youtuber "Become the Knight" about why NFTs are a total scam.
He explains everything really well.Just check him on Youtube.I'm too lazy to search and post the video URL right now.

[pinggoki]

I don't really care that much what they categorize as art is because I think that for something to be considered an art, I think that it's really in our best interest to consider it as one because there's a design and color schemes in it, if we consider Jackson Pollock's work as an art then how can we not consider NFT as an art. I don't like that there's an outrage behind this just because of a simple thing, kind of making the NFT community much more toxic than it already is.

[TheNineClub]

So this is my view on art, as an artist. Nothing is art and everything is art. There is no way to define art, because art is what connection the artist has to it. We could argue that Kinkade is much more of artist than Pollock was, even though both artists have their own share of criticism and have been questioned if what they do is art. What could make art, art, is the connection an artist has to his creation. Is a chair manufactured on assembly line art? But chairs in itself can be art pieces. Is every computer program an art piece?

So the bottom line is this. Manny NFT developers have no connection to the thing they produced, there fore NFT's as a whole are not art. But an NFT can be art.

[NeuroticFish]

Nothing is art and everything is art. There is no way to define art

So well said!

Defining this or that as art is basically a pain in the ass. And I feel like those classifying them today basically try to keep their own businesses on top, with not much of a relation with the ever-changing reality.
On the other hand, I would say that NFT is not necessarily art. NFT is - or should be - more a rights/ownership management system, useful for much more than art (at the point it will be done right, which today is not yet).

[avikz]

What is art and what's not an art - is a very subjective matter! In 2019, an art exhibition in Miami sold a piece of banana that is affixed on a wall using duct tape, for $120,000. For me it's a crap but for the buyer, it was an art installation. So it's super subjective.

Now if I talk about NFT, I don't think NFT market is mature enough to evaluate a piece of art. It's more of a hoax now and completely driven by hype. I want to share two examples,

Not found a buyer:
https://opensea.io/collection/money-apocalypse

Selling for millions:
https://opensea.io/collection/cryptopunks

The first example is a real piece of abstract art, at least for me but didn't find a buyer yet. The second example is a joke in the name of art which is selling for millions.

So what wikipedia editors have voted for, is actually correct. NFT market is driven by hype. It's not yet matured to be called as art market to be honest.

[Upgrade00]

No,because most NFTs are created with the sole purpose of being sold.
Pieces of art like paintings and sculptures are created with the same purpose,but this is NOT their MAIN purpose.The main purpose is the artist expressing himself and his views about the world(or something else) in that particular piece of art.

This is a very subjective opinion and I feel can not factor into the debate about what NFTs are. In many instances, the artist who created an artwork is different from the one who marketed it as an NFT, and the originally were trying to express themselves.
There are also many mainstream artists who create artworks for the sole purpose of profit.

The first example is a real piece of abstract art, at least for me but didn't find a buyer yet. The second example is a joke in the name of art which is selling for millions.

So what wikipedia editors have voted for, is actually correct. NFT market is driven by hype. It's not yet matured to be called as art market to be honest.

There are quite a number of artworks which were created as jokes, but sold for millions, or at least thousands, this did not invalidate them as artworks and should not affect NFTs as well.

[wxa7115]

So this is my view on art, as an artist. Nothing is art and everything is art. There is no way to define art, because art is what connection the artist has to it. We could argue that Kinkade is much more of artist than Pollock was, even though both artists have their own share of criticism and have been questioned if what they do is art. What could make art, art, is the connection an artist has to his creation. Is a chair manufactured on assembly line art? But chairs in itself can be art pieces. Is every computer program an art piece?

So the bottom line is this. Manny NFT developers have no connection to the thing they produced, there fore NFT's as a whole are not art. But an NFT can be art.

I agree with this notion, there are things that we can define in a very precise way, but when it comes to something as subjective then things are way more complicated, are video games art? Most people will say no, but taking into account the fact that some developers put everything they have in their creation I think a point can be made about some video games reaching art status.

And the same can be said here, a great deal of NFTs are not really art but there are a few that can reach that status.

[paxmao]

I have to agree with the editors. An NFT is not art in itself, but rather a technical tool that may provide other with a range of rights or abilities such as being able to proof ownership, exchange such ownership or rights or even send it to 0x0000000000000 and kill it forever. Perhaps there may be a point in which NFT actually prevent illegal reproduction, something like needing a forced decoding to show. None of that is in itself art more than the frame of a painting is.

[odolvlobo]

First, there is clearly a lot of confusion. People frequently say "NFT" when they are referring to the art associated with the NFT, but that is not correct. An NFT is not the art itself. It is a token that is associated with a piece of art in some way.

The root of the question is this: Does a purchase of an NFT signify a purchase of the art itself? I think the answer depends on what it means to "own" digital art.

My rule of thumb is this: If ownership of an NFT grants the owner the copyright, then the NFT owner can say that they own the art. Otherwise, they own nothing more than a commemorative token.

