Blockchain Papers

Claudio Boido, Mauro Aliano

No abstract is available for this record.

Daniel Filipe Farinha

Artists are increasingly using blockchain as a tool for trading digital artwork as non-fungible tokens (NFTs); however, some are also beginning to experiment with the blockchain as a medium for generative art, using it as a seed for a generative process or to continuously modify an evolving piece. This paper surveys, reviews, and classifies the state-of-the-art in blockchain-interactive NFTs and presents a liberal-arts critique of the opportunities and threats posed by this technology, whilst addressing existing criticism on the broader topic of art-related NFTs. The paper examines some of the most experimental pieces minted on the Hic et Nunc (HEN) and Teia NFT marketplaces, for which a purpose-built research tool was developed. The survey reveals some reliance on centralised infrastructure, namely blockchain indexers, placing undesired trust on third parties which undermines the potential longevity of the artwork. The paper concludes with recommendations for artists and NFT platform designers for developing more resilient and economically sustainable architectures.

Jeremy Nguyen

No abstract is available for this record.

Irina Lyubchenko

This paper investigates non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, and examines their place within art historical canon. Crypto-art and crypto-collectibles have flooded digital markets, offering unique art. Recently, Beeple’s Everydays—The First 5000 Days, the first digital artwork fitted with a non-fungible token offered by the major auction house Christie’s, sold for $69,346,250 on March 11, 2021. It is the third most expensive artwork sold by a living artist, following Jeff Koon’s sculpture Rabbit (1986) and David Hockney’s painting Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures) (1972). While Jeff Koons and David Hockney are the artists, whose theoretical perspectives are well known and have a secured place in an art historical canon, Beeple’s work and works of other digital NFT artists have not been fully investigated to be positioned in relation to art history, seemingly existing in a theoretical vacuum. The absence of artistic statements that usually accompany artworks contributes to this effect. Is it possible to think of the 21st century NFT-backed digital artists as the avant-gardes, who, like their 20th -century predecessors, confronted and condemned the art historical tradition? Using the case study of Beeple’s Everydays, this paper proposes an answer to the puzzling question of how a mosaic of everyday sketches produced by “pooping something out in 45 minutes,” using Beeple’s own words, was claimed to be “the next chapter in art history.” Using historical and textual analyses, this essay provides a critical response to the recent digital artworld trends driven by the decentralized networks and currencies existing in fully digital ecosystems.

Anqi Wang, Ze Gao, Lik‐Hang Lee, Tristan Braud · 5 authors

User Interaction for NFTs (Non-fungible Tokens) is gaining increasing attention. Although NFTs have been traditionally single-use and monolithic, recent applications aim to connect multimodal interaction with human behavior. This paper reviews the related technological approaches and business practices in NFT art. We highlight that multimodal interaction is a currently under-studied issue in mainstream NFT art, and conjecture that multimodal interaction is a crucial enabler for decentralization in the NFT community. We present a continuum theory and propose a framework combining a bottom-up approach with AI multimodal process. Through this framework, we put forward integrating human behavior data into generative NFT units, as "multimodal interactive NFT." Our work displays the possibilities of NFTs in the art world, beyond the traditional 2D and 3D static content.

Florian Horky, Carolina Rachel, Jarko Fidrmuc

No abstract is available for this record.

