‘The Currency’

The conversations taking place around Crypto Currency very much capture the zeitgeist of 2021. It shouldn’t therefore be a surprise that maverick contemporary artist, Damian Hirst has something to say on the matter.

A conceptual artist, Hirst has a reputation for captivating attention with what can appear to be challenging forms of art (remember the shark in formaldehyde and the diamond skull.)

His latest concept is intellectually and philosophically challenging in equal measure though perhaps aesthetically easier on the eye. More than just a thought experiment, it objectively calls into question the notion of value, worth, ownership, exchange and money. The idea stems from the notion of art as currency in itself.  (Early forms of currency were indeed unique works of art.)

In summary: “The Currency” is a project by Damian Hirst in which he has produced 10,000 unique paintings, all devised as a series of spots. No two are the same and each one is numbered, watermarked and hologrammed – much like a bank note. 

Each work is accompanied with a Non-Fungible-Token (NFT) - the current hot topic.  The unique crypto currency codes held on the blockchain make ownership of digital entities possible. They are likely the biggest disruptor to the art market and have precipitated a rise in digital artworks.

The experiment begins two months after the issue of the works when buyers have to decide whether to keep the NFT or the physical painting. They cannot keep both.  If the buyer decides to keep the NFT the physical artwork will be destroyed. If the physical art work is kept, the NFT will be destroyed. 

(Interestingly, if the buyer doesn’t make or submit their decision the physical art work will be destroyed which perhaps points to some inbuilt bias in the experiment.)

The motivation for Hirst is an attempt to both disrupt and control the market – something he has a track record of.  As much a business man as an artist, Hirst has always been clever in manipulating the market.  Unusually for an artist he is quite happy for people to see his work as a form of investment, buying and selling works quickly to make money.  He recognises that this keeps the value of his works high, from which he benefits.

It is likely ‘The Currency’ will send ripples through the crypto markets and art market alike, attracting both professional crypto investors and art collectors.  When a philosophical conundrum like this enters the collective psyche, thoughts and attitudes tend to shift.  It may therefore be viewed historically as being the catalyst that accelerated a move towards digital currency.  

What the split between NFTs to physical artworks will be after the decisions are made is difficult to call as it will in part depend on whether the experiment attracts genuine art-lovers or crypto-investors.  This is data we may never know.  Regardless, it forces us to assess the concept of value and what is valuable. 

For the buyer, the challenge in making the decision on which to keep comes from the motivation. Is it investment or ownership of the physical art work?  

It is hard to imagine that anyone partaking in this experiment is doing so for any other reason than investment gain.  Which arguably makes the decision harder. Given that we don’t know how many of the original 10,000 paintings will endure, it becomes increasingly difficult.  Neither the art work or the NFT are likely to be used as a means of exchange so we are ultimately assessing which is more likely to increase in value.

Of course, the question for the genuine art lover is, what is this worth to me?

Hirst himself recognises the value of his paintings is only really the cost of the paint and the canvas – about £200 in his estimate.  It’s an alchemical process of creativity, skill and uniqueness that transforms paint into something that can be valued at up to millions of pounds.  An art work is really only worth what someone else deems it to be worth and the desire to acquire something unique and valuable has been the basis for the way the art-market works.

The value of an NFT is harder to assess. It is intangible and as yet, not well understood.  With the market flooded in NFTs, they may be more like tulip bulbs. It has been pointed out, however, that at least investors in tulips were left with a bulb.  These early NFTs may carry value in a historical sense but our future will be the judge of that.

Hirst himself admits he doesn’t know where this will lead.  It is almost impossible to predict what the split will be between the artwork and the NFTs.  If the future of currency is digital and cryptocurrency and NFTs are a preferred means of exchange then there needs to be a useable system created to enable transactions to easily take place.  Maybe Hirst is one step ahead and has already started developing his own platform.  What we do know, however, is that there is still an appetite to see art in the flesh.  “The Currency” as an experiment could not exist if Damian Hirst had not proven himself as an artist creating work in-real-life. (IRL)

**It is worth noting that “The Currency” is a controlled experiment. Allocation is done by algorithm and is designed to be egalitarian, preventing buyers and professional investors from acquiring many or all the works.