Talk:List of most expensive artworks by living artists

The Communicants

Reviewing this edit:

The 1886 New York sale of Jules Breton's The Communicants for $45,000 ($1.22 million in 2019 dollars) was the second highest paid work of a living artist at that time and only exceeded by Ernest Meissonier. In 1846 Meissonier purchased a great mansion in Poissy sometimes known as the Grande Maison.

Price (in millions)	Work	Artist	Auction Date	Auction House	Ref.
1.22	The Communicants	Jules Breton	March 1886	AAA

References

Discussion

1. The first column should not be adjusted for inflation, as none of the others are.
2. Anderson Galleries is not a reliable source for this claim:

   [In 1886] his painting, The Communicants, sold at auction in New York for $45,000, the highest price paid for the work of a living artist with the exception of a painting by Meissonier.

   But even if it were true, this would mean that Breton's painting never held the record and should be removed from the list.
3. I'll look into Meissonier, but don't know what his mansion has to do with this topic.

czar 07:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

More sources

• Background: Jules Breton lived 1827–1906, so the 1886 sale was while he was living

• Two years later, at her auction on May 3 – 5, 1886, [Les communiantes] was purchased by Donald Smith, Lord Strathcona, president of the Bank of Montreal, for $45,000 — a sum representing the highest price ever paid for a work by a living artist at the time.
  — http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2016/19th-century-european-art-n09499/lot.8.html

  Hm. This seems to contradict the above. Looking for an independent source... czar 07:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• (45,000 dollars)
  Toute l'Amérique avec accompagnement de dollars vient de chanter la gloire de l'art francais.
  227,500 francs les Communiantes de Jules Breton!
  C'est l'enchère la plus considérable qui ait été mise sur le tableau d'un artiste vivant.
  A la vente Wilson en 1881, l'Angelus de Millet n'avait obtenu que 165,000 francs et la Halte de cavaliers de Meissonier 125,000 francs.
  — L'Hôtel Drouot en ... (translate)

  czar 07:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• With other qualifiers, e.g., "in the United States" (not worldwide), "for a picture/painting" (not across all media), not necessarily mentioning whether for a living artist

• Lettres, sciences, arts: Encyclopédie universelle du XXe siècle. p. 85: "... les Communiantes (Salon de 1884): 227,500 fr. C'est l'enchère la plus considèrable qui ait été atteinte jusqu'alors par un tableau d'artiste vivant; car, depuis, le tableau de Meissonier [1815–1891], 1814, a été payé 850,000 fr. en 1890 par M. Chauchard, et Millet [1814–1875] était décédée lorsque son fameux tableau l'Angelus a été adjugé 530,000 fr. en 1889 et revendu également à M. Chauchard en 1890 [read: not living artist] pour 800,000 f. caviron." (translate)
• Le Correspondant: "enfin, pour couronner cette progression par un chiffre fondroyant, les Communiantes, de M. Jules Breton, à 227 500,—le prix le plus élevé qu'ait jamais obtenu un peintre vivant, dit-on,—quoiqu'il nous semble bien que Meissonnier l'air quelquefois dépassé ..." (translate)
• Methodist Magazine. January 1901. p. 81. "For the painting of 'The First Communion,' by Breton, [Lord Strathcona] paid the sum of $45,000, the highest price, it is said, ever paid for a modern picture sold at auction."
• New-York Tribune. March 6, 1886. p. 4. ProQuest 573266881: "Eighty canvases sold for $487,925, an average of over $6,000 apiece! But the average amount is not so startling as the price given for one picture—a Bréton, 'The First Communion,' which was knocked down for $45,500. We doubt if so much money has ever before been paid in America for a single picture."
• The Burlington Free Press. March 9, 1886. p. 4. ProQuest 1948425358: "In this [Morgan] sale two paintings brought more than was ever offered before, for a picture, in an auction sale in this country, and one of them brought more than twice as much as any painting ever before brought at auction in this country. The largest price ever paid in America for a single canvas at auction before was $20,000[exact price smudged], which was given at the John Taylor Johnston sale in 1876 for Church's 'Niagara.' Jules Breton's 'Hamlet of Finisterre' sold at the Seney sale last year, for $18,200, being the second highest. At the Morgan sale Vibert's 'The Missionary's Return' was sold for $25,500 to Mr. C. P. Huntington; and Jules Breton's 'Communicants' brought no less than $45,500, at which price it was struck down to Mr. Donald Smith of Montreal. [goes on to describe the painting]"

Careful to extrapolate past what the source says (I'd be curious about the European record at this time) czar 27 December 2019 (UTC)

misc. sources

Beaufort, Madeleine Fidell; Welcher, Jeanne K. (1982). "Some Views of Art Buying in New York in the 1870s and 1880s". Oxford Art Journal. 5 (1): 53. ISSN 0142-6540. JSTOR 1360104. However, at the Morgan sale in March of the following year [1886?] all the conditions were advantageous: Her First Communion by Breton, which had cost $22,500 in 1884 was sold only a short time later for $45,000 (238,875F approximately £8,555). [No mention of record-setting] Buchanan, Minnie (March 21, 1886). "The Morgan Sale: Some of Its Astonishing Features (Breton's "Communicants")". San Francisco Chronicle. p. 9. ProQuest 575449059. {{cite news}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 17 (help) [Has some background but no mention of record-setting] czar 08:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Meissonier

• Ernest Meissonier (1815–1891)

• Les Annales politiques et littéraires: revue universelle, Volume 8. p. 213: "A New-York, la vente des tableaux modernes de la collection Stewart a produit 2,637,000 fr. L'enchère la plus importante a été obtenue par le célèbre tableau de Meissonier: Friedland, 1807. Les cuirassiers défilent devant Napoléon, et l'empereur les salue en soulevant son chapeau. Cette toile, qui est datée de 1875 ... est la plus importante du maître. [history 200k fr, 300k fr in 1876; damaged in transit] ... Ce tableau a été adjugé au milieu des bravos et des hurrahs des spectateurs 337,000 fr. [~$64k] C'est l'enchère la plus considérable qui été mise sur le tableau d'un artiste vivant. L'année dernière, à la vente Morgan, le tableau des Communiantes, de Jules Breton, n'avait obtenu que 227,500 francs [~$43.5k]. A Paris, à la vente Wilson, en 1881, l'Angelus, de Millet [note: died in 1875], n'avait été payé que 165,000 francs [~$31k], et la Halte de cavaliers, de Meissonier, 125,000 francs [~$23.7k]." (translate)

czar 19:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Added Friedland and Communiantes (per other sources) but not finding confirmation that Halte was a record. czar 20:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

NYT Picasso contradiction

Found a new source and the NYT appears to contradict itself:

OLD

Price (in millions)	Work	Artist	Auction Date	Auction House	Ref.
0.35	Triptych	Francis Bacon	May 1981	Christie's
0.34	Exchanges of View	Jean Dubuffet	1974	Sotheby's

NEW

Price (in millions)	Work	Artist	Auction Date	Auction House	Ref.
0.53	Mother and Child	Pablo Picasso	1967	Sotheby's
0.198	Death of Harlequin	Pablo Picasso	1962	Sotheby's

References

misc.

This was commented out: "Henry Moore's sculpture 'Reclining Figure' was sold last night by Cranbrook Academy for $260,000, a record auction, price for a sculpture by a living artist." https://www.nytimes.com/1972/03/02/archives/260000-record-is-set-for-reclining-figure.html "the $160,000 commanded by the Moore bronze 'Festival Figure' at a Parke‐Bernet auction in 1968, to date the record price for a sculpture by a living artist." https://www.nytimes.com/1972/03/01/archives/cranbrook-to-sell-art-in-fund-drive.html

The 60s Picasso auction record exceeds that which the Times called a new record in 1974. In general, I've found some sources to be vague in their references to a record "work"—sometimes they meant record for the medium (painting, sculpture, etc.) or the artist. In this case, unless I'm missing something, just looks like an error. I'm going with the Picasso and removing the Bacon/Dubuffet. czar 08:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Picasso in Basel

Picasso's top price—in fact, the top price in history for the work of a living artist—was set in Basel, Switzerland, where citizens raised $1,950,000 to buy Two Brothers, 1905, and Seated Harlequin, 1923, for their museum.
— LIFE Dec 27, 1968, p. 120

This is a potential non-auction record. Marking it here for further investigation. czar 09:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• User:Czar/Basel's Picasso referendum czar 09:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Benefits Supervisor Sleeping

Lucien Freud died in 2011; "Benefits Supervisor Sleeping" should be removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3023:2E0:8000:3162:7CCD:48FE:18A5 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a list of auction records of artists alive at the time of auction. Freud's painting sold in 2008 and he died three years later. czar 03:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Lucian Freud is not alive anymore

Died in 2011 80.223.92.105 (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Although he was alive at the time of the sale referenced on the page and so qualified for this list. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The list seems to have gone off the rails as to its stated purpose, a progressive listing of the most amount of money paid for a work by a living artist. The list now includes works of art which did not set that record. I'm leaving them in because they're interesting, and maybe there should be two lists on the page: the progressive record list and a "Top 20" highest amounts paid for a work by a living artist. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

One way or another, This list is wrong

Is this an historical list of each work that at the time was the most expensive work sold OR the works that have sold for the most money overall? It is not clear. If the first, Beeple should not be here, and I’m unsure about the others. If the former, it is totally wrong, missing Ruscha, Wool, Ryman, Stella, etc. This source isFive years old, but makes clear: https://news.artnet.com/market/most-expensive-living-american-artists-2016-543305 Theredproject (talk)<

The page should be reworked to include both lists, the progressive monetary list and the overall list of the most amount of money for a work of art by a living artist. Both lists would be of interest. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

czar removed one of them from the list but missed other out-of-order examples. Adding a top 20 of all-time list might be the way to go. A two-interesting-list page is always a good find. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see the Doig example added but feel free to remove that too. This list is a record of the progressive high water mark auction price set for a work by a living artist, which has tended to be the subject of independent source coverage. A list of the works that have sold for the most money overall would be very hard to maintain, but you're welcome to attempt that separately. czar 20:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed another. Sorry to see those go, interesting information. Top 15 or so may not be hard to maintain, but will leave the concept for later or for others to map out. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Everydays: the First 5000 Days

I see this note in the mainspace - "note that Everydays: the First 5000 Days is not a progressive auction record—the most most expensive auction record by a living artist at the time was the 2019 Jeff Koons Rabbit at $91M" - but the auction was at a reputable house and it was progressive - why wouldn't it be included in this list? Bangabandhu (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It was not a progressive auction record. Rabbit set the record at $91M in 2019. Everydays was worth the equivalent of $69M in 2021. Rabbit remains the record-setter. The next auction of a work by a living artist exceeding $91M will set the next record. czar 18:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Separation of NFT sales and artwork sales

There's been some edits recently adding an NFT sale by Pak to this list, and another work by Beeple is also on this list. I am wondering how this differentiation should be held up as there is already a separate article specifically for NFT sales, list of most expensive non-fungible tokens. Should NFTs and "artworks" be considered disparate groups for the sake of categorization and listing on these two articles? SiliconRed (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know enough about these tokens to understand how they can be classified as artwork. This list is for paintings, sculptures, and closely related works, not whatever these NFT things are (and per the already existing NFT list which is listed as a See also). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC):

NFTs are rather similar to a "certificate of ownership" in that ownership of an artwork does not necessarily involve the possession of an artifact that was created/fabricated by the artist. The first example of that may have been Seth Siegelaub's Artists Reserved Rights Transfer and_Sale Agreement. Other examples, especially in conceptual art are plentiful, but a recent example is Comedian (artwork), which was sold for $120,000 USD in 2019. The purchaser didn't receive the original banana and duct tape, but rather a "certificate of authenticity" and instructions on how to install the work. Sometimes, there is no artifact at all, or even a contract, as with Tino Sehgal, where the sale consists of a conversation, with not documentation at all. Some digital art, gifs, websites etc. have similar sales arrangements. See for example Rafaël Rozendaal. It's really not up to us to decide if this is art or not. We follow the sources, if they say so, we reflect that. Vexations (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I hadn’t seen this comment, these are interesting examples. SiliconRed (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

So are we saying NFTs are not art and thus Beeple too should be removed from this list? Are artworks on this list limited to paintings, sculptures and thus NFTs on the list be removed? Honest question. I think the challenge we are facing is about HOW do we define art and WHO gets to define what art is? Both artists in this instance Pak & Beeple have had major NFT works sold at contemporary auction houses Sotheby's & Christie's respectively. If their "art" was sold in art auctions, doesn't this then make them artists? And, NFTs are art are they not? If you accept that major art auction houses like Sotheby's and Christie's sell NFTs then you need to accept NFTs as art. Moreover, this opens the door to include NFTs on that list. One could retort that NFTs have their own page so should be excluded from the art page BUT this page is for sales across mediums no? So, I think SiliconRed is wrong to have deleted Pak from the top of the list and I have provided two sources placing Pak at the top 1) and Pmmccurdy (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This may need a full RfC and a team of art experts. Have alerted the visual arts WikiProject of this discussion. Can you post an image of The Merge as an artwork? After reading about it still can't figure out what it is, and because of its prominence hopefully someone can start an article. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Randy Kryn here, I'd like to have a third-party opinion and possibly RfC. Randy Kryn thanks for alerting the WikiProject! Could you link that discussion here for reference? SiliconRed (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not a discussion although it could turn into one, just an alert at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. I saw the artwork (digital or painted?), does this mean people can buy a tiny piece of a nice privately owned Picasso and then call it a new record price if enough people buy a claim? Signed, Confused in Kansas. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hah, confused here as well. Thanks for the link, I'll keep an eye there -- I am sure there are more experts on the subject hanging out here on Wikipedia, and I look forward to reading those thoughts. SiliconRed (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Also worth noting Pmmccurdy that both of those references distinguish "Merge" as an NFT artwork, not a traditional artwork. In the article from Barrons: "However, the claim is debatable, depending on whether The Merge is ultimately considered to be a single piece or a series of artworks." SiliconRed (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Really interesting to see this discussion Randy Kryn & SiliconRed and where it leads. I see that Pak's Merge has been removed but we are keeping Beeple's Everday Sale, should that not also be removed from this list? It is also an NFT sale so if Merge doesn't qualify then perhaps Beeple shouldn't qualify? The Beeple work also consists of a large number of works and is not a single work like say a Koons sculpture. It is a compilation of works - sold as one - but does that make it a single artwork? I would argue that if we accept Beeple's Everydays on this list than other NFT works become eligible. Merge needs to be understood as a form of crypto native artwork - thus a new and specific form of work - where the art is beyond visual. It has a digitally native, dynamic and performative nature. You can see the various circles, you can read the contract but there is more to the intended art. Similarly, could we see a picture of performance art? Sure we could watch a video of performance art but it wouldn't be the same thing. I think part of the challenge is that this causes a reckoning and grappling with what art is and who gets to define art. If I view crickets as food an excellent source of protein and I eat them, are they food? If you say they are not food because they are insects, who is right? I think that if an artist/digital creator such as Pak call his works art then we surely can look at is as art, no? Now, if the issue is NFTs and the argument is that NFTs are not art, I am happy to make the edits to Beeple's Wikipedia page and erase references to his work as art and remove him from this list too, should I do that Randy Kryn & SiliconRed? Pmmccurdy (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the commentary & keenness to edit, please wait until this discussion is resolved before making additional changes. Take a look at WP:NOR -- it's generally not about Wikipedia editors or individuals deciding on what is or is not art but about consensus from third-party sources on the subject. SiliconRed (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

But SiliconRed I have already provided sources that put the Pak sale on top, I have not seen a source arguing the opposite or making the case that the sale should not be there. As far as I understand, I've listed sources as required by Wikipedia to make and justify the change. Given the sources I have provided put the Pak project at the top shouldn't this change stay until decided otherwise? I'm trying to understand the hierarchy here. The third-party sources I have listed put the Pak sale on top and so by your standards merit being there, no? Pmmccurdy (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Here are a few articles I've found discussing specifically whether or not NFTs are artwork. From Wash Po:

NFTs are not a new artistic medium in the way that oil paint, printmaking, photography or video art were. Even digital art (which is just art made on a computer) preexisted NFTs by decades. NFTs are financial instruments. They make it easier to sell digital files by creating scarcity.

from NYT:

Beeple’s work has been compared to that of KAWS or Banksy, two other artists who have bypassed art-world gatekeepers to establish huge sale prices. But ultimately, NFTs are a technology used to authenticate an artwork; determining whether a work is art or not is up to the viewer. The technology can be used to authenticate other kinds of objects, too.

& Time:

NFTs are best understood as computer files combined with proof of ownership and authenticity, like a deed. [...] Artists who want to sell their work as NFTs have to sign up with a marketplace, then “mint” digital tokens by uploading and validating their information on a blockchain (typically the Ethereum blockchain, a rival platform to Bitcoin)

Consensus seems to be a distinction between the sale of artwork AS an NFT from just the sale of artwork. Hopefully helpful here. SiliconRed (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

How do you make the "distinction between the sale of artwork AS an NFT from just the sale of artwork"? It's not obvious to me how you would distinguish between the transfer of ownership facilitated by a blockchain and some other tool, say a certificate of authenticity. In both cases, the artwork that is sold is not the documentation itself. Vexations (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure Vexations — the sale of an NFT isn’t necessarily the transfer of ownership of the work itself, it’s the ownership of a contract related to the work. Although some NFT contracts do sign over the rights to the underling image, the “unique” aspect is the metadata generated in the transaction. Technically you could mint any number of “new” NFTs from the same artwork. An analogy here is that “most NFTs ‘are like directions to the museum.’” This article is more explicit: “Winkelmann did not really sell the artwork. Rather, he sold a non-fungible token (NFT) of the artwork on the blockchain.” In essence buying an NFT of an artwork is not the same as buying the artwork itself. SiliconRed (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I had actually read both already, but I do think they can inform this conversation. I meant practically. How are we going to make that distinction? What criteria do we use? It looks like we might need some sort of guideline that can be used by people who do not have a lot of expertise in blockchain technology. Personally, I think I understand both the technology and the history of how digital art was sold earlier. I do not think we should make a distinction, because it's too difficult in practice. I'm open to suggestions. Vexations (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ahh got it. Good question. Maybe it’s worth moving this article to List of must expensive physical artworks by living artists or similar and having a separate list for digital artworks? There is already the separate list for NFTs, which could technically be consolidated here under a broad definition. Maybe this list should be for artworks that are sold to a single buyer in an auction, and that definition might include some digital works but not all? Either way it seems like this list is vague in its definition.SiliconRed (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Thanks for those extracts SiliconRed but I would suggest there is a third reading or understanding which isn't properly captured and that is viewing Pak's work in this instance which uses NFTs on the blockchain as a medium of art. Yes, NFTs are used as a way to tokenize digital works/make digital collectables but Pak's work has explicitly sought to use the medium to question ownership and value. This is discussed here . Pak's approach to the blockchain as an artistic medium is outlined in this Wall Street Journal article:

The artist, who said they privately trade in cryptocurrencies, approached the Sotheby’s sale like a gamemaster seeking to demonstrate several technological intricacies offered by NFT smart contracts that might confound traditional art lovers but were designed to appeal to Pak’s fans. Some digital pieces in the artist’s “Fungible” series can be rendered useless or altered by their owners, a digital feat not usually touted by sellers of paintings or sculptures.

I'd suggest what underwrites this perspective or artistic approach is something like Marshall McLuhan's 1964 decree The medium is the message whereby his concern was how a dominant medium shaped society (power structures, ways of knowing, seeing and interacting). The use of NFTs on the blockchain is another way to explore these types of relationships. However, I think because it is a new medium, many are having a hard time understanding and dismissing the work. For some perspective when McLuhan was writing all the critics were concerned about what was on television, McLuhan's point was about how television is changing the way society is structured. My reading of Pak's practice is that they are doing the same thing with the potential for Blockchain in society. To me, that's art. Make sense yet Randy Kryn? Pmmccurdy (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

e.g. the highest grossing movies aren’t included on this list even though movies might also be considered art. Digital art has existed for decades; there’s a more nuanced difference than a discrimination by medium against NFTs (it’s not clear to me that NFTs are a medium in the first place). SiliconRed (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok SiliconRed then are we saying that NFT artists are not artists? We cant have it both ways. If they are NOT artists than Beeple should also be taken off the list. If they ARE artists than Pak should be on this list. I made the changes to the list, added the required sources and so the change should be reinstated. If there is a push to "wait" for experts to discuss then it's only fair in my estimation to either have both artists on the list or neither. Is that not a fair way of proceeding? Related, judging by an extract you posted earlier, one way of qualifying someone as an artist is if a third party does. Well, the Wall Street Journal has called Pak an artist so too has Sotheby's surely this meets the criteria and again justifies them being on the list. Is the fundamental issue here that you don't think Pak is an artist SiliconRed?

It seems to me that Pak is an artist. But I don't think that's the question we're trying to answer here? The question is whether NFT sales should be categorized in this list or whether the structure of this list should be changed to either accommodate or provide an alternate space for NFT sale listings. How the process works is based on WP:CON -- for now there's no clear consensus on the change worth making, so there are no changes to make. There are a couple ideas in the thread above but I'd like to wait for more opinions -- I'll open an RfC on this talk page to accelerate this. SiliconRed (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks SiliconRed that eems fair but, until then, there is the question of what to do with the list. If Beeple is on there selling NFTs then it seems to me Pak should also have a place. My suggestion is to add Pak (I had provided many sources with my edit), and then, as you say, wait and see. Pmmccurdy (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interested in edit warring, please don't edit the article until there is a consensus on the subject. Thanks! SiliconRed (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

We are on the same page SiliconRed re-edit warring but with respect to fairness at this point should we not establish consensus if NFTs should be on the list and then establish overall consensus? As it stands there is one NFT work on there. So for fairness, we either remove Beeple as it's currently under debate if NFTs fit or we add Pak. Seems like a must way to proceed in my eyes unless I am missing something? Pmmccurdy (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Generating consensus means that the contested edit remains undone until there is agreement on how to proceed, which there is not. In this case the contested edit was the Pak sale, not the Beeple sale -- worth noting also that none of the sources you've referenced suggest that this sale is the highest, rather that it is a high volume sale as there were thousands of buyers, not a single buyer. This also doesn't have to do with being "fair". I'm not sure if these unsigned edits are yours: Special:Contributions/204.210.134.255. Please do not continue to edit this aspect until a consensus is reached in the talk page. SiliconRed (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsigned edits are not mine SiliconRed, everything done via this account. I know Pak tweeted about Wikipedia today which likely drummed up interest. The same thing happened with the contested deletion. I have nothing to gain by editing this anonymously. As for the work - Pak has said in news stories about Merge that it is a single work where people buy pieces of Mass. So, it is not a fractionalized work - meaning a whole work where the pieces are sold off - but work which lives and unfolds on the blockchain. What I think is interesting in this instance is that the artwork requires multiple buyers as part of its design. This, of course, poses a challenge for standard categories of seller/artist and a single buyer; that category doesn't work which itself is indicative of a Paradigm_shift enabled, of course, by the medium itself. Pmmccurdy (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

This could really become an epic discussion so hold onto your hats. I think I'll just watch it play out and not add much more for awhile as I'm not an expert on the topic (and maybe nobody is, and therein lies the rub). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, as a follow-up and so just I'm clear, can you succinctly state for me your objection to having the Pak Merge sale on the list? SiliconRed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmmccurdy (talk • contribs) 01:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think society has figured out if NFT's are by themselves visual artworks, coding, or a contractual document, and sources alone probably can't decide as they will be all over the place. So I don't think Wikipedia can as yet call The Merge and/or its NFT artworks in regards and in relationship to the topic of this page, "List of most expensive artworks by living artists". Understanding it is above my pay grade (I once found a quarter at a Wikipedia conference). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)SiliconRed

---

We certainly have certainly managed to type a lot of words over these last few days! In the spirit of succinctness shown by Randy Kryn below, SiliconRed could you kindly and explicitly summarise your objection to having Pak's Merge on the list? This - admittedly interesting - conversation started via edits to the Pak_(creator) which obviously now has implications here. Is the objection to having Merge on the list because it was an NFT or something specific about the work? I'd greatly appreciate the clarity Pmmccurdy (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

My objection specifically to Merge is that the Barron's article says the claim of being the most expensive artwork sold is "debatable" and the ArtNews article says that "Nifty Gateway’s grand statement may or may not be accurate". The only source I've seen definitively state that this is the most expensive artwork sold is Nifty Gateway... which was the marketplace handling the sale and should not be used as a source here. Generally though this commentary is independent from the discussion below (or, in fact, for my original, broader motivation for opening this discussion, which wasn't specifically related to Pak or Merge) 😊 SiliconRed (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply SiliconRed indeed looking at past comments on this list it is due for a shake-up either by way of NFTs changing the space/field (as the below section has) or being shifted and moved elsewhere. I will add my own take on that below. I think the "debatable" aspect is inevitable as NFTs really are changing and threatening old monopolies and it's interesting to watch it play out. The fact we're discussing it here is a testament to the fact the ground is shifting. As for Merge, it was mentioned on FastMoney [1] and Gotham Mag covered it too [2]. I assume ArtNew fence-sitting that it "may or may not be accurate" is more indicative of the delicate politics they need to play as a magazine that relies upon many hands to feed it. I'm sure I could do a search in LexusNexus to pull out more articles but I do think we're getting somewhere. Pmmccurdy (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The FastMoney video calls it "the most expensive NFT" and Gotham mag says "what is being called" the most expensive NFT artist and gives Pak the superlative "highest-selling digital artist"... which is different from selling the "most expensive artwork". Every source about the "Merge" sale repeats the Nifty press release and augments it with skepticism or modified wording. Compare this to how ArtNews describes the sale of "For the Love of God": "This past summer Damien Hirst officially became the world’s most expensive living artist both at auction and in the gallery, bypassing even long-established greats like Jasper Johns." There is no ambiguity in this secondary source. It doesn't matter why secondary sources write with skepticism about NFT sales, it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to analyze articles and use them as sources depending on that analysis ("I assume ArtNew fence-sitting [...] is more indicative of the delicate politics they need to play as a magazine [...]"). I know I've mentioned this several times now but I'd encourage you to take a look at WP:NOR if you haven't already. SiliconRed (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply SiliconRed. Indeed, I’m familiar with WP:NOR but recognizing the media narratives are constructed and that often people with money, power (or both!) are able to sway, bury, or even pay to have narratives altered or deflected, I think expressing a basic awareness of political economy is fair in the context of a discussion of the topic. Moreover, I haven’t proposed any original research in my comments nor has any of my written content -to the best of my knowledge - violated WP:NOR. If you haven't already, I'd strongly suggest listening to the 3part Freakonomics series on the art world, perhaps you'll like it: [3] Pmmccurdy (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not the job of Wikipedians to make up information to compensate for global media bias. SiliconRed (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that this conversation is happening shouLD encourage the inclusion of NFT as art. Besides isn't NFT an attribute to digital art much like a canvas is to a painting.

---

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the premise of the debate here. NFTs are a means of creating digital scarcity, as was previously mentioned. NFTs are not a medium of art, nor is NFT an art form. While NFT, as a technology, may be improved upon, perhaps even made obsolete in the future, they are attempting to solve a legitimate problem faced by digital artists, who are now able to sell their artwork in a manner that is somewhat analogous to artists who sell art in physical media. The heart of this debate is not if NFTs are art; they are not, and to say otherwise displays a misunderstanding of both art and NFTs. The heart of the debate is if recording the ownership of art through NFT is the same as owning a physical work of art. While personally I dislike the crowd that seems to champion NFTs, and I detest the treating of digital art as a means of investment rather than focusing on the art itself, the exact same issues pertain to the crowd that deal in the art industry. The stealing of artwork and selling through NFTs without the artist's permission, is not unlike issues that have plagued the art world for centuries. Given the increasingly digital nature of the world, I believe at some point people are going to have to accept NFTs being in equal standing as physical art sales but given the difference fundamental in medium, I support keeping NFT sales separate from physical art sales. AChakra California (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

An NFT is is a form of unique token that *can be used* for art. The art itself is stored elsewhere (a database, on the blockchain, etc). Overall, NFTs are issued for various reasons. I could open a business and issue NFTs, and only those NFT holders would have exclusive access to X. Or I could create a NFT that leads to a textbook required for a classroom, ensuring that students buy from a primary source. I could issue NFTs in the way of Axie Infinity, etc. I think it would be more accurate to make these distinctions going forward, instead of lumping them all together. As it pertains to this, it would make more sense to include NFT-art sales in this list or even have them in a separate section on the same page. Art may have been defined as physical because it was the only way possible for it to be, but the Internet blurs these lines. Artificial "digital scarcity" is a common way of making a return outside NFT related art. Copyright means that you can own a shade of color for certain use or a specific design of an imaginary character. Artfinder allows the sale of digital art merely printed on canvas. The complications of the topic will definitely require more thought going forward. Perhaps the most simple way to put it, someone created art (true) and someone paid in order to *own* it (true). JusCurt44 (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Purchasing via NFT is not in any way purchasing art; purchasing NFT is pretending to purchase art. NFT is a trendy new scam that targets people who are unable to tell reality from ideals, such as young children.

When a company mass-produces a physical product, each copy of that product is its own individual. However, as they may be mistaken for one another, they are distinguished from one another by serial codes or mild deviations such as intentional alterations or manufacturing defects. NFT supposes to emulate this individuality by giving "serial codes" to digital files.

This is a fantasy as each different variation of the file or different serial code is still not unique. Each version of the file is still copied infinitely whenever the given file is transferred to a new system. The problem NFT aims to solve has thus not been solved. In fact, it never can be.

Because physical items do not infinitely duplicate, the owner of a physical item controls the possession of that copy of the item - not only in law but if need be by physically fighting off burglars who try to take it. It is not possible to "right-click" a physical item and get a copy of it, and if someone steals it, the original owner does not have it anymore. None of this is true with digital files and therefore it is not possible to demonstrate ownership of a specific version of a digital file, because there is nothing that can be "owned" to begin with.