Francis Russell

Depending on your perspective, Non-Fungible Token (NFT) artworks are inaugurating an exciting new chapter in the history of art, or a dangerous new chapter in the history of online market bubbles. NFTs index artworks, and are typically strings of characters stored on a blockchain such as Ethereum. NFTs are not exclusively used to index artworks, and have been used to index a range of collectibles, but it is the sale of NFTs associated with artworks that has launched the phenomenon into public consciousness. Perhaps the most famous example of this is the digital artist Beeple’s sale of an NFT for the equivalent of $69 million (Krastrenakes). For some, such staggering prices suggest NFTs are poised to become the next Beanie Babies—i.e., commodities without utility that sell at vastly inflated prices. Despite such cynicism, some argue that NFTs have revolutionary technical import, such that they could overturn many common and unequal practices within the contemporary art market (Rennie et al.). Chief among these is the supposed disposability of digital artworks, which are viewed as difficult to sell, resell, and protect from piracy. Such issues are thought to be ameliorated by NFTs, since they function as a token that is understood to stand as a “definitive indicator of ownership” of digital artworks (Mackenzie and Bērziņa 2). Or, as Rachel O’Dwyer has summarised, NFT art auctions like the Ethereal Summit held in New York in 2018 allow individuals to bid for the “ownership and provenance details of the works of art encrypted in the Ethereum blockchain and represented by a token” (O’Dwyer). Unlike a more conventional artwork, such as a painting, NFT artworks typically take the form of JPEGs or GIFs, and therefore circulate the Internet widely, regardless of who owns the token that designates ownership. While reproductions and printed documentations of traditional artworks are commonplace—e.g., art gallery giftshops will often sell relatively low-cost posters of masterpieces like Picasso’s Guernica, or coffee table books showcasing the masterworks of influential movements like post-impressionism—there are obvious material differences between the reproduction and the original. In the case of the typically digital NFT artworks, this distinction does not apply. Accordingly, the academic and popular discussions that surround NFT artworks have reignited theoretical questions around the ontological status of artworks, and the source of their economic value. For some, the NFT market is a financial bubble and the prices attracted by particular NFT-linked artworks have no underlying value (BBC News). For others, the value of NFTs can be explained through an appeal to the value subjectively attributed to the image or animation by the purchaser (Nguyen), while for others the value of NFTs should be understood in terms of digital scarcity and provenance (Rennie et al.; Joselit) or as a technological means for artists to maintain a greater share of their artwork’s value (Kugler). While the NFT market is novel, and is worthy of study in terms of its specific technological and economic forms, this article will argue that NFTs can be placed in a longer history of the emergence of what Luc Boltanski and Arnauld Esquerre have called the “enrichment economy”. In their Enrichment: A Critique of Commodities, Boltanski and Esquerre argue that, since at least the last quarter of the twentieth century, a new site of valorisation has emerged in post-industrial economies. According to Boltanski and Esquerre, globalisation and deindustrialisation provoked many economies to embrace tourism, luxury good production, and the commodification of heritage and culture as new sites of extraction. As the viability of the mass production of commodities has receded, the production of unique commodities and transient yet “unforgettable” experiences have become more economically significant. For Boltanski and Esquerre, enrichment refers both to the often-discursive refining and redefining of existing commodities—such that they fetch greater prices—and a greater emphasis on an economy for those with disposable income—such as tourists, art collectors, and the wealthy more generally (3-4). Often, Boltanski and Esquerre argue, the enrichment economies of art and luxury tend to mine and exploit the “underlying substratum that is purely and simply the past” (2). For this reason, the enrichment economy requires the production of new forms of authenticity, “aura”, and belief, such that the overlooked or taken-for-granted objects of the past can be reframed as unique and worthy of investment or consumption. The interesting question, then, is not necessarily that of why someone would pay a large sum of money to own a piece of code on a blockchain, but, instead, that of how a particular piece of contemporary art or an NFT comes to be “enriched” with authenticity and aura. While a thoroughgoing discussion of this topic would require a longer piece, this