[stompix]

First, there is clearly a lot of confusion. People frequently say "NFT" when they are referring to the art associated with the NFT, but that is not correct. An NFT is not the art itself. It is a token that is associated with a piece of art in some way.

Exactly, I don't understand why the debate for different art styles has even started.

You can consider a sculpture, a painting, a carrot on a  stick art, ut that doesn't make the proof of ownership of that thing art. If Mona Lisa is art, why would the contract of selling it and the proof of ownership be considered art? If I burn a token if the chain goes trashed, what art is being destroyed? The painting, the tweet, the gorilla jpg that the tokens represented are still there.

This brings a few interesting questions, the main one, if the NFT for a painting would be considered art or a representation of art, if the painting gets destroyed thus making the token useless, what happens to the art part in it, since the actual digital version is intact. At this point, it doesn't represent anything anymore, but since it hasn't been altered it should still be considered art, which is pretty stupid.

[QuickAccount]

The editors chose not to include Beeple and Pak on the free encyclopedia’s list of the most expensive art sales by living artists.

Following a public debate, a group of Wikipedia editors has voted not to categorize NFTs as art—at least for now.

~snip

In my opinion this ruling is correct. NFTs are Non Fungible Tokens, an NFT is just a token, not the artwork. the NFT that pairs with the art is just a visual representation of your owning of the Non Fungible Token.

[hatshepsut93]

The root of the question is this: Does a purchase of an NFT signify a purchase of the art itself? I think the answer depends on what it means to "own" digital art.

That's exactly what the editors of Wikipedia are discussing, and also it is debatable whether one of the mentioned NFTs represents a single work or a collection of works, because that would disqualify it from that list. Wikipedia relies on external sources, the editors themselves don't want to decide whether NFT is art or not, but there's not a lot of sources outside of crypto community that recognize NFT sales as art sales.

[Fortify]

This sounds like a parody piece but as far as I know its 100% real.  

Still the question can be asked:  "should NFTs be considered real art"?

Years ago, someone took a crucifix of Jesus and submerged it in a container of their own urine:

Immersion (Piss Christ) is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a small glass tank of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[1] which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects.

The work generated a large amount of controversy based on assertions that it was blasphemous. Serrano himself said of the controversy: "I had no idea Piss Christ would get the attention it did, since I meant neither blasphemy nor offense by it. I've been a Catholic all my life, so I am a follower of Christ."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

A photograph of said crucifix suspended in human pee won at least 1 award on artistic merit.

If that is award winning art, then it makes the case harder for why NFTs should not be considered art, I think.

To me it seems like NFT's are simply a storage medium - like a hard drive or a canvas, so in that regard it might seem sensible. However it all seems like a storm in a teacup, because they're not arguing over anything worthwhile and this seems like news generated to make clickbait headlines. Wikipedia is definitely in the business of classification, so presumably have put a long, hard and reasoned discussion behind this choice. Much like NFT's though, the average person will never have any interest in whether they are classed as art or not, so let's hope they do not waste too much time on these inconsequential decisions. The editors of wikipedia are also pretty flexible, so when a new batch comes in or a majority decides otherwise, maybe it can be reclassified in future.

[airfinex]

Pretty much any media format can be an NFT including audio and video.

Those cases when pictures are destroyed but before that they are scanned are also called NFT?

[Wexnident]

Wouldn't you consider NFT as something like a media format instead? I mean I think there's no need to combine the two, the art part and the token part of an NFT into one single entity and call it an "NFT", it should be possible to separate the two when trying to identify which is which. But I guess it is kind of difficult to define it as such, especially to the masses when everything could be simplified into making it as NFT art, but if it could, well, ig problem solved? Honestly they can just put it under as a subcategory of digital art imo.

[odolvlobo]

To me it seems like NFT's are simply a storage medium - like a hard drive or a canvas, ...

An NFT generally does not store the art. This is the kind of information stored in a BAYC NFT:

Code:

{
  "image": "ipfs://QmeKfEKyu4LHjybupjvehWSQKArVvATijP2x9fdeg7mx2b",
  "attributes": [
    { "trait_type": "Eyes", "value": "Bloodshot" },
    { "trait_type": "Mouth", "value": "Phoneme Vuh" },
    { "trait_type": "Fur", "value": "Brown" },
    { "trait_type": "Hat", "value": "Short Mohawk" },
    { "trait_type": "Background", "value": "Yellow" },
    { "trait_type": "Clothes", "value": "Sleeveless Logo T" }
  ]
}

Pretty much any media format can be an NFT including audio and video.

Those cases when pictures are destroyed but before that they are scanned are also called NFT?

The NFT is not the art. It is a token associated with the art. If the art is destroyed, the token still remains.

Wouldn't you consider NFT as something like a media format instead? ...

An NFT is a token. A "format" specifies how information is stored. You could come up with a format that specifies how storage of the NFT metadata and the image itself might be done, but that still would be separate from the NFT itself.