1/12 All of my friends who are reflexively skeptical of NFTs should spend a bit of time thinking about Damien Hirst’s project, The Currency. 
2/12 Hirst is, of course, one of the most successful and important artists of this generation.
A lot of his work stands at the intersection of art & money. For example, he created a human skull encrusted in diamonds. It sold for $100m. Art? Money?
A lot of his work stands at the intersection of art & money. For example, he created a human skull encrusted in diamonds. It sold for $100m. Art? Money?
3/12 Given his obsession with the art/money collide, it is not surprising that he was fast to enter the NFT world.
4/12 What’s wonderful Hirst’s The Currency -- particularly for non-NFT-natives -- is how it is structured. Hirst created 10,000 actual paintings of dots and put them into a vault, then auctioned NFTs linked to each painting.
5/12 The fun part is: After a year, the owners have to decide: Do they want to keep the NFT or the physical painting?
Whichever they choose, the other gets destroyed.
Whichever they choose, the other gets destroyed.
6/12 Hirst has been doing dot paintings for a long time, and there is an extensive history of those paintings selling for significant amounts of money.
As a result, it's impossible to argue the paintings have no value, as people say about various NFTs.
As a result, it's impossible to argue the paintings have no value, as people say about various NFTs.
7/12 But by forcing people to choose the NFT or the painting, Hirst makes people confront the “value” of art.
Which will be more valuable? A small painting of dots you can hang on a wall, or an NFT you can own that raises fundamental questions about the nature of art?
Which will be more valuable? A small painting of dots you can hang on a wall, or an NFT you can own that raises fundamental questions about the nature of art?
8/12 I don’t think the answer is obvious. In fact, I have a strong suspicion that the NFTs will be more valuable in the end.
In part, because the first Hirst NFT has a bigger place in the history of art than the umpteen-thousandth Hirst dot painting.
In part, because the first Hirst NFT has a bigger place in the history of art than the umpteen-thousandth Hirst dot painting.
9/12 It reminds me a little of Banksy’s shredded painting, which became more valuable after it was shredded than it was before that "shocking" event.
10/12 Everyone who is skeptical about NFTs asks: “How do they have any value.” They're just jpgs!
That's an easy shot to take at a picture of a cute penguin. I could explain the value by talking about networking and social signaling and such, but the answer is complex.
That's an easy shot to take at a picture of a cute penguin. I could explain the value by talking about networking and social signaling and such, but the answer is complex.
11/12 But the Hirst NFT/painting hybrids are unquestionably valuable, and directly ask the question: Why do we value art?
Because of its physical presence? Because of what it makes us think about? Because of its social signaling? Because it helps define community?
Because of its physical presence? Because of what it makes us think about? Because of its social signaling? Because it helps define community?
12/12 NFT natives may not find the project interesting, as it straddles the line, rather than embracing the NFT ecosystem completely.
But in so doing, it can help people from outside the crypto world think more clearly about why and how NFTs (and art in general) have value.
But in so doing, it can help people from outside the crypto world think more clearly about why and how NFTs (and art in general) have value.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