article will nevertheless attempt to open up connections between art history, debates around the production of artistic value during and after Modernism, and the newly emerging NFT art market. While many have declared that NFTs are “disrupting the art market” (Tripathi)—supposedly evinced by the staggering growth of the NFT market, and emerging institutional recognition, such as ArtReview’s decision to place an NFT at the top of their Power 100 List for 2021—this article seeks to locate the NFT explosion within a slightly longer timeframe, one in which NFTs would feature as a continuation—albeit a non-linear one—rather than a disruption of ongoing cultural and economic logics. Value and Void Despite the incredulity that commonly meets NFT artworks, the contemporary art market similarly flaunts conventional understandings of aesthetic and economic value. While many would surely agree with journalist Amy Castor’s claim that “it’s hard to justify that a Bored Ape NFT is worth $300,000 based on the art” (quoted in Artnet), almost identical criticisms have been raised around the contemporary artist Maurizio Cattelan’s 2019 work Comedian. Released in an edition of three, Comedian consisted of a banana duct-taped to a wall, with two of the three selling for $120,000 each. As Sara Callahan puts it, works like Comedian reignited debates around “what makes something a high-priced artwork when another, seemingly identical, object is not?” (Callahan). While NFTs are reawakening interest in the question of artistic value, the financialisation of cheaply made and mass-produced artworks has a much longer history. Indeed, by the 1960s, a booming secondary art market that traded in increasingly expensive, yet cheap-to-produce avant-garde works—often requiring relatively small amounts of time and inexpensive materials—raised suspicions that art was becoming indistinguishable from more traditional financial assets. In response, in 1968 the influential art critic Leo Steinberg argued that, “avant-garde art, lately Americanized, is for the first time associated with big money. … Another decade, and we shall have mutual funds based on securities in the form of pictures held in bank vaults” (quoted in Beech 300). As Dave Beech has shown, in the ensuing period, “art’s relationship to finance capital has outstripped Steinberg’s worst fears” (Beech 301). By the 1980s, banks allowed individuals to borrow large sums of money against the value of their art collections, and investment in artworks became a normal practice of portfolio diversification (Beech 299–300). When interest rates are low, investments in productive capital offer low levels of liquidity, and international markets appear vulnerable to shocks, artworks—whether physical or in the form of an NFT—offer a means of hedging against future losses. Furthermore, in both the contemporary art market and the NFT market, purchases of artworks at inflated prices often allow an individual to prevent “the bottom from falling out of a market they have already invested in” (O’Dwyer). The fact that artworks could hold a value well in excess of the cost of the materials or labour time required to produce them, was not solely recognised by art collectors and investors. Instead, this period saw a great number of artists explicitly playing with the aporia that had emerged around art’s economic value—insofar as ready-made artworks could now fetch prices typically reserved for laboriously produced and unique masterpieces. Take, for example, Yves Klein’s project Zones of Immaterial Pictorial Sensibility, which he developed over the late 1950s and early 1960s. In these works, Klein offered collectors the opportunity to purchase a void or “immaterial zone” for varying quantities of gold, with “20 grams (3/4 ounce) of pure gold for the Zones of series no. 1, the least expensive, to 1,280 grams (27/8 pounds) for those of series no. 7, the most expensive” (Cras 24). In exchange for the gold, the void-owner would receive a receipt as proof of purchase. However, for the work to be completed, Klein requested that the receipt be burned by the collector, and in response Klein would throw half of the received gold into the river Seine (Cras 24). By destroying the proof of purchase, and by releasing some of the gold into the river, the collector would receive “the full authentic immaterial value of the work” (Klein quoted in Cras 24). We see some resemblances here between Klein’s Zones and NFTs—and here Klein is no exception, since, as Cras has documented, the 1960s were replete with artists experimenting with the production of artworks as novel financial assets. For Cras, it was a time in which “the problem of attaching a price to works of art and offering them for sale, traditionally considered to be external to creation in this domain, was now incorporated in artistic practice” (Cras 3). If artists were increasingly embracing the artwork’s status as an asset, and if the price of artworks became divorced

