I'd consider nfts art but I might consider a lot of other things that wouldn't meet the standards of Wikipedia editors too, and then there's the question of where you'd place animated nfts (if those exist).
Pretty much any media format can be an NFT including audio and video. 
Topic: Wikipedia Editors Have Voted Not to Classify NFTs as Art, Sparking Outrage - page 2. (Read 216 times)
January 24, 2022, 10:31:30 PM
That's weird. Say what you want about Beeple's designs(I find them fugly, but art being good/bad is totally subjective) but not classifying it as art just because it's an NFT? It seems like they're acting upon their opinions on NFTs(though I get why people dislike it) instead of facts.
January 24, 2022, 09:24:46 PM
The only way I see this as a question is if by "art" it means the original copy.
I think I'd consider it on a category of its own though but maybe so should "normal art" be devised into genres with most expensive pieces being listed there (by genre) and not as an overall thing.
I'd consider nfts art but I might consider a lot of other things that wouldn't meet the standards of Wikipedia editors too, and then there's the question of where you'd place animated nfts (if those exist).
I think I'd consider it on a category of its own though but maybe so should "normal art" be devised into genres with most expensive pieces being listed there (by genre) and not as an overall thing.
I'd consider nfts art but I might consider a lot of other things that wouldn't meet the standards of Wikipedia editors too, and then there's the question of where you'd place animated nfts (if those exist).
January 24, 2022, 08:14:03 PM
Quote
The editors chose not to include Beeple and Pak on the free encyclopedia’s list of the most expensive art sales by living artists.
Following a public debate, a group of Wikipedia editors has voted not to categorize NFTs as art—at least for now.
The row began last month, according to the crypto news outlet Cointelegraph, when editors of a page dedicated to the most expensive art sales by living artists questioned whether examples such as Christie’s $69 million sale of Beeple’s Everydays, or Pak’s $91.8 million NFT “merge,” should make the list. (Jasper Johns and Damien Hirst currently top the ranking.) Their conversation quickly took a turn toward semantics, with debaters wondering whether NFTs constituted tokens or if they represented artworks themselves.
As is common for classification disputes on the free online encyclopedia, the question was put to a vote. Five out of six editors voted not to include NFTs on the list. (As of press time, the page on Wikipedia had not yet been updated.)
“Wikipedia really can’t be in the business of deciding what counts as art or not, which is why putting NFTs, art or not, in their own list makes things a lot simpler,” wrote one editor on the discussion page, echoing the prevailing sentiment of the nay voters.
The lone supporter, meanwhile, pointed to reports in credible media sources like the New York Times, which referred to Beeple as the “third-highest-selling artist alive” after his Christie’s sale.
Though the vote occurred between just a half-dozen people, all volunteers, on a secondary page, the conversation epitomized a larger cultural debate around newfangled forms of digital art and their relationship to traditional modes of artistic production—and for this reason, people paid attention.
The conclusion angered some in the crypto community, in particular. “Wikipedia works off of precedent. If NFTs are classified as ‘not art’ on this page, then they will be classified as ‘not art’ on the rest of Wikipedia,” wrote Duncan Cock Foster, a co-founder of the popular NFT platform Nifty Gateway, amid a long series of posts on Twitter. “Wikipedia is the global source of truth for many around the world. The stakes couldn’t be higher!”
Cock Foster followed up with a call to action, asking the NFT community to “rally and let the Wikipedia editors know that NFTs are, in fact, art!”
“Digital artists have been fighting for legitimacy their whole lives. We can’t let the Wikipedia editors set them back!” he wrote.
The issue is not closed for good, however. Following the vote, the Wikipedia editors agreed to revisit the conversation at a later date.
https://news.artnet.com/market/wikipedia-editors-nft-art-classification-2060018
Following a public debate, a group of Wikipedia editors has voted not to categorize NFTs as art—at least for now.
The row began last month, according to the crypto news outlet Cointelegraph, when editors of a page dedicated to the most expensive art sales by living artists questioned whether examples such as Christie’s $69 million sale of Beeple’s Everydays, or Pak’s $91.8 million NFT “merge,” should make the list. (Jasper Johns and Damien Hirst currently top the ranking.) Their conversation quickly took a turn toward semantics, with debaters wondering whether NFTs constituted tokens or if they represented artworks themselves.
As is common for classification disputes on the free online encyclopedia, the question was put to a vote. Five out of six editors voted not to include NFTs on the list. (As of press time, the page on Wikipedia had not yet been updated.)
“Wikipedia really can’t be in the business of deciding what counts as art or not, which is why putting NFTs, art or not, in their own list makes things a lot simpler,” wrote one editor on the discussion page, echoing the prevailing sentiment of the nay voters.
The lone supporter, meanwhile, pointed to reports in credible media sources like the New York Times, which referred to Beeple as the “third-highest-selling artist alive” after his Christie’s sale.
Though the vote occurred between just a half-dozen people, all volunteers, on a secondary page, the conversation epitomized a larger cultural debate around newfangled forms of digital art and their relationship to traditional modes of artistic production—and for this reason, people paid attention.
The conclusion angered some in the crypto community, in particular. “Wikipedia works off of precedent. If NFTs are classified as ‘not art’ on this page, then they will be classified as ‘not art’ on the rest of Wikipedia,” wrote Duncan Cock Foster, a co-founder of the popular NFT platform Nifty Gateway, amid a long series of posts on Twitter. “Wikipedia is the global source of truth for many around the world. The stakes couldn’t be higher!”
Cock Foster followed up with a call to action, asking the NFT community to “rally and let the Wikipedia editors know that NFTs are, in fact, art!”
“Digital artists have been fighting for legitimacy their whole lives. We can’t let the Wikipedia editors set them back!” he wrote.
The issue is not closed for good, however. Following the vote, the Wikipedia editors agreed to revisit the conversation at a later date.
https://news.artnet.com/market/wikipedia-editors-nft-art-classification-2060018
....
This sounds like a parody piece but as far as I know its 100% real.
Still the question can be asked: "should NFTs be considered real art"?
Years ago, someone took a crucifix of Jesus and submerged it in a container of their own urine:
Quote
Piss Christ
Immersion (Piss Christ) is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a small glass tank of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[1] which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects.
The work generated a large amount of controversy based on assertions that it was blasphemous. Serrano himself said of the controversy: "I had no idea Piss Christ would get the attention it did, since I meant neither blasphemy nor offense by it. I've been a Catholic all my life, so I am a follower of Christ."[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
Immersion (Piss Christ) is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a small glass tank of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[1] which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects.
The work generated a large amount of controversy based on assertions that it was blasphemous. Serrano himself said of the controversy: "I had no idea Piss Christ would get the attention it did, since I meant neither blasphemy nor offense by it. I've been a Catholic all my life, so I am a follower of Christ."[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
A photograph of said crucifix suspended in human pee won at least 1 award on artistic merit.
If that is award winning art, then it makes the case harder for why NFTs should not be considered art, I think.
Jump to: