Last week, the Centre Pompidou -- which is Europe's largest modern art museum -- announced that it has acquired its very first NFTs (18 pieces by 13 artists) and that it will be exhibiting the collection this spring. This makes them the first museum in France to own NFT art and, I'm guessing, one of the first in the world. (The Los Angeles County Museum of Art recently got some as well.)
This is fun for a few reasons. The obviously fun reason is that it's good for NFT collectors and people who generally support this space. Big institutions bring legitimacy. It's one thing to say that these JPEGs are stupid while sitting at home on your computer, but it's an entirely different thing to travel to Paris, visit the Centre Pompidou, look at its white gallery walls, and then say that these JPEGs are stupid!
The other fun thing about this is that it shows a continued openness to new ideas and new technologies. Here are
Last week, the Centre Pompidou -- which is Europe's largest modern art museum -- announced that it has acquired its very first NFTs (18 pieces by 13 artists) and that it will be exhibiting the collection this spring. This makes them the first museum in France to own NFT art and, I'm guessing, one of the first in the world. (The Los Angeles County Museum of Art recently got some as well.)
This is fun for a few reasons. The obviously fun reason is that it's good for NFT collectors and people who generally support this space. Big institutions bring legitimacy. It's one thing to say that these JPEGs are stupid while sitting at home on your computer, but it's an entirely different thing to travel to Paris, visit the Centre Pompidou, look at its white gallery walls, and then say that these JPEGs are stupid!
The other fun thing about this is that it shows a continued openness to new ideas and new technologies. Here are
(that have been translated, by Google, from French):
The idea was not to be the first, but to bring together a relevant collection, which could testify to a creative and critical appropriation of a new technology by artists, and how this disrupts and displaces the art ecosystem. From its creation, the Center Pompidou has relied on the idea that contemporary technological creation and creativity should be at the heart of the institution. From 1974-1975, therefore even before the opening of the Center, the National Museum of Modern Art acquired major works and installations by Dan Graham and Bruce Naumann. Video installations using real time, and it was the very first institution to do so.
This wasn't always the case in France. One of my favorite art history classes from university was one that covered Impressionism. Partly because I thought their work was cool, but mostly because Impressionist painters were, in a way, early modernists. They rejected the academic approaches to painting and instead decided to make up their own rules.
At the time, in the 19th century, this was seen as entirely radical. And it meant harsh criticism from the established art world and an inability to meaningfully exhibit at the Salon (which was everything at the time). But history has a way of showing us that if something is inherently a good idea, you can only remain stubborn for so long.
The Impressionist painters began hosting their own exhibitions starting in 1874 and, by 1881, the government had withdrawn its official sponsorship of the annual Salon. The jurors wanted to cling to only traditional painting styles and the world wanted to move on. And here it is doing that again, today.
Kickstarter has just relaunched a subscription service for artists and creators called Drip. It is an acquisition that Kickstarter made a few years ago and so that’s why it’s a relaunch. Here is the blog post announcement.
The simplest way to describe Drip is as follows: “Kickstarter is for projects, Drip is for people.” In other words, instead of backing a specific project, you back the human for, say, $10 a month. It’s a tool for people to fund creators so that they have the freedom to make their work.
Now compare this model to that of the 19th century Salon in Paris. Arguably the greatest art event in the Western world during its prime, getting exhibited at the Salon was basically a right of passage for artists.
But the Salon had specific criteria for what it considered to be good and acceptable art. Perhaps most famously, 19th century Impressionism – which some would call the first truly modern art movement in painting – was not considered acceptable.
The Impressionists routinely had their work refused by the Salon, which is why they ended up having to organize their own shows. Good for them.
So when I see something like Drip, I think about how amazing it is that we now have platforms where artists and creators have the freedom to make what they want to make and the market – instead of a stuffy institution – can decide what is good and worth supporting.
Check out Shantell Martin if you’re looking to explore Drip. I recently discovered her work and I’m a fan.
(that have been translated, by Google, from French):
The idea was not to be the first, but to bring together a relevant collection, which could testify to a creative and critical appropriation of a new technology by artists, and how this disrupts and displaces the art ecosystem. From its creation, the Center Pompidou has relied on the idea that contemporary technological creation and creativity should be at the heart of the institution. From 1974-1975, therefore even before the opening of the Center, the National Museum of Modern Art acquired major works and installations by Dan Graham and Bruce Naumann. Video installations using real time, and it was the very first institution to do so.
This wasn't always the case in France. One of my favorite art history classes from university was one that covered Impressionism. Partly because I thought their work was cool, but mostly because Impressionist painters were, in a way, early modernists. They rejected the academic approaches to painting and instead decided to make up their own rules.
At the time, in the 19th century, this was seen as entirely radical. And it meant harsh criticism from the established art world and an inability to meaningfully exhibit at the Salon (which was everything at the time). But history has a way of showing us that if something is inherently a good idea, you can only remain stubborn for so long.
The Impressionist painters began hosting their own exhibitions starting in 1874 and, by 1881, the government had withdrawn its official sponsorship of the annual Salon. The jurors wanted to cling to only traditional painting styles and the world wanted to move on. And here it is doing that again, today.
