The concept of signed and numbered prints produced in limited editions arose in printing - the kind of printing done using carved or etched plates. The plates wore out over time, limiting the number of quality prints that could be produced. The sequence number of a given print was important. Early prints were made while the plate was pristine. Prints near the end of the run could suffer from degradation. All members of an edition were the same size, being pulled using the same plate. Setting up a print run was a significant effort, so all members of an edition were typically pulled at the same time, using the same medium and ink. These factors gave an edition clear definition.
When fine art photography adopted the concept of limited editions, the factors that gave clear meaning to the term softened. Film, if managed carefully, could be used indefinitely to produce prints of very high quality. The enlarger allowed prints to be made in virtually any size, and prints could be altered rather substantially during the printing process. However, the sense of value and scarcity attached to the term was attractive.
The arrival of digital photography muddied the water in whole new ways. A raw digital image could be edited and altered in an infinite number of ways and printed using many different methods. Exact copies could be made in endless supply, and the image could be disseminated widely and easily. As digital methods have grown in sophistication and capabilities, the complexities of what defines a given edition of a visual work of art have increased in kind.
Enter NFTs.
State of the Art
A quick search of the internet for the definition of a limited edition reproduction of an artwork returns any number of conflicting statements from reputable institutions and artists. Some take an approach similar to publishing a book. A First Edition will be produced in a given number, at a given time, in a given size, using like materials. Its existence in no way precludes the later publication of a Second or Third Edition, each with its own characteristics. A beautifully produced First Edition hardcover is not confused in any way with a mass-market paperback, though the content of each is the same. Others take a strict view that the given content, once offered in a limited edition, should never be offered again in any form.
These opposing views played out in the courts when collector, Jonathan Sobel, sued photographer, William Eggleston. Mr. Sobel had collected an 11.75" x 17.38” dye transfer limited edition print of Mr. Eggleston’s famous Memphis (Tricycle) photograph, created in the 1980s and sold then in an edition of 20. In 2012, Mr. Eggleston created a 44" x 60" inkjet print from a digital scan of the original negative and sold it in a Christie’s auction. Mr. Sobel argued that the value of the image in his collection had been damaged and brought suit. In 2013, a US District Judge dismissed Mr. Sobel’s claim of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The judge found the two works to be substantially different and affirmed Mr. Eggleston’s right to continue to use his image in new ways. (Learn more about the case and see the image in question here.)
Substantially different - that seems to me a core concept that we in the NFT space have not examined in sufficient detail, and our failure to do so serves neither the creator nor the collector.
NFT Editions
When minting an NFT, the platform used may require an edition size to be stated. It may leave edition size unstated. A drop may be offered in a limited number, or it may be offered in an open ended way, allowing the number of buyers to determine the edition size. In Clubhouse rooms, on Discord, and in social media, we discuss NFT editions as if the word is well defined. But is it?
The ERC-721 standard defines a globally unique contract address and token ID. It defines ownership, the actions that can be taken on a contract, and how to reference the location of the associated content. It says nothing about the warranties and guarantees the artist is making about that content, nor about licensing conditions or terms of use. There is no mention of editions nor any definition of the characteristics of a digital asset that make one distinguishable from another.
ERC-1155 improves on ERC-721 in several ways, but does not provide any additional information that might allow us to pin down the definition of an “edition”. We are left to consider the same questions debated in that famous 2012 court case. If an image looks the same even if the method of construction and the underlying characteristics of the work are completely different, is it the same thing or something new? Is a small, low resolution jpeg the same thing, edition wise, as an infinitely scalable vector based file? Does the existence of a token for that small jpeg preclude an artist from offering the work in other formats, sizes, and configurations? How different must a new form of the work be from previous forms to warrant acceptance as a new edition?
There seems to be a popular consensus that once minted, the content associated with an NFT edition cannot, in good form, be minted ever again anywhere in the entire blockchain universe. However, I see little, if any, nuanced discussion of these important definitional questions.
Making Edition Decisions
The artist is certainly faced with questions of format, size, scale, and configuration when preparing a digital file to become an NFT. The artist must address the question of edition size when minting the work, and determine a price when listing the work. These decisions significantly affect both the short-term and the lifetime value of a piece. A low edition number and price may lead to a quick sale but provide little return while severely limiting the artist’s future use of their work. That same low entry price may plague the value of the work for years. On the other hand, the artist may make reasonable and fair decisions regarding the value of their work, only to be snubbed by buyers not yet ready to recognize that value.
The decisions are equally important to the collector. How will the size or format of the work affect the collector‘s use of the work? Will the resolution of the work support printing at a useful and interesting size? Is the aspect ratio compatible with the latest displays? How will the chosen characteristics affect the value of the work? The tradeoffs can be difficult to assess and optimize, and the implications may go unseen until their impact rises well after any opportunity to remedy. Furthermore, it is impossible to anticipate the impact of decisions made now on opportunities two, five, or ten years down the road. If the artist has but one chance to get it right for any given piece of work, this cannot serve a world in which we strive for all art to fully and freely manifest, for artists to be fairly compensated, and for artists, collectors, and curators to be in mutually supportive community relationships.
A Call for More Expansive Thinking
Limiting any given content to a single representation also limits innovation in unfortunate ways. The wonderful advantages I see in NFT-based art include the ability for anyone to acquire my work regardless of geographic location, free of the logistical hurdles of international shipping and fiat payment systems, and within a space that assures both parties of the integrity of the transaction. I’d like to extend that statement to include, regardless of the socioeconomic standing of the collector. I’d like to offer my work in several sizes, price points, and edition sizes targeted to different buying audiences. I might want to offer different licensing conditions for each of the edition types or different perks for collectors of each. The list goes on and on. It is easy to imagine this approach in the physical world. Why should it be any different in the NFT world?
New technology will offer possibilities that I cannot today imagine, just as Eggleston had no idea in 1980 what doors digital methods would open. Perhaps I might offer different editions, each with its own set of unlockable content, characteristics, and benefits, and each priced and numbered accordingly. And in some future metaverse the options might expand in exciting new ways. Our industry is young, exciting, and energetic, and the future is bright and wide open. We are all best served if creators are free to reimagine their work, bringing it new life that, rather than being seen as copy minting, is met with open arms. Imagine how impoverished we would be if Andy Warhol had not appropriated a can of soup and his work had not become an icon as it was reimagined again and again. It is said that the devil is in the details, let us start talking about the details glossed over by the careless use of the word, “edition”, and free the art.
Notes:
Banner image: Non-Fungible Soup #0766, https://art101.io/, in the collection of the author. A reinterpretation of the work of Andy Warhol.
Article originally published by UNDRGRND.io on 12/1/2021.