This is why the "theft" of digital files has never been prosecuted as such - it makes no sense. Only intellectual property could possibly apply to this scenario. But intellectual property is concerned with all copies of something, while NFT is concerned with individual copies of something.

Even if NFT was to backpedal on that, it's founded on a black market whose sole purpose is to evade the law and can hardly seek legal backing for any intellectual property claims. And if NFT was to backpedal on that, it produces only very mild alterations of the same file (if they are indeed not visibly identical) and would not be able to reliably claim novelty and thus a distinct, new IP to protect.

To top it all off, NFT is completely superfluous. Every bank, every broker, every retailer already has receipts, transaction records, etc. with unique IDs, effectively meaning we have had NFT the entire time we have had a vaguely modern economy. What exactly is being brought to the table other than being more welcoming to shady under-the-table dealings because no meaningful authority is involved?

NFT is a scam like buying stars before it, and no reputable institution should entertain its claims of nobility. Buying NFT is buying vapor, not art.

-FibrielSolaer (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

---

References

RfC: Categorizing NFT sales in the list of most expensive artworks by living artists

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion in this RfC has shown that there is still a lot of confusion and uncertainty when it comes to NFTs. Some participants presented reliable sources categorizing those works sold via NFT as art, noting they use the wording "living artist" to classify the creators of those works. Those opposing have shown articles that go more in-depth about what is actually being bought in these auctions, claiming there is still a lot of doubt whether the artwork itself is what is being sold, and not merely a contract or something similar, and if that's the case, if those works would qualify to be included in this list.

The headcount of !votes shows that there is consensus that we should not be adding NFTs to this list as of right now with no prejudice against revisiting this discussion at a later date, as consensus can change. (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🔔 13:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Should NFTs be included in this list? SiliconRed (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• (posted before the request was edited): Not clear what the question is. An RfC should be worded carefully, short and direct. Is this a name change RM? That's a different thing. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, simplified the question. SiliconRed (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good brevity. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey

I think they should not. NFTs have their own list, which should be linked in the article, and entries generally shouldn't be listed in both. jonas (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)g

• It depends. Not all NFTs are art, so those NFTs should not be included because we only include artworks. Art that is sold as an NFT should be be included. We have no criteria for what art is. If multiple reliable sources say something is art, we follow those sources. Vexations (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion, unless there are clear secondary sources cited that the sale is of a single artwork to a single buyer using the blockchain to handle the transaction. I agree also with the comments from jonas above 😊 SiliconRed (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion unless created by an established artist known for commanding high values outside the NFT universe eg. Bansky. Even then the artwork would have to be 100% NFT and not a certificate for a real-world piece such a wall mural, which is the actual art. While there might be some legitimate debate if Bored Ape is worth millions of dollars as art, there is no debate the value derives from the scarcity created by the blockchain (and in this case a Yacht Club pass). I personally think calling these things "art" is a veneer of art, marketing, because selling a string of unique characters in a blockchain is less interesting. -- GreenC 22:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia really can't be in the business of deciding what counts as art or not, which is why putting NFTs, art or not, in their own list makes things a lot simpler. Theres a seperate issue of artificial price inflation of NFTs, though thats something that would need to be decided in the NFT list and not here. Secondary sources are important too, a lot of NFT sales on here get cited only by the sales platform itself, which outside of Sotheby’s isnt necessarily reliable. jonas (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

We are seeing real-world art (and other) objects of high value sold via NFT. The buyer gets both the NFT and the art object. The NFT acts as a sort of certificate of authenticity or however you want to say. It makes resale almost frictionless and reduces the chances of fakes. It's not a pure-play NFT where does it go. -- GreenC 22:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

No we're not. Can you cite an example of a real-world artwork that was sold as an NFT? Vexations (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure Vexations check out the work of Refik Anadol who had a release of NFTs during the 2021 Art Basel in Miami which also came with physicals. Anadol also did a release with Museum_of_Modern_Art which involved NFTs and physicals see: . There's also Damien_Hirst's project called "The Currency" , Raf Grassetti has done some, Vhils, Trevor Jones, Cleon Peterson and the list goes on. I'm sure GreenC could list others, I could too > NFTs were also a big part of Art Basel this year, seems to me there is a very strong case for including them on the list. Thus I Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmmccurdy (talk contribs) 16:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Pmmccurdy (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Banksy mural worth $1m available via new NFT". In fact it's the tie to real-world objects that has the NFT community excited about the future. They see things like home deeds, car titles, birth certificates, etc.. as NFT in the future. Anyway, I think pure play NFT don't belong in this list, but when there is a physical object involved it should not be excluded. The NFT is ancillary to the underlying art. -- GreenC 16:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"The NFT is ancillary to the underlying art." this is critical. That said it seems plausible to me that the underlying art is a digital-only piece, e.g. a photograph or digital drawing. That's not to say necessarily that pieces like this exist yet. SiliconRed (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

[4] doesn't say that Anadol sold a physical artwork as an NFT. In the case Hirst, you have to decide between the digital NFT or the physical artwork. Same for Banksy: "They will have the choice of having the physical artwork or a unique NFT depicting it".Vexations (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Vexations. Banksy work isn't endorsed nor does it involve Banksy, so I don't view it as a project of the artist. For Hirst, that's slightly more interesting as he made 10,000 physical paintings years ago. Then, more recently scanned them and put them for sale but what you got when you bought one was an NFT but after a certain amount of time you could then exchange for a painting. All holders must decide what to do with their NFT by July 2022 which they can either keep the NFT - at which point the physical paintings will be burned - or digitally 'burn' the NFT and get the physical painting. As for Refik Anadol, the Moma release involved NFTs and prints together. Same with his Machine Hallucinations release on Aorist. Vhils did that too recently, burn a number of the NFTs to get physicals. Pmmccurdy (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bansky mural you are correct it's one or the other. A better example is Kayne West mural, "The person who cops this NFT will forever be linked to the mural through a QR code and will technically own the mural itself." -- GreenC 17:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Emphasis on "technically" own. Practically, not so much. Are they going to take the physical artwork home with them or install it somewhere else? Vexations (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That's what happened to the Bansky mural, they took it somewhere else. -- GreenC 21:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That was not minted by Banksy. People take that work and then sell it. Banksy never sold it. That seems to happen a lot with NFTs, bots, operated by a new class of art thieves minting stuff they scrape off sites like devianart, hoping to sell it to gullible collectors. It's not always clear who you're buying an NFT from. Vexations (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Does it matter who 'minted' it? It was a physical brick wall of some kind. You said "technically" and then questioned "Are they going to take the physical artwork home with them or install it somewhere else?" and the answer is apparently yes in some cases people do. Who sold the work doesn't seem relevant to the original point: NFTs can be attached to physical works of art where you buy one and get both, in some cases; in other cases they are separate items where you buy one or the other. -- GreenC 22:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