Shaun Wilson

Introduction The proliferation of non-fungible tokens has transformed cryptocurrency artefacts into a legitimised art form now considered in mainstream art collecting as an emerging high-yield commodity based on scarcity. As photography was debated “of being art” in the late 19th century, video art in the 1960s, virtual reality in the 1990s, and augmented reality in the 2010s, NFT art is the next medium of artwork tied to emergent cultural forms. From the concept of “introducing scarcity from born-digital assets for the first time ever, NFTs or crypto or digital collectibles, as they are also referred to, have already shown glimpses of their potential'” (Valeonti et al. 1). Yet for NFT art, “numerous misconceptions still exist that are partly caused by the complexity of the technology and partly by the existence of many blockchain variants” (Treiblmaier 2). As the discussion of NFT art is still centred on questions of justifying the legitimacy of the medium and its financial trading, critical analysis outside of these key points is still limited to blogs and online articles as the mainstay of debate. To distance NFTs from a common assumption that they are in some form or another a populous digital fad, cryptocurrencies are intended primarily as currencies, even if they maintain some asset-like properties (Baur et al.). In a broader sense, NFTs have positioned digital art as a collectable staple as “the most common types are collectibles and artworks, objects in virtual worlds, and digitalised characters from sports and other games” (Dowling). As a point of origin "NFTs were originally developed using the Ethereum blockchain, [while] many other blockchain networks now facilitate trade and exchange of NFTs” (Wilson et al.). “Given NFTs link to underlying assets that are unique in some way and cannot be exchanged like for like” (Bowden and Jones), this article will consider how artists respond to this uniqueness, which separates the art as simply trading an artefact on a crypto platform, to instead consider a different approach that attests to legitimising the medium as a conceptual space. The concept of NFTs was first introduced in 2012 with Bitcoin’s “Colored Coins”, which referred to tokens that represent any type of physical asset “such as real estate properties, cars and bonds” (Rosenfeld). To that end, the origins of NFTs, as we know, attach themselves to rarities, much the same as any other luxury trading artefact. But where NFTs differ is, as a system, in the non-fungibility of their agency and, as an artefact, the singularity of their rarity and uniqueness. As an example in art, consider a Van Gogh painting where its rarity sustains its value, as there are only a certain number of Van Gogh paintings in circulation. Thus, the value of a Van Gogh painting in the domain of rarity is determined by its metadata with attention to the verification of the authenticity of the artefact and, among others, its subsequent details of the year it was painted. NFTs work along with the same premise: both the Van Gogh painting’s data and an NFT are non-fungible because they cannot be forged, but the painting is fungible because it can be forged. From here, there are two components to associate with NFT art. The first is the NFT, which is the data of a digital token registered on a blockchain. The second is the artefact associated with the NFT, which we know as NFT art. But the system by which NFTs exists as a blockchain is different from, say, buying shares listed in a stock market. Therefore, to find a conceptuality in NFT art, the idea of an NFT artwork as a singular tradable commodity needs to be rethought as not the artefact per se, but the effect of the condition brought about by a combination of the artefact, the currency, and nature of its transaction system. To think of these key points as an independent singularity dismantles any sense of a conceptual framework by which NFT art can exist beyond its form. As McLoughlin argues, “unlike the commercial gallery business model, NFTs are designed to cut out the need for art dealers, enabling artists to trade directly online, typically via specialist auction sites” (McLoughlin). With regards to the GLAM sector, the conceptuality of this disruption positions both the born-digital artefact and the system of trading of the artefact as inextricably linked together. Yet the way this link is considered, even by galleries and curators alike, invites further attention to see NFT art not as a fad, but as a beginning of an entirely new system of the digital genre. Background From an aesthetics perspective, recent hostility surrounding the acceptance of NFT art within the establishment has predictably taken issue with the low-brow nature of mainstream avatar-oriented NFT art; for example, Bored Ape Yacht Club and Cryptopunks not surprisingly have been at odds with “proper” art. More so, other artists who have used blockchain in their practice, including Kevin McCoy, Mitchel