It’s
sometimes
easy
to
overlook
exactly
how
far
NFTs
have
penetrated
into
the
art
world,
given
how
thoroughly
the
general
public
has
rejected
the
speculation
and
hype
that
has
come
to
define
the
asset
class.
Madeleine
Pierpont
will
speak
at
Consensus
2024
this
May
in
Austin,
Texas.
Grab
your
pass
here.
But
it’s
true.
Just
look
at
these
data
points:
The
world’s
biggest
auction
houses
like
Sotheby’s
and
Christie’s
still
routinely
run
NFT
sales.
Legendary
arthouse
imprint
TASCHEN
recently
published
a
deep
history
of
the
crypto
art
scene.
Art
market
mainstains
like
Artnet
News
and
Art
Review
cover
the
industry
beat.
There
are
NFTs
hanging
in
museums
around
the
world.
And
every
week
there’s
news
of
some
painter,
band
or
what-have-you
decides
to
experiment
with
tokenization.
There
are
those
who
still
say
“NFTs
aren’t
art,”
but
the
art
world
generally
disagrees
with
them.
Perhaps
no
one
is
as
familiar
with
this
dynamic
than
Madeleine
Pierpont,
the
Web3
associate
for
the
Museum
of
Modern
Art
(MoMA),
tasked
with
the
equally
enviable
and
unenviable
job
of
trying
to
bring
in
potentially
skeptical
museum
goers
into
the
fold
via
blockchain
programming.
While
art
institutions
often
have
the
(deserved)
reputation
of
being
elitist,
exclusive
and
outdated,
Pierpont
argues
that
NFTs
are
bringing
a
renewed
verve
to
the
industry
and
piquing
interest
in
digital
art.
“We’re
collectively
defining
this
art
historical
moment
as
it
evolves.
It’s
a
challenge
because
the
ecosystem,
the
NFT
space,
is
so
young.
There
are
so
many
artists
that
I
would
hope
can
be
in
the
museum’s
collection
and
be
exhibited
at
some
point,
but
it
is
such
a
young
ecosystem.
Only
time
will
tell,”
Pierpont,
who
will
be
speaking
at
the
Consensus
2024
conference
held
May
29
–
31,
2024
in
Austin,
Texas,
told
CoinDesk
in
an
interview.
To
some
extent,
NFTs
and
art
are
a
natural
pairing
—
and
not
just
because
a
general
purpose
technology
is
essentially
a
blank
canvas.
But
as
a
medium
of
exchange,
they
also
help
to
better
connect
patrons
to
creators,
and
boost
transparency
in
a
market
known
for
obscure
dealings.
CoinDesk
caught
up
with
Pierpont
to
discuss
her
crypto
projects
at
MoMA
(including
“Postcards”),
what
defines
the
crypto
art
scene
today,
and
what
it
was
like
working
with
Yoko
Ono.
Does
“crypto
art”
as
a
term
make
sense?
Compared
to
NFTs?
Yeah.
Is
it
a
cohesive
movement?
I
think
that,
as
an
ecosystem,
we
think
about
the
Web3
space,
we’re
far
ahead
of
the
general
public
in
terms
of
comprehension
of
fundamental
blockchain
concepts,
in
terms
of
understanding
how
to
even
interact
with
or
buy
an
NFT
or
interact
with
a
wallet.
Taking
a
step
back
for
a
second:
a
lot
of
people
I
know
have
very
strong
opinions
about
the
fact
that
NFT
is
kind
of
seen
as
a
dirty
word,
and
sometimes
argue
for
abandoning
it
in
favor
of
crypto
art.
I
think
that
if
we
continue
to
change
terminology
and
continue
to
change
language,
it
will
only
become
more
confusing.
I
really
do
feel
like
we’re
almost
a
decade
ahead
of
what
the
general
public’s
comprehension
will
be.
And
so
continuing
to
change
the
terms
just
makes
it
more
confusing
when
people
are
trying
to
enter
the
space.
So
I
feel
strongly
that
we
should
stick
to
the
term
NFT,
considering
that
as
a
term
NFT
has
just
seen
more
light.
There’s
more
visibility
around
that
term.
To
some
extent,
you’re
saying
to
just
stay
the
course
because
that’s
the
term
that
initially
caught
on.
But
like,
comparing
like
NFTs
to
inscriptions,
which
seems
to
me
like
a
much
more
descriptive
word
—
analogous
to
calling
a
painting
a
painting
because
it’s
about
the
method
of
creation.
Whereas,
what
is
a
non-fungible
token?
Yeah,
that’s
interesting.
It
raises
the
question:
how
do
we
really
define
NFTs?
Like,
what
is
the
defining
factor
of
crypto
art
or
NFTs?
But
inscriptions,
I
haven’t
heard
that
term
before.
It’s
relatively
new.
