NFT art: New opportunities to unlock the creative potential of agency in culture

Currently, the layers of artistic reality based on technological developments and mass communication systems are rapidly expanding. Since 2021, there has been continuous growth in sales of NFT art. Based on a review of existing scientific and expert discussions, as well as an analysis of individual cases of artworks, the article examines the basic principles of NFT art at various stages (creation, acquisition, storage, distribution), studies the mechanisms of demand, analyzes the reasons for the interest of artists, collectors, and viewers in digital formats, and conducts a comparative analysis with traditional art formats. Special attention is paid to contemporary NFT art in Russia: an overview of works (2021–2023) and an analysis of key exhibition and curatorial projects are provided. The authors conclude that NFT technologies significantly expand the possibilities of agentic (proactive) action of artists. This is especially important at the current stage of societal evolution, which sociologists have proposed to call “neostructuration”, and which makes the individual agency of artists especially important not only for individual but also for collective well-being. Artworks on the Internet can be seen by millions of people. NFT art provides great opportunities for artists (self-expression, individualization, increased reach, independence from intermediaries), collectors (determination of authenticity, ownership rights; mobility of the collection; absence of costs for maintenance, restoration, transportation), and viewers (mass distribution, accessibility, ease of use, the opportunity to participate in the creation of a creative product and its distribution).

1. Afanaseva, I. A. (2022). The linguistic generation: Logocentric practices in the works of contemporary Russian artists (2010–2022). Shagi/Steps, 9(3), 218–238. https://doi.org/10.22394/2412-9410-2023-9-3-218-238. (In Russian).

2. Afanaseva, I. A., Sorokin, P. S., & Goloshchapov, A. A. (2024). Agency in contemporary European art (2017–2023) in the context of social and cultural trends: Manifestations and effects. Shagi/Steps, 10(1), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.22394/2412-9410-2024-101-341-362. (In Russian).

3. Allen, S., Juels, A., Khaire, M., Kell, T., & Shrivastava, S. (2022, May 24). NFTs for art and collectables: primer and outlook (Preprint). https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/gwzd7.

4. Betzler, D., Loots, E., Prokůpek, M., Marques, L., & Grafenauer, P. (2021). COVID-19 and the arts and cultural sectors: Investigating countries’ contextual factors and early policy measures. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 27(6), 796–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2020.1842383.

5. Bourdieu, P. (1996). The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford Univ. Press .

6. Bourriaud, N. (2001). Esthétique relationnelle. Les Presses du Réel.

7. Bourriaud, N. (2003). Postproduction. Les Presses du Réel.

8. Ciminelli, G., Duval, R., & Furceri, D. (2022). Employment protection deregulation and labor shares in advanced economies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 104(6), 1174–1190. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00983.

9. Cuesta-Valera, C. S., Fernández-Valdé, P., & Muñoz-Viñas, S. (2021). NFT and digital art: New possibilities for the consumption, dissemination and preservation of contemporary works of art. Artnodes, 28, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.7238/artnodes.v0i28.386317.

10. De Marchi, L., Diamante, A. A. (2023). Cultural policies for the SVoD market in Brazil: From an attempt at regulation to total deregulation. In P. Bouquillion, Ch. Ithurbide, & T. Mattelart (Eds.). Digital platforms and the global South (pp. 147–164).

11. Routledge. Di Dio, C., Ardizzi, M., Schieppati, S. V., Massaro, D., Gilli, G., Gallese, V., & Marchetti, A. (2023). Art made by artificial intelligence: The effect of authorship on aesthetic judgments. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts (Advance online publication). https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000602.

12. Fadeeva, T. E., Persheeva, A. D., & Pronina, A. U. (2024). Between an index and an icon: Photography in the context of neural networks. Art@cult, 2024(1, no. 53), 48–63. https:// doi.org/10.28995/2227-6165-2024-1-48-63. (In Russian).

13. Finucane, B. P. (2018). Creating with blockchain technology: The “provably rare” possibilities of crypto art (MA thesis, Univ. of British Columbia). https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0370991.

14. Grois, B. (2003). Kommentarii k iskusstvu [Comments on art]. Khudozhestvennyi zhurnal. (In Russian).

15. Grois, B. (2021). Folloverstvo i zritel’stvo: dva rezhima sovremennogo izobrazheniia [Followership and spectatorship: two modes of modern image]. In E. Yushina (Ed.). NFT (pp. 28–53). Masters Digital. (In Russian).

16. Mironenko, I. A., & Sorokin, P. S. (2022). Activity theory for the de-structuralized modernity. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 56, 1055–1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09587-4.

17. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1987). Iconology: Image, text, ideology. Univ. of Chicago Press. Ngwenyama, O., Rowe, F., Klein, S., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2023). The open prison of the big data revolution: False consciousness, Faustian bargains, and digital entrapment. Information Systems Research, 35(4), 2030–2058. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2020.0588.

18. Oatley, T., & Petrova, B. (2022). The global deregulation hypothesis. Socio-Economic Review, 20(2), 611–633. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwaa028.

19. Paknite, M., Ponosov, I., & Velichko, N. (2019). Entsiklopediia rossiiskogo ulichnogo iskusstva [Encyclopedia of Russian street art]. OMK-Participation. (In Russian).

20. Ponosov, I. G. (2021). Iskusstvo i gorod: Graffiti, ulichnoe iskusstvo, aktivizm [Art and the city: graffiti, street art, activism]. Iupiter-Impeks. (In Russian).

21. Pyrkina, D.A. (2023). Painting in Russia in the second half of the XX — beginning of the XXI century: Destructive testing. Dekorativnoe iskusstvo i predmetno-prostranstvennaia sreda. Vestnik RGKhPU, 2023(3), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.37.485/19974663_2023_3_1_133_144. (In Russian).

22. Radaev, V. V. (2020). The divide among the millennial generation: Historical and empirical justifications. (Part one). Sociological Journal, 26(3), 30–63. https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2020.26.3.7395. (In Russian).

23. Seidel, M. F. (2016). Contemporary art: art and life. Multidisciplinary Core Scientific Knowledge Magazine, 7, 52–62.

24. Shuripa, S. (2021). Deistvie i smysl v iskusstve vtoroi poloviny XX veka [Action and meaning in the art of the second half of the 20th century]. Pal’mira. (In Russian).

25. Sorokin, P. S. (2020). The promise of John W. Meyer’s world society theory: “Otherhood” through the prism of Pitirim A. Sorokin’s integralism. The American Sociologist, 51(4), 506–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-020-09468-8.

26. Sorokin, P. S. (2023). The problem of “agency” through the prism of a new reality: Condition and perspectives. Sociologicheskie issledovaniia, 2023(3), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250022927-2. (In Russian).

27. Sorokin, P. S., & Zykova, A. V. (2021). “Transformative agency” as a subject of research and development in the 21st century: A review and interpretation of international experience. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 2021(5), 216–241. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2021.5.1858. (In Russian).

28. Sorokin, P. S., Afanaseva, I. A., & Goloshchapov, A. A. (2024). Art and agency in the era of de-structuration: Exploring a new field. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 58, 204–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-023-09777-w.

29. Zaporozhets, O. N., & Lapina-Kratasyuk, E. G. (2015). People in the networked city: Preliminary results of the research project “Media & Technologies in Contemporary City”]. Shagi/Steps, 1(1), 232–241. (In Russian).