Some fair critiques in this series of essays on the new digital art economy we are seeing. Yes most of the hype right now is around price, but number go up has been a constant hype machine for traditional art too. Some concerns too that this is yet another manifestation and extension of capitalism reducing artists to machines of labour pumping out low quality content for the masses to hover up whilst culture takes a hit.
I see it differently I guess as I tend to stay away from the hype. I see artists finding platforms for art that might not make it past the legacy cabels of curators. Systems being built that permit far superior community engagement, deeper forms of patronage and a technology that unlocks new forms of value. New techniques will allow art to come to life in ways never seen before, such as art that changes with engagement or reacts to real world events via decentralised oracles. It's understandable that so many of the legacy art world are up in arms over this, as history shows us is the case with any legacy systems when threatened by a new technology that challenges their cultural "norms".
Is this all a further extension of capitalism where everything cultural suddenly has a price tag? Not really imo as this has always been the case, but in the past it was only a select few who could assign the price tag and then collect their tithe for the privilege. We'll see new communities of curators in the future utilising technology such as token curated registeries to uncover art and culture the legacy systems would never find. Focusing on price misses the point of this new technology. It promotes inclusion, culture and rightly unlocks new forms of value that legacy institutions have ridden off for free for too long. Art rent seekers beware.