In the case of artwork which is fraudulently minted/sold (albiet a more common practice in NFTs this is not unknown of in traditional art sales), it seems plausible to me that secondary sources would document that and those pieces would not be included in this list without any modification to the current inclusion criteria. I think that aspect is a red herring to the original discussion. SiliconRed (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

We're at a stage now where what exactly is sold as NFTs is still evolving. Ownership of art is complicated. For the artworks that I own for example, I do not have the copyright, which remains with the artist. I cannot monetize those works by selling reproductions, but I can make a profit by selling them at auction. Even then, the artist may have Artist’s Resale Right (they get a share of the profits). Some works may come with constraints imposed via contract by the artist, and making changes to it may result in the artist disowning the work, rendering it worthless. The situation with NFTs is still evolving. In the case of the Banksies what tends to happen is that the owner of the building is compensated for the removal of the wall with the work, and then it gets auctioned by someone who in some way "bought" the work. But in some (other) ways, they don't. Now, I expect that whatever scenario we could come up with that hasn't been tried yet will immediately be tried by some artist. Even if I'm right and strictly speaking no artifacts that only exists physically have been minted, someone is going to try to do that. And then it will exist, so in that sense it doesn't matter that we don't have a good, clear example yet. We'll have one eventually. All this to say that we should not try to be the arbiters of what art is or what constitutes a sale. Follow the sources, do not impose our own arbitrary rules. Vexations (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I (completely) agree with this rationale. It seems plausible to me that a digital artist could sell a work solely as an NFT, and there are other "traditional" works on this list whose value derives not just from their "artistic merit" -- i.e. "For the Love of God", which cost £12 million to produce. In general I think the criteria of "single work to a single buyer" is easy to consistently verify with secondary sources. The "Everydays" NFT sold on Sotheby's to a single buyer and was given the superlative of "new high for an artwork that only exists digitally" by NYT and was directly compared to other traditional artwork sales. Compare this to "Merge", which was sold fractionally, or "Twin Flames #49" by Justin Aversano, sold to a group of people, which strike me as an entirely different class of sale which should only be listed where those asterices can be properly documented, i.e. the dedicated NFT list. It's misleading to suggest that an artwork that's sold fractionally should be listed next to artworks that are sold individually, and fractional ownership isn't relevant to any of the traditional sales on this list. SiliconRed (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, too early to tell. Brought and edited from the initial discussion: I don't think society has figured out if NFT's are by themselves visual artworks, coding, or a contractual document, and sources alone probably can't decide as existing sources will be all over the place. Can Wikipedia call The Merge and the others art in regards to the topic of this page, "List of most expensive artworks by living artists"? Since opinions are mixed, maybe give it a month or six. Understanding the concept and its effect on the art world is above my pay grade (I once found a quarter at a Wikipedia conference) so reputable sources will eventually determine the deposition and definition of the sales. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: NFTs are a "thing" unto their own, where it is not clear what is even being sold/bought (contract/work/metadata/transaction etc.) [a one-off transactional metadata IMO]. Another thing to be remembered is that the prices listed in USD are conversions based on crypto-currency auctions which were actually made in the highly fluctuating ether[um] (P.S. The ether amounts should be mentioned in the NFT list article not the USD directly).

I would support a separate list for digital artworks which could include different ways [contractual] ownership of such works has been transferred including NFTs. Absolute "unique" digital ownership is taking shape now at best but this is not the page to include such speculative ideas. Gotitbro (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• And if anyone is confused (as I was) as to how these NFTs work/what is being sold, here is an article which best explains this. What is being sold is URL metadata which hosts the file (likely IPFS or a web host like Google Drive etc.) with rights to only re-sell that metadata aka the NFT, no ownership beyond the NFT for the work is transferred. This is unlike any traditional sale, as I said these NFTs are a thing unto their own and should be left there. Gotitbro (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree that it would be dangerous for Wikipedia to become the arbiter of what constitutes art so, as there doesn't yet seem to be a consensus among reliable sources on how to categorize artistic NFTs, I say that they should be kept separate for now. I'm sure the following months and year will see a surge of writing on NFTs and we will have more to work with as time goes by. This won't be the last time we have this discussion. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Forbes reference Beeple's NFT sale as the third-most expensive work from a living artist ever sold at auction. Fortune did an article as recently as a few weeks ago about "creators who are taking their artistic talents to the digital space by minting and selling non-fungible tokens." Wikipedia content is based on WP:RS. This article is a 'list of the most expensive artworks by living artists.' If there are WP:RS that state that NFTs are NOT artwork, then please post them here, concisely. Otherwise, NFTs should stay on this list. The rest of the conversation here seems to be simply subjective opinion about what constitutes "art" which is the inappropriate foundation to answer this question. Hocus00 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

From previous discussion: New York Times (in fact from the same author as the article you reference), Washington Post, The Verge., and ArtNews are among sources that have questioned the description of NFTs as art. Sources have also applied the superlative of Beeple's piece as the third-highest selling work by a living artist -- e.g. Time--despite also questioning whether NFTs are a medium of art. I also have not seen a source suggesting that the other NFT on this list, Merge, should be considered among the highest selling works by a living artist. Barron's and ArtNews describe the claim from Nifty Gateway regarding the sale as "debatable" or say it "may or may not be accurate". Clearly there is not unanimous agreement from secondary sources that NFTs should be included on a list of highest-selling artworks, albeit for differing reasons. SiliconRed (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from (although some of your cites read a bit like opinion pieces). This should at least be handled with WP:CONFLICTING then I think rather than complete deletion. There are too many WP:RS that consider the NFT sales part of "art sales". See additionally Bloomberg, CNN, Forbes. Hocus00 (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

