Art using NFTs, here to stay?

From impressionism to this present moment of NFT Art, critics of innovation in Art have followed a fairly standard script. The critic expresses how fed up he is (it is usually a “he”) with what has accosted his eyes. He then characterizes the Art as devoid of meaning, confused or unfinished.

As a result of these characterizations, the critic avoids conducting any actual analysis, including consideration of the context that produced the work, and leans into attacking the Artist.

It was often not enough to simply dislike the Art work, but innovative Art had to be the product of “diseased minds.” Early Impressionist and Cubist Artists heard this attack and variations on it frequently. Denouncing Art as the product of illness or “otherness” came with a subtle implication, one that applies equally to NFT Art.

During the 19th and early 20th Centuries, the eras when Impressionism and Cubism began, respectively, an unwell person or outsider would have been deemed unworthy of an apprenticeship with an established Artist. Too much risk, too little reward. What would the patrons say? A would-be Artist without a master was not an Artist at all and could not hope to be.