A Critical Stance Upon NFTs: A New Revolution of Artistic Expression or the

Failure of Autonomous Art in the Contemporary World?

The apparition of a digital counter-culture within the context of the crisis of modernity

Crypto? Bitcoin? NFTs? All those words have invaded the news, social media and the minds of
millions of people who suddenly became either curious or skeptical of the phenomenon that
unexpectedly gained notoriety. Yet, beyond the contingency of the unusual trend, the contemporary
world has witnessed several factors that have been co-operating over the last decades in the creation
of the perspective upon the way everything works. Digital currency is not only a new approach to
economy and finances that come in contrast to the centralized financial systems. The phenomenon
has transformed the way the world understands culture, the way we value our cultural products. The
digital currencies did not come alone, they are associated with a type of eclectic, digital art that is
called NFT, or non-fungible token. As Adorno states in his critical works, society and economy
have integrated into themselves the products of culture and of aesthetics, in the sense of using the
latter as the main ideological tools of propagating their own interests [1]. As we are about to see, art
is no longer seen as in relation to an individual expression of beauty, aesthetics [2]. In the context of
non-fungible tokens, the aesthetic expression is nothing but a medium, a facade for both economic
exchange and mass advertising of the new crypto subculture.

How do things work? People own those digital images, and they sell their own unique copy using
digital currencies. In other words, NFTs are the ones that have value in the world of
cryptocurrencies. Recently, a digital work of art, Everydays: the first 5000 days was sold for $69.3
million, becoming the most expensive NFT ever sold in the blockchain [3]. Although it may come
close to what digital art may represent, most NFTs are nothing like that. How do those digital
pictures look like? Taking a quick look at the NFTs, common traits can be noticed. The art is
simplistic, naive, pixelated and caricatured. And yet, in some cases, its worth is more than
thousands or even millions of dollars. The main question that arises is: can NFTs represent art? And
if not, why is their value so high in comparison to classical works of art? How can you put more
value on a pixelated image than on a painting by Rembrandt?

The answer may not be as simple. A deeper understanding of both the philosophy of postmodernism
and the adoption of the digital reality on a larger scale could make possible an explaination of the
factors and undelying causes behind the phenomenon of non-fungible tokens. While every
revolution comes in times of chaos, where crisis makes the previous system nonfunctional,
invalidating the course of evolution, a few major events that shook the entire globe on every level
could be associated with the genesis of digital currencies: The Great Recession of 2009 and, more
recently, The Covid-19 Recession that began in 2020 [4]. On the other hand, the apparition of NFTs
is far more complicated, being firstly and foremostly related to the philosophy that has sketched the
culture as a whole and our lenses in which we perceive and function the world from the mid 20 th
century to the contemporary world: Postmodernism. The philosophy of postmodernism brought
about a skeptical view upon meta-narrations, a negation of high values, leading to the disappearance
of classical aesthetics as we usually understand it [5]. The dissolution of high values such as art, and
the equality between low art and high art are just a few of factors that contributed to the apparition
of those digital pictures, NFTs, which are now considered 'works of art', despite their nature of
pseudo-artistic visual representation. NFTs are basically a new kind of digital kitsch. The concept of
beauty has changed over centuries, the philosophy of postmodernism denaturating high concepts
and values, including the one of beauty, the one of aesthetical pleasure. Postmodernism, existing in
the world of art, has reached the stage of anti-aesthetics [6].

Anti-aesthetics, seen as the expression of a new, digital avant-garde, mirrors in the existence of
crypto art the parody of classical aesthetics, an acid satire on the standards of classical, traditional
art. Unfortunately, crypto art was never a part of any contemporary aesthetic movement and cannot
be, therefore, be seen in the context of the anti-aesthetics of postmodernism as a form of avant-
garde. Crypto art comes closer to a particular type of art: the kitsch. Just as the majority of kitsch
art, crypto art derives its existence from the economical exchanges that promotes its notoriety [7].
Without being just an instrument of mercantilism, the NFTs would lose any value as 'artistic
products'. While true art derives its cultural allure from its aesthetic autonomy [8], crypto art is
entirely dependent upon the world of financial exchange. When thinking of modernist paintings that
were considered nihilistic and unorthodox, labelling them as art was not difficult since they did not
serve any political or economic purpose other than the one of artistic self-expression.
Deconstructing the false appeal of such digital images as artistic products rejects the belief that the
trading of NFTs is akin to selling works of art. Before rejecting the cruel usurpation of the name of
'art' associated to such digital images, delving deeper into the subject of digimodernism could
provide an additional understanding of the phenomenon.

Marshall McLuhan coined the famous expression 'the Medium is the Message', alluding to the fact
that the medium on which the culture was transmitted shaped both the perception of people upon
the world and the way they approached culture as well [9]. If we think of NFTs as an expression of
the digital world, we can better understand their genesis. Going beyond the technological revolution
of the XXth century that brought the apparition of mass culture, the beginning the XXIst century
was about to transform our approach to culture as well. Digital art would soon become the trend.
And yet, NFTs are not exactly connected to digital art, but to the emergence of the internet culture,
and more specifically, the meme images [10], a very common representation for the newer
generations that grew up under the influence of this culture and shaped its values according to those
contingencies. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is a massive acceptance of NFTs among the
young people, whose collective values have been passively indoctrinated though easy access over
the internet culture. The internet, seen as an escape from reality, a new opium for the masses or even
an artificial paradise, has colored the lenses in which people see reality in ways that seem unreal.
But even so, does anyone feel entitled to place such high monetary value to cultural products that
are possibly just part of a trend, and nothing more?

