Wikipedia is a very well-known online platform to get information. Anyone who’s searching for information and data about any stuff, they prefer Wikipedia. It is considered to be an online encyclopedia. Not only does it provide knowledge and information on the go, it even consists of an option to ‘edit’ the information on the particular page. The feature of editing the content or adding suggestions makes Wikipedia a reliable and decentralized form of the platform of information.
But things do not always go as they seem to be. Many times editors or authorities behind the website oppose the changes beginning in the content available. The reason for opposing could be lack of reliable source or maybe something controversial, anything. Something like that is happening at present in the case of NFTs, should they be classified as art or not?
What’s the matter?
The discussion was started about editing the list of most expensive art pieces sold. In between the discussion, questions raised about NFTs are being sold at very high prices too, shouldn’t they be on the list. No doubt, NFTs are being sold at very high prices at this time, but the debate arose about considering NFTs an art piece. It’s called ‘Digital Art’, but is it art?
The debate didn’t reach any conclusion yet, there were six editors in the panel out of which five opposed considering NFTs as art pieces. But the discussion broke out, resulting in Artists and the crypto community joining the debate and will voice in support of NFTs as Art in future discussions.
Why’s so much of an issue?
Talking about the editors who are refusing the acceptance of NFTs as art argued that there are no reliable sources of information related to the subject. According to them, NFTs are more of the token as their name ‘Non-Fungible Token’ suggests. Moreover, they are code or an address that leads to an illustration or a JPEG image, the autonomy of code assures the authority of that NFT to the person who holds it. On other hand, the one editor who was in support of NFT considering it as an art argued that it’s not the decision of Wikipedia to decide whether NFTs should be called art or not. He also pointed out one of the reports in ‘the New York Times’ related in which it mentioned Beeple who’s NFT sold for $69.3 Million in an auction as the third highest-selling artist alive, to indicate that prestigious institutions like NY times are also considering it as arts and creators as artists.
Other than the discussion among editors may turn out to be the debate outside the discussion. However the editors have not reached any conclusion yet, the NFT artists and crypto supporters will raise their voices in support of NFTs. For instance, Duncan Cock Foster, co-founder of Nifty Gateway, has called for action on Twitter, telling the NFT community that they should come forward and let Wikipedia Editors know that NFTs are Art. Digital Artists have been fighting for legitimacy the whole time, now don’t let Wikipedia Editors ruin it.
What could happen?
Both sides are having their stances and arguments to present. Although it’s always been said that ‘art is a subjective thing’. However, being classified as an art or not art, on platforms like Wikipedia can be very crucial for NFTs. Because of the simple fact that any information seeker by default reaches Wikipedia. It acts as the first impression. However, it’s a matter of time and soon it will be disclosed after the discussion. The next round of discussion among editors is yet to be announced.
We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!
Let us improve this post!
Tell us how we can improve this post?