They
started
off
on
Bitcoin
but
you
can
inscribe
data
on
a
lot
of
blockchains.
They’re
sometimes
called
ordinals,
after
the
protocol
that
was
created
that
enabled
the
actual
process
of
“inscribing”
data.
But
then
what
results
is
the
inscription.
That’s
interesting,
but
then
I
think
there’s
issues
around
the
art
historical
context
of
the
term
inscription,
because
to
inscribe
something
physically
is
different
than
to
inscribe
something
in
code.
Fair
point.
Guess
it’s
more
of
a
metaphor.
For
me,
though,
I
think
it’s
less
about
terminology
and
more
about
finding
more
accessible
ways
to
actually
just
communicate
the
fundamentals
around
the
technology.
It
seems
like
the
art
community
was
willing
to
accept
and
embrace
NFTs
quickly,
while
the
general
public
almost
immediately
rejected
them
due
to
concerns
over
energy
costs,
rampant
financialization
and
speculation.
Do
you
think
that
given
the
way
they
were
presented
to
the
world
initially
that
there
is
now
some
insurmountable
gap
that
these
things
have
to
cross
to
actually
be
embraced
by
the
public?
It’s
tricky.
That’s
a
really
big
and
difficult
question
to
answer.
And
I
think
it’s
hard
to
know
what
we’ll
see
in
the
next
year,
let
alone
in
the
next
five
years.
It’s
definitely
impossible
to
predict
what
might
happen
in
a
decade.
What’s
funny
is
how
opaque
art
is,
in
ways
that
hide
the
same
dynamics
in
the
quote
unquote
traditional
art
market.
There’s
this
strong
division
between
the
art
itself
and
the
dollars
associated
with
it,
in
terms
of
what’s
publicly
communicated.
Yes,
there
has
been
a
hyper-financialization
in
the
NFT
space,
but
money
is
not
a
dirty
word
in
art.
Money
and
art
are
interlinked.
NFTs,
being
so
transparently
connected
to
the
content
that’s
being
produced,
is
not
negative
thing
from
my
perspective.
That
being
said,
in
the
last
two
years,
because
of
the
bear
market,
there
hasn’t
been
as
much
turnover.
People
have
had
time
to
really
focus
on
their
projects,
spend
more
time
building
and
to
understand
what
they
want
to
communicate.
There’s
fewer
people
throwing
something
out
there
trying
to
make
a
bunch
of
money
and
then
pulling
away
from
the
ecosystem.
Was
Robert
Rauschenberg
right
to
punch
Ethel
Scull?
I’m
not
familiar
with
that.
I
think
it
was
the
70s,
avant-garde
artist
Robert
Rauschenberg
punched
one
of
his
biggest
collectors,
because
he
was
angry
that
he
wasn’t
profiting
if
his
work
was
being
sold
on
the
secondary
market.
It’s
sort
of
this
infamous
moment
in
art
history
that
symbolized
how
financialized
everything
had
become
by
the
mid-20th
century,
because
at
the
end
of
the
altercation
Scull
pulled
Rauschenberg
in
and
said
something
like
“When
I
make
money,
you
make
money”
and
they
ended
up
hugging.
That’s
interesting.
Artists
are
always
looking
towards
that
institutional
validation,
but
it
sometimes
can
take
a
really
long
time.
What’s
interesting
about
the
NFT
space
is
that
collectors
are
so
connected
to
the
artists
themselves.
Sometimes
artists
are
collectors
and
vice
versa.
That
individual
level
of
patronage
is
really
exciting
because
it
knocks
validation
down
to
on
a
one-to-one
basis,
allowing
the
community
to
grow
in
concentric
circles.
It’s
more
complicated
and
dynamic
than
in
the
traditional
art
market.
To
some
extent
you
are
serving
the
role
of
validating
some
artists,
picking
some
artists
over
others
at
MoMA.
Does
it
stress
you
out
if
you’re
making
the
right
choices,
writing
art
history
in
time?
Oh
my
gosh,
I
never
thought
about
it
in
that
context.
We’re
collectively
defining
this
art
historical
moment
as
it
evolves.
What
I
will
say
is
it’s
a
challenge
because
the
ecosystem,
the
NFT
space,
is
so
young.
There
are
so
many
artists
that
I
would
hope
can
be
in
the
museum’s
collection
and
be
exhibited
at
some
point,
but
it
is
such
a
young
ecosystem.
Only
time
will
tell.
I
continue
building
relationships
to
try
to
understand
how
we
really
want
to
contextualize
NFT
art
and
the
NFT
community
in
relation
to
the
museum.
It’s
a
very
diplomatic
way
of
not
answering
your
question
because
I
don’t
necessarily
think
I
can
speak
to
validating
one
artist
over
another.
Could
you
talk
about
the
inspiration
behind
Postcards?
