Past Meets Present: Blockchain’s Impact on Fine Art
‘White Cube’ as a synonym for ‘Blockchain’?

Being a history of art student as well as a writer focused on blockchain tech doesn’t make sense to many people. The art world preserves a reputation of being traditional, elitist and pretentious, while blockchain technology is still avant-garde enough to deter people from engaging for fear of seeming behind the times.

Ever since Marcel Duchamp’s controversial interventions in the early 20th century, conceptual artists have been addressing the centuries-long problems within the art world including the lack of representation of women and ethnic minorities, the authoritarianism of the gallery and the question of what art actually is. Without exploring messy beds and man-made canyons too much, most seem to agree it’s the ‘idea’ behind the art that really matters.

As the blockchain and crypto industries unfold around us, I’ve come to notice some parallels between the two. Although the intangible aspects of blockchain are obvious in its relation to conceptual art, it holds real potential to solve many persistent problems that have impaired the art industry for centuries.

Redesigning Art Ownership & Provenance

One issue that even the Renaissance giants are not immune to is the notion of provenance. How can we actually say that this piece is by this person at this time? For the older ones it seems we are stuck with determining their origin by the way they drew ears, or x-rays to confirm the approximate age. For conceptual art, which is increasingly intangible, we have an even bigger dilemma as many artists embrace workshops and even rely on community efforts for the piece to materialise.

By implementing blockchain technology, every stage of the artwork’s conception and journey can be recorded on an immutable ledger. We would be able to see who was involved in the creation of the piece and what their exact role was as well as being able to avoid repetition of cases like that of Maria Altmann, who spent a gruelling six years battling the Republic of Austria to retain ownership over a Klimt painting that was rightfully hers.

Initiatives such as Codex are putting the identity of art and collectibles on the blockchain, making tracing provenance and buying and selling items easier, faster and more secure. At Sea Foam we are advising and developing technology for Artified, a Chicago-based company that plans to not only track the provenance of art but offer an interactive mobile app for collectors to engage with one another. Artified will incentivise collectors with token rewards for their knowledge and engagement, further enhancing the art industry and community.

These advancements may not be in the gallerys’ interests however, as disputes persist over artworks and artefacts that were obtained in unsavoury ways, not to mention the shady gallery funding scene and money laundering disguised as cash sales. That being said, as this becomes common knowledge, more institutions want to distance themselves from the alleged “black market” of the art world.

Bringing Transparency to the Dark Side of the Art Market

As we cautiously approach the role of galleries in a contemporary world we must consider the ongoing debate around their authoritarianism and the power collectors and gallery owners have over the market. A good example of this is how Charles Saatchi catapulted the Young British Artists into infamy, very early on in their careers, setting a benchmark for their future value from that moment on.

The mere existence of galleries and museums has relied on the wealth of a few individuals since their genesis. This is mostly beneficial for all parties, but certain cases taint the art industry as a whole, leading to a reputation of money laundering and seedy funding. Hans Haacke often tackles these themes in his work, more often than not targeting galleries directly who are led by unethical characters, or who had obtained their artworks or funding from disreputable sources.

Currently, photographer Nan Goldin is taking on the Sackler family who made a fortune from OxyContin — a painkiller known for its role in the fatal opioid epidemic — despite their name adorning the art galleries of New York and London.

Through blockchain transactions we can guarantee transparency of money and finances for both galleries and collectors, as well as allow artists and artworks to hold their own unique serial number, reinstilling faith in the art industry as a whole by reducing the potential for manipulation of facts. It also creates transparency in areas which are currently opaque, such as how artists are paid, as it’s currently unclear how much of a cut galleries and auction houses take.

Whether institutions embrace blockchain for this reason is still uncertain as increased transparency has the potential to scare away vendors and buyers. However, according to a 2017 Deloitte Art and Finance Report, 75% of art professionals and 64% of collectors want the art market to achieve greater standards of transparency. Blockchain could be the push we need to advance the art market into the 21st century.

Greater Accessibility for Collectors & Enthusiasts

Another pressing theme in the art world is the lack of accessibility for people in non-Western countries. Traditional cultural centers like Paris, London, New York and Tokyo still dominate, despite a movement to embrace art from nations that have, until recently, been excluded from the grander narrative. Other forms of technology, such as Virtual Reality, are also being utilised by galleries to create experiences for art fans around the world, but what about the people who want to collect art and can’t afford the substantial price tag?

The likes of Maecenas make it possible to buy art on the blockchain, allowing people to invest in fractions of artworks to enhance their portfolios in a safe and secure way. Their auctions will be significantly more inclusive for people with humble finances, with the minimum investment amount being equivalent to $5000 in BTC, ETH or ART token. They have partnered with Dadiani Fine Art in London for the world’s first blockchain art auction of Andy Warhol’s ’14 Small Electric Chairs’ (1980) from 25th July 2018.

Exciting New Medium for Artists

Similarly to the backlash against photography in the 1800s, we’re in the midst of a retaliation against the collision of technology and art. If even David Hockney’s iPad drawings can provoke such mixed reactions, how can we expect people to support blockchain artists?

It is difficult to measure or critique digital art in the same way as we did in the 1950s. Blockchain could be the catalyst for pushing art into its next evolution by allowing artists to address complex themes in ways which could excite a 2018 audience in the same ways as Daguerreotypes roused the public in 1839.

The nature of blockchain technology opens doors for artists around the world to not-only address key issues of equality, economy and self-commodification in their work but also provides a solution for the pressing issues all parties are faced with when interacting with the art industry.
['Chloe Diamond']
['Technology', 'Art', 'Blockchain', 'Cryptocurrency', 'Bitcoin']