In January 2022, a number of Wikipedia curators debated how to categorize NFTs in the encyclopedia. More specifically, on January 12, 2022, they voted against classifying NFTs (Non Fungible Tokens) as art, removing all references to them from the relevant category. The curator Pmmccurdy was the only one to vote in favor, stating: 'Evidence from secondary sources places NFTs as art and therefore worthy of inclusion in this list. If we agree that Beeple and Pak are artists, why shouldn't the sales of their NFTs appear on this list? I do not understand what logic there is.’ Curator SiliconRed responded: ‘NFTs should be removed from this list for now with the intention of reopening the discussion at a later date. As far as I can see, this covers all concerns, including yours.’ The position supported is to postpone the final decision to a later time, almost as if to say 'let's see how things go'. The issue, apparently secondary, has raised quite a few concerns, especially from those who have millionaire interests in the NFT market, being Wikipedia now considered a world reference source for the 'truth'. It is also curious to know that Jimmy Wales, co-founder of the encyclopedia, sold at Christie's online auction 'The Birth of Wikipedia' the NFT of the first sentence written on the first page of Wikipedia on January 15, 2001 (Hello World) for 750,000 dollars.
Personally, I do not agree with those who discuss NFTs as a revolution to be compared to the (conscious) provocations of the past by artists such as Duchamp, Lewitt, Beuys, Boetti, Manzoni, Agnetti, Merz, Paolini etc. Kilometers of ink have been spilled for all of them in discussing what is or is not art. The transition from aesthetic pleasure to practice on thought, typical of Conceptual Art and its derivations such as Minimal Art, Arte Povera and Performance art, brought with it the conscious will to provoke a discussion on art, something that in my opinion is completely absent in those who create NFTs, whose intentions appear to me closer to speculation than to provocation. But my opinion counts for nothing. Besides, I have never shared even Sol Lewitt, one of the founders of conceptual art, when, in 'Paragraphs on Conceptual Art', he argues that the qualifying act of the work is thought, while the realization can be delegated to third parties. In my case, what I see must be realized exactly as I see it, and no one else can do it. But that, too, leaves the time that to be found.
I also do not agree with those who condemn or demonize something without having first investigated it, trying my hand at this novelty seemed to me as a necessary expansion of my research and I appreciated the cultural diversity from which it comes (which is not that of art), a skill linked to graphics and digital engineering. Even if not directly connected to the creation of works of art, I still see a future for operators in the sector, compatible with services of notable added value, such as certification and the fight against counterfeiting, authenticity, tracking of provenance, guarantees of copyright.
Instead, I find it forced to start from the NFT issue to flow into reflections on the profound implications that technique and technology represent today in the modification of our globalized existences. In this respect, I find the news that the winner of the Sony World Photography Award 2023 (Creative Open category) is for the first time AI (Artificial Intelligence) and not a human being more interesting. German artist Boris Eldagsen entered his work, Pseudomnesia: The Electrician, but at the time of the award ceremony he declined the win, confessing that the photo had been generated by artificial intelligence software.