White Paper: Are NFTs really the progressive future of art?

The growth of blockchain was, for all intents and purposes, a financial services phenomenon. This has changed with the advent of NFTs. Utilising cryptocurrency technology to create feasibly transferable depictions of art, the wave of NFTs being created and sold over the past year has been nothing short of staggering. According to the blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis Inc, NFT growth surpassed $40 billion (about £30.5 billion) in 2021. The art industry has followed suit, with auction houses developing digital departments and museums selling master works as NFTs. Digital art and NFTs are unequivocally at the leading edge of technological innovation, but the question remains as to whether they are more progressive.

The short answer is no. “There is a large disparity between male and female creators, with the latter representing only around 16% of NFTs, and sales around 5% of the market,” says Caroline Taylor, founder of the fine art appraisal firm Appraisal Bureau. “The community in general reflects a similar statistic – only around 15% of crypto users are female.” The minority of women in the NFT/digital sphere inevitably translates into less-competitive market results; the majority of the highest-selling NFTs thus far have been created by men. The most expensive sold at auction is Beeple’s NFT Everydays: The First 5000 Days, which went for $69 million at Christie’s in March 2021. Nicole Sales, director of digital sales and NFTs at Christie’s, makes the point that, “Whether or not you think art should replicate real life or real life should replicate art, I think [not having diversity] is an inherent problem.” Carlota Dochao Naveira, an NFT investor and director of the experiential art venture Superblue, suggests why the space is male-dominated: “If you look at the statistics, it’s based very much on the fact that this whole kind of gold rush came from gaming.” Naysayers may suggest that NFTs are little more than an embedded certificate of authenticity, but if they translate into symbolic or cultural value, is it worth delving deeper?

The first source of contention with NFTs is the presence of PFPs (profile pictures). These avatars perpetuate highly gendered fantasy versions of the female form. On asking Dochao Naveira which creators are best known for this specific aesthetic, she declares: “All of them. Absolutely all of the projects that you can find have that same kind of visual focused on young, big lips, cleavage, all of that.” As an art historian, writer and curator with a specialised interest in representations of the female figure, I can’t help but let out a sigh. Harriet Clapham, art adviser and co-chair of the National Gallery’s Young Ambassadors, also notices this pervasive trend. “I don’t think this is how women necessarily seek to be identified,” she asserts. “[The avatars of] World of Women take on the appearance of a Bratz doll, the pouty lips, the eyelashes and the eyeliner… If you have the luxury of building something from the ground up, why is it becoming such a reflection of the past?” World of Women is worth a special mention as the platform is praised for its philanthropic partnerships and how it seeks to be “a community celebrating representation, inclusivity and equal opportunities for all”. In a society where most discussion of female-led initiatives offers an echo chamber of praise, it is unsurprising that few people have questioned its sexualised, ageless avatars. Do people believe these depictions reflect powerful modern women? If women are going to shape the future of technology it is necessary to consider the nuance and complexity of representation. Why do hyper-gendered distinctions continue to exist in an online world where people can be anyone? Is this biological or maybe even pathological?

Or could coding itself be contributing to the highly gendered, glossed-over imagery proliferating in the crypto world? On the technical side, creators choose a set of inputs and then an algorithm spits out images of women (typically in the thousands). The process inevitably leads to a degree of uniformity. The pioneering NFT artist Anna Ridler, who describes her practice as sitting at the boundaries of art, technology and science and exploring systems of knowledge and ways of knowing, points out that “[PFPs show] very traditional ideals of beauty… there’s no grey hair, no wrinkles. The messiness of being a woman is not articulated.” This astute observation hearkens back to Édouard Manet’s painting Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe (1862-63). Manet caused a stir at the Salon de Refusés because his painting depicted a real woman (in the nude), not one tied to allegory. The female image in art serving as a battleground for culture wars is nothing new. Representations of women offer fertile ground to analyse current society. The philosopher George Santayana said it best: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” NFTs are no different. Why is the crypto-verse avoiding real women? Perhaps living in a world of cancel culture instils such a fear of getting it wrong that people revert to fantasy that’s akin to the allegory of 19th-century Paris salons. Another possibility, although less likely, is that creators hardly consider the inputs for the images. Such a notion is just as problematic.

So what’s the solution? The most obvious and crucial way to bring change is to encourage more women to join the space. There needs to be a shift in the language that is less congratulatory and more open to critical debate. People should feel empowered to challenge one another and not be afraid to ask imperfect questions. There is also the question of accessibility. While NFTs can be created and accessed from any computer with an online connection, Dochao Naveira suggests a barrier to entry exists. “The reason there’s no mass adoption is because, quite simply, there’s no tech interface with good user experience yet – it is a confusing process. It’s very difficult to navigate as someone who’s not a coder.” The vastness of the landscape further contributes to issues navigating the platforms. Both digital art and the broader realm of NFTs blur the line between creator/artist and computer scientist. Digital art in particular is highly specialised, and according to Ridler there is a smaller pool of technical people with the applicable background. However she is hopeful of the future: “I do think it is changing, the way that curriculums are set up. There isn’t this [need to choose] art versus science and the kind of qualities that I think make for really good artists.” A handful of artists are positively disrupting the space and inspiring others to follow suit. Indeed, Ridler is a beacon of hope. Sarah Meyohas is also at the forefront of the space. She is an NFT artist best known for developing her currency Bitchcoin (years ahead of Damien Hirst’s The Currency). Other notable female NFT artists include Blake Kathryn, Krista Kim, Nicole Ruggiero and Sarah Zucker.

Whether one wishes to define NFTs as primarily a sales mechanism or a medium, the technology is now embedded in the canon of art history. NFTs are directly interfacing with broader contemporary culture and shaping the future. Looking ahead, Dochao Naveira conveys that, “NFT technology can be used in everything because it has that decentralised aspect. Data collection has been the biggest money machine… I think [NFTs] are going to revolutionise the world.” Sales makes a point of how fast-moving the industry is, stating, “It’s been a year or so since the NFT boom, but a year in crypto life is more like ten years.” If this is so, then bringing more diversity into the space and discussing the stereotypical imagery is necessary. NFTs have a short history, with nothing formalised yet, so there is still a real opportunity for change. Clapham adds, “I think that while there are women who have clearly built this space, theirs is not the most dominant voice, which is why we really need an article like this, asking those questions, and I suppose seeing it through a slightly less rosy lens.” I am happy to oblige.