F. Chan, and Rhea Myers, contributed to early crypto art especially in the 2010s to be inclusive of the proliferation of NFT art as a fine arts medium. Yet despite these contributions, the polarising of NFT art within the art world, as Widdington asserts, has accounted for assumptions that NFT art is identified as being of populous kitsch, lowbrow images, where contemporary art is in opposition to the critique it subjectifies itself against. The art establishment’s disdain towards the aesthetics of NFTs is historically predictable. Early NFT art focussed on pop culture references that have significance within the crypto community (Pepe memes, collectible CryptoKitties), and similarly, in the 1980s, Jeff Koons forced the world of “high art” to confront and accept his works rejoicing in pop culture (Michael Jackson, Pink Panther; Widdington). A key point from Widdington’s claim can be attested for other art that came before Postmodernism, linked firmly to artists using identifiers as part of their studio practice. Moreover, the tying of artwork to a non-fungible identifier is not new. Sol LeWitt's Wall Drawing #793B Certificate (LeWitt) compounded his manifesto that “the idea becomes a machine that makes the art” (LeWitt). By adopting the practice that each of his artworks was accompanied by an authenticity certificate, where the identification code forced a fungible asset to be associated with a unique non-fungible asset, it is the ownership of a certificate of authenticity, or a smart contract on the blockchain in the case of an NFT, that makes the artist’s work unique and therein valuable (Widdington). The scarcity of born-digital assets drives demand for collecting NFT art and joins a financial aspect tied to the process of buying and selling crypto assets. This is obviously different from a crypto conceptuality which exists outside the process and thereby manifests in the idea of what intersects the process, and, in the case of NFT artworks, the subject of the image being traded. Just as LeWitt’s certificate of ownership was thought to raise questions about authenticity and uniqueness through abstract thinking, the concept of art derived from NFT art is fundamentally no different. Both use non-fungibility as a condition of their agency to first address what can be copied and what remains as unique. Second, the mechanism of a ledger that, for NFTs, is blockchain and, for a certificate of authenticity, is the assigned number of the unique identifier, regulates scarcity by using a system to define uniqueness. Adopting this manifesto invites a different way to consider NFT art when the main conversation about NFT art in popular journalism or blogging is a narrow discussion either about the legitimacy of NFTs as an authentic financial stock or about the amount of money they transact in collecting the artefacts. One such conceptuality is in the recent NFT artwork of Damien Hirst. NFT Art Damien Hirst’s The Currency “is composed of 10,000 NFTs linked to 10,000 individual spot paintings on paper” (Hawkins) which are inclusive of added security devices within the paper itself to make the physical asset unique. The purchaser can decide if they would like to own the NFT “or ... keep the physical work and relinquish rights to the blockchain-based artwork” (Goldstein). Perspectives of the project, despite the fact that “Hirst has become a renewed critical target in the left and left-liberal media” (White 197) for his NFT project, not to mention being lamented as “Thatcher’s Warhol” (Lemmey), range from indicating “greater fool theory” (Hawkins) to the questioning of a “responsibility to other NFT artists in the market” (Meyohas). However, discussion on the conceptuality created by The Currency, especially its ontology, is muted if not ignored altogether, which this article considers a fundamental oversight in any credible critical assessment of NFT art. Given that Hirst’s artwork has consistently been moulded around conceptual art, whereby the idea of art becomes the artwork not necessarily found in the hand-made aspect of the artefact itself, the idea of The Currency is to question the role and relationship of art and money through an allegory. One might argue that its conceptuality then affords the idea of the artwork being a currency in itself. It speaks to divisibility, just as the cryptocurrency used to purchase the artworks is divisible of its own tender. The disjuncture in this accord is that “NFTs are not currencies themselves, but rather more like records of ownership” (Cornelius 2). The dot paintings on paper are created as unique artefacts where their uniqueness makes them rare, and this uniqueness makes the rarity an increase in financial value. However, subverting this are Hirst’s physical creations, where the legal tender’s conceptuality is manufactured with watermarks, security embeds, and financial markings the same as traded bills. If this perspective is considered a concept, not a digital selli

