NFTs from art and the burning question of their physical origins

Thousands of paintings by English artist Damien Hirst will be set on fire during an October exhibition but will live on as non-fungible tokens (NFTs), according to London’s Newport Street Gallery, which is hosting the event that will run through the end of the month.

The Guardian newspaper estimates the works, a series of 10,000 canvases featuring the artist’s trademark multicolored dots, are worth more than $11 million. Hirst has been estimated to be Britain’s richest living artist with a fortune of over $380 million.

The event, Damien Hirst’s The Currency, started in July 2021 in partnership with digital art service Heni and featured 10,000 NFTs equivalent to 10,000 canvases, according to the Newport Gallery. Buyers of the artwork were asked to choose between the NFT or the physical version before the deadline of July 27 this year.

On that date, just over half of the collectors, 5,149, chose the painting and 4,851 NFT. For those who chose the digital version, the corresponding canvas goes up in smoke. Those who went for the painting will have their NFT destroyed.

NFTs are unique digital identifiers for an image recorded on a blockchain that can be used to certify an image’s authenticity and digital ownership. However, if an artist produces a work both as a physical object and as an NFT, this can create uncertainty about who owns the original. Does the existence of one undermine the other?

For Hirst, fire purifies everything. His solution to the physical versus digital art dilemma is the destruction of one or the other – his patrons decide. In Hirst’s case, he has collaborated with the buyer to destroy his original work. But in other projects, the artist is not always part of the NFT-inspired bonfire.

Fiery Frida Kahlo

When Mexican art collector and cryptocurrency entrepreneur Martin Mobarak bought “Fantasmones siniestros,” a small painting by the late Mexican artist Frida Kahlo valued at around $10 million, few would have expected him to set it on fire in a move some authorities say crossed the line.

During a private event at his Florida mansion in July, Mobarak, the creator of a cryptocurrency token called AGCoin, filmed the burning of the 1945 drawing.

A video posted by Mobarak on his FridaNFT website appears to show the businessman removing the small colorful drawing from its frame, placing it in a martini glass with dry ice and fuel, then lighting it to the tune of mariachi music and cheers from audience.

With the original Kahlo work gone, Mobarak’s website declares that the painting has “permanently passed into the metaverse.” The FridaNFT website is now selling 10,000 digital images of Fantasmones siniestros for the price of 3 Ether crypto each, which amounts to around $40 million depending on the price of Ether.

The website says the proceeds will go to several philanthropic causes for the arts and children’s health and non-profit organizations. Beneficiaries include Mexico City’s Palace of Fine Arts, overseen by the National Institute of Fine Arts and Literature (INBAL), the country’s leading cultural authority.

However, INBAL rejected the donation to the Palace of Fine Arts. The government agency stated that Kahlo’s artwork is considered an “artistic monument.” Deliberate destruction of an artistic monument constitutes a crime under the Federal Law on Monuments and Archaeological, Artistic and Historic Zones, INBAL said.

The institute said it will investigate the incident to identify whether the painting was authentic before taking further action. Mobarak’s website says the artwork was confirmed as authentic on July 30, 2022 by “top Frida Kahlo curator”, Andres Siegel.

Banksy’s idiots

The burning of the Frida Kahlo painting is reminiscent of the fate of an original piece by the artist Banksy last year.

A purportedly authenticated print of Banksy’s work “Morons” was set to burn in a live-streamed video in March 2021 after being purchased by blockchain company Injective Protocol for USD 95,000 and minted as an NFT. Banksy first released Morons as 100 screenprints in 2006.

“The reason the burning itself is so important is that as long as the physical chip exists, the value of that part will remain with the physical,” says the man in the video wearing a black surgical mask, who then sets the image on fire. .

Moron’s NFT sold for 228.69 ETH, which was worth USD 380,000 at the time. The NFT has not been resold, but the latest bid on the OpenSea trading platform is around 0.35 ETH, or around $460.

Cherry on top

Many NFT projects related to physical works are not so destructive. Hong Kong-based contemporary street artist Szabotage – real name Gustav Szabo – sells physical artwork alongside NFTs.

He said he started out as a graffiti artist and was inspired by the likes of Banksy, but has never considered destroying a physical piece as part of an NFT sale. The smell, the feeling and the experience of the art in an open space with other people cannot be transferred, he said.

“I think things will be more digital going forward, but I will still jump between these two disciplines,” Szabo said. “I think it’s a natural progression for people to keep the physical pieces but also want the digital version with a potential investment opportunity there.”

Szabo added: “digital work can extend the story of the physical piece … the little cherry on top.”

In the case of historical art, NFTs can also be used to augment known pieces rather than replace them, according to founder and CEO of Web3 startup platform Appreciator.ios Emily Cheung. She is leading the first Van Gogh art NFT project in collaboration with the Van Gogh Sites Foundation, which will be launched at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Hong Kong on 10 October.

The collaboration will sell NFTs based on Van Gogh’s work, with the proceeds used for Van Gogh heritage preservation and artists’ development, Cheung said.

She said the burning of Frida Khalo’s Fantasmones siniestros was a “heartbreaking moment” for the art world. Instead, Appreciator.io wants to use NFTs to recreate and re-inspire new art audiences.

Cheung adds: “It should be about how we can use this technology for good, use it to create value for cultural institutions, for the preservation of cultural heritage, and use it to expand creativity and tell the story of art.”