To
take
a
step
back,
I
came
to
the
NFT
space
from
the
context
of
art
and
technology.
So
my
background
is
in
art
history
and
art
and
business,
but
I
started
interning
for
The
Lumen
Prize.
Their
whole
mission
is
just
to
celebrate
and
support
artists
working
with
technology
across
any
media.
That’s
how
I
found
blockchain.
What
was
really
exciting
to
me
about
it
was
the
power
that
it
had
to
build
community
in
such
a
global
and
democratic
way.
It
connects
people
through
their
passions,
rather
than,
you
know,
geographical
locations.
With
Postcard,
we
had
a
number
of
different
goals,
but
one
was
to
highlight
how
blockchain
can
bring
people
together.
We
asked
people
to
work
on
Postcards
together,
and
wanted
to
create
an
accessible
experience
that
would
hopefully
onboard
people
to
engage
with
blockchain.
It
was
an
entirely
Web3
experience
without
a
custodial
wallet.
The
aim
was
to
inspire
dialogue
and
richer
conversation
about
what
blockchain
can
do
for
the
general
public
that’s
probably
more
familiar
with
Web2.
It
was
really
a
great
learning
experience
for
our
team
as
well
because
I
think
we
better
understood
the
barriers
that
we
face
in
trying
to
get
people
to
use
technology
in
general.
We
learned
a
lot
about
what
we
could
be
doing
to
better
facilitate
those
conversations.
One
of
my
hopes
this
year
is
trying
to
create
IRL
conversations
because
as
much
as
we
are
in
the
digital
space,
it
feels
like
the
most
meaningful
connections
that
happen
are
when
people
are
able
to
come
into
a
room
and
converse.
Do
you
display
NFTs
at
home?
I
actually
don’t
own
that
many,
surprisingly.
But
I
actually
love
Infinite
Objects
—
it’s
a
beautiful
way
to
display
NFTs.
I
know
people
also
use
Samsung
frames.
I
actually
don’t
think
there’s
really
a
perfect
solution
out
there
that’s
seamless
and
easy
to
use.
It’s
a
bit
of
a
market
gap.
Some
NFTs
work
really
well
just
on
your
phone
or
on
your
laptop
and
don’t
need
to
necessarily
live
in
a
displayed
environment
and
others
look
really
beautiful
displayed
on
a
digital
screen.
A
lot
of
artists
print
out
their
work
and
will
sell
digital
and
physical
versions.
I’ve
always
generally
been
against
that
because
I
think
that
something
that
is
natively
digital
should
retain
its
natively
digital
value.
But
I
might
be
shifting
my
opinion
on
that.
I
don’t
think
that
there
is
a
great
NFT
artist
yet
—
like
a
Picasso
level.
My
concern
is
that
the
artists
aren’t
weird
enough.
Is
the
NFT
scene
genuinely
radical
enough?
That’s
a
really
interesting
question.
Thinking
back
a
few
years
to
2020,
it
was
really
cool
to
watch
this
space
grow
so
quickly.
It
was
really
cool
to
see
artists
make
a
name
for
themselves
by
producing
things
that
people
were
excited
about
and
posting
about
it
on
Twitter/X
and
building
an
organic
community.
It
seemed
like
there
was
a
lot
more
experimentation
at
that
time.
That
evolved
with
the
hyper-financialization
of
some
NFT
projects,
when
perhaps
some
became
more
modest
in
what
they
produced
because
they
wanted
to
make
sure
that
they
were
still
assuaging
their
collector
base
and
producing
things
that
their
community
was
excited
about.
I
think
there
was
an
element
of
like,
if
it
ain’t
broke,
don’t
fix
it
in
terms
of
production.
But
of
course
it
is
an
innovative
space.
There
is
always
exciting
experimentation.
I
can’t
speak
for
every
single
artist.
But
a
few
years
ago,
it
was
a
little
wilder.
Things
feel
a
little
bit
more
subdued
right
now,
but
that
might
just
be
the
moment
in
time.
There
are
always
new
and
funky
and
exciting
things
happening
in
the
space.
Sometimes
those
things
are
less
visible.
But
there’s
still
time
for
more
people
to
enter
the
space.
Like
I
said
before,
it’s
a
young
ecosystem.
To
me,
the
art
that’s
most
exciting
is
actually
using
blockchain
in
some
way
in
the
creation
of
the
art
itself
—
that
marries
blockchain
and
conceptual
art.
Anything
you
want
to
add?
Can
I
just
do
a
quick
plug?
The
SOUND
MACHINES
exhibition
is
currently
live
on
Feral
File,
which
features
works
by
seven
artists.
Yoko
Ono’s
public
SOUND
PIECE
V
is
also
open
for
the
public
to
participate
in
perpetuity.
I
encourage
everyone
to
take
a
look
and
engage!