L. Machulin

As digital art topped the list of other arts in post-industrial society, the theoretical and methodological fields of art history it is necessary to clarify a range of definitions of digital art, systematize them and bring them into compliance with international classification.
 The subject of the study is the phenomenon of NFT (non-fungible token), which in 2021 took first place in the annual ranking of the most influential people in the field of art Power 100. NFT — a phenomenon of not only virtual but also modern culture in general.
 The object of research is digital art, in the space of which there is a phenomenon that we study. The purpose of the article is to find out the place and role of NFT in the development of digital art and its significance for art in general. The author considers such aspects of the topic as: the place of virtual art in contemporary art; the importance of NFT for digital art and culture in general; prospects and risks of including the field of art into the experiments with NFT.
 The scientific novelty of the work is the consideration and analysis of those aspects of digital art that have become particularly relevant in the last five years.
 As a result of the study, the author concludes the following.
 
 Since NFT has recently been associated with art, it is natural to study this phenomenon in terms of its place in art. NFT is a new tool that meets some of the needs of creators, users, and collectors of high-end digital and non-digital objects.
 The presence in the NFT phenomenon of such attributes as authenticity of the object, competitiveness, market value, demand and supply, indicate that a new segment of the art market has begun to appear. The autonomous and independent NFT market can be interpreted as the beginning of the separation of digital art from the underlying art. And while it is hard to call it art in the traditional sense today, it is more likely to be digital property.
 The main difference between the NFT market and the usual basic art market is that the artist is valued as a person at the former, and the work itself is valued at the traditional one.
 The formation of the third field of art (after the first field — “old masters”, the second field — modern art, created by traditional means) requires the development of a complex of definitions for its full-fledged comprehension.

Lauren van Haaften-Schick, Amy Whitaker

No abstract is available for this record.

Hugo Schnoering, Hugo Inzirillo

We are witnessing the emergence of a new digital art market, the art market 3.0. Blockchain technology has taken on a new sector which is still not well known, Non-Fungible tokens (NFT). In this paper we propose a new methodology to build a NFT Price Index that represents this new market on the whole. In addition, this index will allow us to have a look on the dynamics and performances of NFT markets, and to diagnose them.

Arnav Kapoor, Dipanwita Guhathakurta, Mehul Mathur, Rupanshu Yadav · 6 authors

NFT or Non-Fungible Token is a token that certifies a digital asset to be unique. A wide range of assets including, digital art, music, tweets, memes, are being sold as NFTs. NFT-related content has been widely shared on social media sites such as Twitter. We aim to understand the dominant factors that influence NFT asset valuation. Towards this objective, we create a first-of-its-kind dataset linking Twitter and OpenSea (the largest NFT marketplace) to capture social media profiles and linked NFT assets. Our dataset contains 245,159 tweets posted by 17,155 unique users, directly linking 62,997 NFT assets on OpenSea worth 19 Million USD. We have made the dataset public. We analyze the growth of NFTs, characterize the Twitter users promoting NFT assets, and gauge the impact of Twitter features on the virality of an NFT. Further, we investigate the effectiveness of different social media and NFT platform features by experimenting with multiple machine learning and deep learning models to predict an asset's value. Our results show that social media features improve the accuracy by 6% over baseline models that use only NFT platform features. Among social media features, count of user membership lists, number of likes and retweets are important features.

G. A. Pierro, Moaaz Sawaf, Roberto Tonelli

No abstract is available for this record.

Min-Bin Lin, Bingling Wang, Fabian Bocart, Christian Hafner · 5 authors

No abstract is available for this record.

Roberto Moro Visconti

No abstract is available for this record.

Roberto Moro Visconti

No abstract is available for this record.