How do we define art in the context of the hyperreality? As the digital age made a huge impact
upon the postmodernist philosophy, some assume that the world has entered into the era of post-
postmodernism or digimodernism where the relationship between authorship and audience has
changed in the sense that the audience can become a co-author of any textual or visual
representation existing in the virtual world [11]. And yet, becoming a co-author of a visual
representation, a NFT, for example, -a possible random image that declares itself to be art-, does not
mean that we create the work of art, but we simply attach to it the value of a unique artistic
representation. We transform the banality of an image into Art, and we turn into the authors of
pseudo-art. By putting the equivalence sign between what is un-artistic and the meaning of art itself
the world has twisted the definition and the value of real art. The postmodern trend works in the
direction of eliminating the differences between high and low values.

Some other relevant factors that contributed to the specific aesthetic characteristics of crypto art,
their simplistic and pixelated representation, could be explained through theories of sociology. More
specifically, the theory of the counter-culture and the subcultures can account for the existence of
virtual communities whose beliefs and rituals deviate from the mainstream culture. The best
prototype of a counter-culture would be the one of the hippies in the 1960s. Sociologists argue that
the main characteristics of a subculture are: a negative attitude towards labor (a 'parasitic' lifestyle),
the refusal to conform to mass culture, a negative relationship towards class, a unique style and so
on. [12] Each subculture has its own set of rules and defines its identity in relation a kind of meta-
narration that it attempts to deconstruct (for example, the feminist subculture is against the
authoritarian, patriarchal discourse of power). In the terms of Foucault, there is a binary opposition
that consists of the mainstream culture and the marginalized subculture, the latter defining itself in
contrast to the values of the former [13]. When it comes to the world of crypto, it can be argued that
those that adopted such currencies, while rejecting traditional money, are part of a new type of
subculture. Despit the fact that the popularity of cryptocurrencies has increased in the last years, the
vast majority of people are either ignorant of such changes or do not show any interest in adopting
such practices. Although some still consider both ways as viable, several groups that adopted the
change have also been part of an insurgent movement that rejects traditional currencies. Either
disillusioned by society's strident expectations or not fulfilling any social role, and under the
pressure of a world in crisis that is in a state of perpetual transition, the people that entered the
subculture of crypto are usually, although not always the case, part of marginalized social groups.

As members of a subculture, the ones that also adopted NFTs have their own unique style that is
unusual for the mainstream culture. Crypto art that is usually represented in the form of NFTs is not
just digital art that has to be sold. Its unusual characteristics, the parodic, simplistic and pixelated
features, are more than just aesthetics. Crypto art becomes the emblem or symbol of the new
subculture that rejects the old currencies in favour of cryptocurrencies. Therefore, in its uniformity,
the style of aesthetics of NFTs becomes the visual representation, the brand, the emblem of the
crypto communities. In order to create cohesion among such groups, which are mostly virtual
communities, the symbol exists in order to create a sense of unity among them.

The world has changed. Network culture has shaped not only our way we interact with the world,
but also our economy [14]. Cryptocurrencies are the direct result of the new framework we see
reality. The network culture comes in opposition with mass culture. While old technology was
associated with the idea of mass culture and mass manipulation, the network culture divided people
into groups [15]. People get into various groups depending on their interests. This type of virtual
interaction breeds the existence of subcultures since the internet is the perfect medium for such
groups. Those virtual communities do not work the same way as those within our society. The
group of the subculture is similar to the structure of a cult. As with every cult, everything is
dependent upon the charisma of the cult leader, the one that dictates the beliefs that would be
adopted by the group. [16] Far from Lippmann's vision of the elite that would influence public
opinion [17], the opinion makers of such subcultures are more or less cultured about a certain
subject.

While it can be argued that NFTs promote the idea of uniqueness that is associated with the concept
of art, a modern antidote to the way technological mass reproduction has ruined art's unique aura, as
Walter Benjamin would theorize [18], does the idea affect the quality of the artwork that exists in
the form of a NFT? Of course not. The problem is not the nature of NFTs, the problem is the
proliferation of pseudo-artistic representations that attempt to usurp the role of Art and the
normalization and mass acceptance of such concepts that destroy the pillars of any aesthetic
experience for the sake of monetary gain. Under the guise of bringing amusement, the 'cuteness' of
such naive artwork is nothing more but a tool of ideological propaganda. As opposed to the
idealized modern concept that declares that a citizen owns critical thinking and is able to discern the
reality of myths, the mythologies that surround our world, the internet culture made people
consumers who would easily buy into anything, any believable story, just for the sake of owning
more and filling the emptiness of their solipsistic existence with some vague entertainment, without
even being aware that they were manipulated by some hidden agendas.
Resources

[1]Adorno Theodor, Dialectic of Enlightenment.

[2]Călinescu Matei, Five Faces of Modernity.
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everydays:_the_First_5000_Days
[4]https://analyticsindiamag.com/origin-bitcoin-brief-history/
[5]McHale Brian, Postmodernist Fiction.
[6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-art
[7]Călinescu Matei, Five Faces of Modernity.
[8]idem.
[9]McLuhan Marshall, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man.
[10]https://interestingengineering.com/nfts-are-swallowing-up-all-of-the-internet-memes
[11]Kirby Alan, Digimodernism: How New Technologies Dismantle the Postmodern and
Reconfigure Our Culture.
[12]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subculture
[13] Foucault Michel, The Order of the Discourse.
[14]Castells Manuel, Another Economy is Possible: Culture and Economy in a Time of Crisis.
[15]Castells Manuel, The Rise of The Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and
Culture.
[16]Jenks Chris, Subculture: The Fragmentation of the Social.
[17]Lippmann Walter, Public Opinion.
[18]Benjamin Walter, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.