Generative Art and NFTs: Where is The Real Value?
The combination of digital generative art and NFTs is getting a lot of attention. But, is the real value of these art pieces really encoded in the token?
Let me start by saying that this story does not pretend to be a technical article describing how Generative art or NFTs work although I will introduce the basic concepts and some references for those who want to explore deeper. On the contrary, it pretends (and hopefully achieves) to generate a debate on how/ if NFTs are capturing the real value behind Generative art.
Generative art
A simple definition of Generative art can be found on Wikipedia as follows: “Generative art refers to art that in whole or in part has been created with the use of an autonomous system”.
The range of autonomous systems that can be used to generate art is vast: from simple rule systems to fractal algorithms to more complex AI-powered systems like Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). One of the most famous examples of Generative art is this “Edmond de Bellamy” painting from 2018 created by a GAN.
For those of you who want to deep dive into Generative art, I recommend starting with this Generative Art Guide from aiartists.org.
NFTs
Non-Fungible Tokens are a very hot topic lately, but what exactly are they? Simply put, NFTs are records on a blockchain (mainly Ethereum). They are Non-Fungible because they cannot be replaced with something else and keep the value. In that sense, they are different from fungible tokens like bitcoin, which you can trade for another bitcoin keeping the same value. NFTs are getting a lot of attention when used to sell digital art, by uniquely associating digital assets such as images, videos, music or text to a blockchain record. It is with this association that NFTs promise art collectors to have something that cannot be copied: ownership of the work.
As mentioned in this article called “The ABCs of NFTs: A Guide to Non-Fungible Tokens, the Cryptomedia Trend Bringing Ownership to the Internet”, there are various examples of NFTs “skyrocketing in popularity” such as “a digital flower to sell for $20,000, a looping video clip for $26,128, a sock for $60,000 and a LeBron James clip for $99,999.”
For those of you who want to deep dive into NFTs, I can recommend starting by this article by The Verge, “NFTs, explained”.
The value in Generative Art NFTs
Now we understand the basic concepts behind Generative Art and NFTs and know that digital artists are selling their algorithms-generated art by encoding their creation authorship into a non-fungible token that is stored in a blockchain record. At this point, some of you might be asking ok, I get the concept behind NFTs and non-fungible tokens, but I can download an exact digital copy of David’s Rudnick Valentine’s Day rose for free right now. So, where is the value? And that it is the tricky question.
Maybe you are in the group that would answer yes, you can download a copy of that rose, but it is not the original one, as if you buy a copy of a Picasso or Rembrandt. Or maybe you are in a second group and claim that this is not the same case as with a Picasso, given that the original painting by the artist cannot be exactly reproduced even by himself. And here is where the conversation turns out to be interesting in my opinion, bringing relevant questions to the table.
Who is the artist in Generative Art?
If you followed the Wikipedia link I included in the Generative Art section of this article, you probably realized that I (intentionally) skipped a second part of the definition which says “In some cases the human creator may claim that the generative system represents their own artistic idea, and in others that the system takes on the role of the creator.”
I would not personally count me in the group that would say that a generative system is a creator, as I personally think that the creativity is in the human artist that decides how to train the algorithm, and which are the parameters you want your artwork to be dependent upon.
Then, is there real value in NFTs for Generative Art?
Well, I think it depends on what kind of value are we trying to measure. I think NFTs are a good way for digital artists to access a market and monetize their work. Based on the investments in NTF-supported digital art we have mentioned before, it seems that it also exists speculative value for buyers (collectors) in these pieces.
On the other hand, it could be argued whether the value resides in the final artwork or in the algorithm that generates it. Actually, artists sometimes keep the copyright and reproduction rights of their art so they could later generate new identical copies of your NFTs (although they would not be the “original”). And this brings us to the value of the algorithm itself, as it is what really allows the artist to generate more copies of the same artwork and, at the same time, differentiate their work from other artists’. To some degree, one could claim that without owning the algorithm, its parameters tuning and training data, you are not owning the artistic value, as the model’s output can be exactly reproduced over and over, unlike what happens with classical art pieces (maybe you could hire DaVinci or Picasso, but you would not get two exact copies of the Mona Lisa or the Guernica).
As I stated at the beginning of this article, my intention was not to deep dive into the technical aspects of Generative art or NFTs, but to hopefully start a debate on the value of the combination of both. What do you think? What kind of value do you see in this combination? Would you propose a different path to what current NFT use cases propose?
If you enjoyed reading this piece, please consider a membership to get full access to every story on while supporting me and other writers on Medium.