Rasha Almajed, Abedallah Zaid Abualkishik, Amer M. Ibrahim, Nahia Mourad

Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are one-of-a-kind digital items with static or continuous visual and audio content. NFTs digitally represent any assets that may hold photos, gifs, audio, videos, or any other data-based storable material. These assets may come under a variety of asset groups, including art, in-game goods, and entertainment collecting units. What makes them appealing is their exclusivity, in the sense that each NFT is unique to itself, and ownership is determined by a digital certificate. In the first half of 2021, NFT sales totaled more than a billion. The NFT Software as a service (SAAS) based system is a one-of-a-kind offering and concept for thinking outside the box and presenting intellectuals and creative treasures and exhibiting these objects to ensure the security and integrity of digital assets. The existence of core decentralized networks allows for unrestricted access to this material as well as further analysis. Based on the Web3 Blockchain technology, these assets may be traded and represent next-generation ownership. In this paper, Adaptive Improved Convolutional Neural Networks (AICNN) are used to forecast NFT to provide a SAAS NFT collector. We also introduce Tree-seed Chaotic Atom Search Optimization (TSC-ASO) algorithm to optimize the forecasting process. The proposed method of NFT price forecasting is evaluated and compared with the existing forecasting methods. To produce an accurate report for NFT price forecasting, the proposed method will be effective.

Ariana Colleen Colleen Schrader-Rank

I propose that non fungible tokens (NFTs) will affect the greater public, and specifically the art market, at an exponential rate due to three factors. The first, scarcity mindset, drives the human sense of urgency for a particular commodity (Garvey, 2021). The next factor is the potential use of NFTs in real world applications or throughout the economy. The attraction of NFTs is that they are indiscriminate and allow anyone from various socioeconomic backgrounds to buy in. As scarcity seemingly increases, NFTs appear to be a good investment; but are there real world applications or do they merely exist within the virtual realm? The last determinant I would like to explore is the environmental impact of NFTs on the physical world. When comparing virtual ‘tokens’ used to fund digital art to paper money exchanged for a piece of physical artwork in concrete space, theoretically the former is much less detrimental to society. However, through practice-led research, I have conducted a six month investigation from May 2021 through October 2021 to uncover the true ramifications NFTs have on the world.

Marko Suvajdžić, Dragana Stojanović, Iryna Kanishcheva

In this exploratory text the authors review different ways in which Blockchain technology intersects with Artificial Intelligence (AI), and with art, and how it connects to a more and more frequently mentioned area such as contemporary art industries. These intersections are pointing at the two aspects worth exploring – the first one being a way in which technology (here Blockchain and AI) can be used in various fields and industries, and the other one following art as it opens its world to the new technological possibilities, enriching its forms, topics and manifestations, and questioning the status of the author as well. The art examples and case studies exhibited here will illustrate a couple of problems that can be solved and/or improved with Blockchain and AI technology. These include transparency, art data authenticity, art data monetization, smart contracts with artists, investment opportunities of NFT (non-fungible tokens), roles and activities of curators, psychology of aesthetics, and exploration of creativity.

Salomé Cuesta Valera, Paula Fernández Valdés, Salvador Muñoz Viñas, Salvador Muñoz Viñas

Digital technology, which appeared in the '80s and consolidated itself in the following decade with what was called the “third industrial revolution”, has transformed not only our daily environment, but also the way in which we produce and experience the artistic work. Digital art, a subcategory of the so-named art of the new media, presents multiple forms and is in continual evolution, parallel to the devices which make it possible; but its commercialisation in the contemporary art market becomes complex, so digital works present a series of characteristics such as the paperless ofice, obsolescence and reproducibility which may be considered to be not particularly profitable by collectors. Despite this, in recent months the sale of some digital artworks, to which numerous texts are referred to under the name of cryptoart, have increased notably, reaching figures in the millions for the first time in auction houses. The commercial success of these pieces is due to the fact that, together with the work's archive, they include a type of cryptographic certificate, the non- fungible-tokens or NFTs, which collect the the work's data and inscribe them in a blockchain; transforming a multiple and disseminated work into a digital item that is unique and traceable, whose property can be transmitted as one would do with any other object in the offline world. Although they favour in principle the creation and sale of digital art, NFTs present their own problems, especially related to their access, use and sustainability; are NFTs a permanent tool or only a method of fleeting speculation? How does this certification affect property and the author's rights? Is it possible and will it be sustainable to employ them as a strategy for the preservation of digital works? This article carries out an analysis of the principal characteristics and problems of digital art in a general sense, as well as the solutions and preoccupations which the cryptographic certificates offer in all aspects in the life of a work of art: production, dissemination and preservation.