Kickstarter has just relaunched a subscription service for artists and creators called Drip. It is an acquisition that Kickstarter made a few years ago and so that’s why it’s a relaunch. Here is the blog post announcement.
The simplest way to describe Drip is as follows: “Kickstarter is for projects, Drip is for people.” In other words, instead of backing a specific project, you back the human for, say, $10 a month. It’s a tool for people to fund creators so that they have the freedom to make their work.
Now compare this model to that of the 19th century Salon in Paris. Arguably the greatest art event in the Western world during its prime, getting exhibited at the Salon was basically a right of passage for artists.
But the Salon had specific criteria for what it considered to be good and acceptable art. Perhaps most famously, 19th century Impressionism – which some would call the first truly modern art movement in painting – was not considered acceptable.
The Impressionists routinely had their work refused by the Salon, which is why they ended up having to organize their own shows. Good for them.
So when I see something like Drip, I think about how amazing it is that we now have platforms where artists and creators have the freedom to make what they want to make and the market – instead of a stuffy institution – can decide what is good and worth supporting.
Check out Shantell Martin if you’re looking to explore Drip. I recently discovered her work and I’m a fan.
La Foundation Louis Vuitton (which is housed in a building designed by Frank Gehry) has an exhibition on right now that displays the art collection of two brothers: Mikhaïl Abramovitch Morozov (1870-1903) et Ivan Abramovitch Morozov (1871-1921). The collection contains mostly early modernist work from the late 19th century and includes pieces by Cézanne, Van Gogh, Renoir, Monet, Matisse, Picasso, as well as others, including some Russian avant-garde work. We went through the exhibition last week when we were in Paris. Partially to see the collection and partially to see the architecture, which is, you know, very Frank Gehry. See above photo.
As I was going through the exhibition I was reminded of how much I like the Impressionist movement. I like the work, but I also really love the story. The Impressionist movement started in Paris in the late 1800s and many consider it to mark the beginning of modern art. It broke free of tradition and violated the rules of what was considered to be proper art work at the time in France.
Because of this, the Impressionists were heavily criticized at the outset. So much so that they were routinely rejected from exhibiting in the traditionally accepted art venues in Paris. The annual Salon de Paris was the big and most prestigious one as I understand it. This forced the group to organize their own exhibitions and circumvent the incumbents in order to get their work out into the world, which is pretty much what any "startup" has to do. Obviously the rest is history and now people to go to museums like La Foundation Louis Vuitton to look at Impressionist art work and talk amongst their friends about how we don't make art like they used to back in the late 19th century.
I mention all of this because of what is happening today in the world of NFTs. Non-fungible tokens and their application to digital art feels to me like history is repeating itself. We are at the dawn of something new and a lot of people seem to think that what's happening today is pretty stupid: Why pay thousands or even millions for a JPEG? I can just download a copy to my computer for free. This is not art. How do you even display it? I don't get it.
I am sure that most of the NFTs that people are buying today will go to $0 in value; just like a lot of the paint that has gone onto canvasses over the years hasn't created much value. Art is a funny thing. But that doesn't mean that cultural value will not be created over time. When people are talking and they think what you're doing is dumb, you may actually be on to something. The Impressionists taught us this important lesson well over a century ago.
Photo: La Foundation Louis Vuitton
La Foundation Louis Vuitton (which is housed in a building designed by Frank Gehry) has an exhibition on right now that displays the art collection of two brothers: Mikhaïl Abramovitch Morozov (1870-1903) et Ivan Abramovitch Morozov (1871-1921). The collection contains mostly early modernist work from the late 19th century and includes pieces by Cézanne, Van Gogh, Renoir, Monet, Matisse, Picasso, as well as others, including some Russian avant-garde work. We went through the exhibition last week when we were in Paris. Partially to see the collection and partially to see the architecture, which is, you know, very Frank Gehry. See above photo.
As I was going through the exhibition I was reminded of how much I like the Impressionist movement. I like the work, but I also really love the story. The Impressionist movement started in Paris in the late 1800s and many consider it to mark the beginning of modern art. It broke free of tradition and violated the rules of what was considered to be proper art work at the time in France.
Because of this, the Impressionists were heavily criticized at the outset. So much so that they were routinely rejected from exhibiting in the traditionally accepted art venues in Paris. The annual Salon de Paris was the big and most prestigious one as I understand it. This forced the group to organize their own exhibitions and circumvent the incumbents in order to get their work out into the world, which is pretty much what any "startup" has to do. Obviously the rest is history and now people to go to museums like La Foundation Louis Vuitton to look at Impressionist art work and talk amongst their friends about how we don't make art like they used to back in the late 19th century.
I mention all of this because of what is happening today in the world of NFTs. Non-fungible tokens and their application to digital art feels to me like history is repeating itself. We are at the dawn of something new and a lot of people seem to think that what's happening today is pretty stupid: Why pay thousands or even millions for a JPEG? I can just download a copy to my computer for free. This is not art. How do you even display it? I don't get it.
I am sure that most of the NFTs that people are buying today will go to $0 in value; just like a lot of the paint that has gone onto canvasses over the years hasn't created much value. Art is a funny thing. But that doesn't mean that cultural value will not be created over time. When people are talking and they think what you're doing is dumb, you may actually be on to something. The Impressionists taught us this important lesson well over a century ago.