Matthieu Nadini, Laura Alessandretti, Flavio Di Giacinto, Mauro Martino · 6 authors

Non Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are digital assets that represent objects like art, collectible, and in-game items. They are traded online, often with cryptocurrency, and are generally encoded within smart contracts on a blockchain. Public attention towards NFTs has exploded in 2021, when their market has experienced record sales, but little is known about the overall structure and evolution of its market. Here, we analyse data concerning 6.1 million trades of 4.7 million NFTs between June 23, 2017 and April 27, 2021, obtained primarily from Ethereum and WAX blockchains. First, we characterize statistical properties of the market. Second, we build the network of interactions, show that traders typically specialize on NFTs associated with similar objects and form tight clusters with other traders that exchange the same kind of objects. Third, we cluster objects associated to NFTs according to their visual features and show that collections contain visually homogeneous objects. Finally, we investigate the predictability of NFT sales using simple machine learning algorithms and find that sale history and, secondarily, visual features are good predictors for price. We anticipate that these findings will stimulate further research on NFT production, adoption, and trading in different contexts.

Elena Sidorova

The paper addresses the issue of digitalization of the contemporary art market. It analyzes key features of today’s online art market and discusses three technological innovations—cryptocurrency, blockchain, and artificial intelligence—that have the potential to contribute to the further development and growth of online art trade. The paper demonstrates that whereas cyberspace attracts new talent and great business ideas intended to make global art commerce more versatile and efficient, online art market players alongside with providers of online art market data and analytics offer interesting avenues of future research in this sector.

Arun Kumar G, A Hariharan, Ms D Sasikala

With the tremendous development of internet, we can share any media from anywhere in the world. This paved the way for data sharing illegally versions of data shared among persons. In our proposed system, the original data (use case taken Song) will be embedded with a hash value and then deployed to Inter Planetary File System (IPFS) and shared through Ethereum Blockchain, enabling deployed data unaltered. The IPFS returns a 46-bit length hash for each of the file being upload. Usage of Ethereum blockchain ensures each every transaction cryptographically hashed and logged. Also, the data deployed on IPFS sharable but with hidden hash identity for each of it, which is not known by the person who gets that data. The owner of the original data thus shares the data and w having the log maintaining hash identity for each of the person to whom the data owner shares. The IPFS storage enables Peer to Peer (P2P) data transfer through decentralized network. The person will be given the IPFS hash to download the data. When data if pirated is known to the owner, he computes the hash value from the pirated version and identifies the person pirated that data and avoids sharing data to that person next time

Laura Lotti

Abstract This article addresses contemporary art as a means to investigate how, and to what extent, financial logic impacts upon the socio-cultural sphere. Its contribution is twofold: on the one hand, the article shows that contemporary art's valuation practices increasingly reflect the logic of capitalization; on the other hand, it assesses the emancipatory potential of blockchain technology for the cultural sphere. In relation to the latter I argue that, in spite of the technological novelty of blockchain-based art projects, these nonetheless fail to challenge a received logic of finance. This exposes the limitations to technological determinism as a means of countering financial power in the socio-cultural sphere, and points to new problems for art's valuation methods in relation to the liquid logic of algorithmic finance.