When we're talking about determining whether something is art or not, you need to take into account RS that may seem to be opinion -- e.g. NYT's Critic's Notebook. I have yet to see a source that would explicitly classify Merge on this list that isn't Nifty Gateway. That said, there are clearly strong RS that have the description of Everydays specifically as the "third-highest selling artwork at auction by a living artist" and to your point about RS, I don't see a strong reason to remove it. It was sold at Christie's, in a standard auction, with the digital artwork being the clear object of the sale, just as much as the NFT underlying it. (Worth noting though that the "third-highest" superlative originates in the Christie's press release -- though that's of unclear relevance as, unlike the Nifty press release, secondary sources used that superlative without questioning it.) Do you have any thoughts on how to apply WP:CONFLICTING in this article? SiliconRed (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it can be addressed simply. Per the guidance in WP:CONFLICTING, we should report all significant viewpoints in the main article. This can be done by adding a sentence or two to the article written under the "All Time" section written in WP:NPOV about NFTs and how some sources consider them art sales whereas others do not with cites included. The content should not be deleted outright, however. Regarding the Merge sale, I see there is an ArtNews cite. I'm not sure if that is considered a WP:RS for art sales, but other sales use it as a cite elsewhere throughout the article as well. If it's not a reliable cite, I think it can be removed or a tag placed, along with any other art in the article that depends on cites from that website. Hocus00 (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I like this idea. Re: the ArtNews cite: It seems reliable, but its wording is: "Depending on how you look at it, Nifty Gateway’s grand statement may or may not be accurate" -- so it doesn't actually support the inclusion of Merge. I can draft a paragraph summarizing secondary viewpoints on NFT sales as art sales and propose for inclusion below. SiliconRed (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support - Reliable sources given by Hocus00 above seem to class some NFTs as artworks. --Thibaut (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose To borrow the jocular terminology of McMansion Hell, a receipt for An Art is not An Art. Sources that fail to indicate the relation between the underlying art itself and an NFT made from it are de facto untrustworthy. (Yes, general-interest news from reputable publishers is generally reliable, but generally isn't the same thing as universally.) List the most expensive NFTs separately; that's the path of minimum confusion. XOR'easter (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. As previously mentioned, NFTs are contracts / receipts, and not artworks themselves – and, as I understand it, most NFT sales don't even concern copyrights for the artworks they refer to. An NFT purchase is the inclusion of the buyer's name on a list associated with the artwork; thus, as I see it, the NFT is not a piece of art in and of itself. That is not to say NFTs could not be made into artworks; Yves Klein's 1959 artwork Zone de Sensibilité Picturale Immatérielle was a performance work of art wherein the artist would give the buyer a (physical) receipt for empty space in exchange for gold. If someone were to use the sale of an NFT as performance art – and then somehow sold that instead –, then I would be fine with its inclusion here. — Avelludo 01:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. I believe at some point people are going to have to accept NFTs being in equal standing as physical art sales but given the difference fundamental in medium, I support keeping NFT sales separate from physical art sales. AChakra California (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now -- I think we should wait a year or so to see what the sources say on the matter. NFTs are in-and-of themselves not art (as I understand it), they are a new type of contract (smart or otherwise, heh). My opinion is we should wait a year or two (see WP:NODEADLINE) and then see what the academic body of work on NFTs and crypto says on the matter. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  Additionally, there are so many weird, unknown, possibly illegal practices happening in the sale of NFTs, so I would most absolutely wait a few years for the legal world to determine how NFTs are classified as asset-wise. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per previous opposers, it's WP:TOOSOON to say how sources will treat these things. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with last comment by User:HumanBodyPiloter5. Not only did NFTs just blow up this year but the entire public backlash on the carbon footprint, pyramid scheme, and hideous monkeys show that it's going to take a while for NFTs to be classified as "true" art.shanghai.^{talk to me} 18:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Where are we at with this? Seems like several oppositions but no consensus on why to oppose or when exceptions should be made. SiliconRed (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion I have two points. First, I think it is fair to say we have established the two artists currently on this list Beeple and Pak are artists. Second, the title of this Wikipedia page is "List of most expensive artworks by living artists". The two NFTs being discussed here are both artworks by living artists. One - Beeple's Everydays is actually 5000 different works bundled into one sold by an auction house. The other is a piece of crypto art on the blockchain which is a single work with many buyers; the participation in the work actually determined its shape and size. So, the artist has framed it as art and thus Wikipedia Editors aren't in a position to say it isn't art. The challenge at hand is that both NFT sales are slightly unconventional. Beeple's sale was for an oeuvre but followed the traditional art model of 1 buyer, 1 seller. However, Pak's art was a single artwork work (unlike Beeple) but its $91m value stems from a large number of buyers which deviates from the traditional art auction house model. At the heart of the issue is how "expensive" is defined which I would suggest is the overall/total value of the piece of art sold. If we want to splinter off into platforms, rules about buyers, sellers, single works, multiday sales (such as Hirst's 2008 The Incredible Journey) then folks can certainly create those lists too. Pmmccurdy (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody here has argued to oppose that NFTs are not art (in fact there is clear agreement that it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to decide whether NFTs are art). The argument is there is not enough consensus outside Wikipedia to categorize NFT sales alongside traditional sales and until consensus occurs, NFTs should be solely categorized in the list for the highest-selling NFTs. SiliconRed (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Good, progress! But if NFTs are "artworks" shouldn't any list that purports to be a "List of most expensive artworks by living artists" include NFTs? With then a subsequent list for "traditional art? I'm trying to understand if NFTs are artworks why exclude them from a list that is intended to list the "List of most expensive artworks by living artists"? Perhaps a solution is to retitle the page to have the "List of most expensive traditional artworks by living artists"? Pmmccurdy (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Just as we are not the arbiters of what art is, we're also not the arbiters of what "traditional art" is. We do have some editorial discretion when it comes to choosing which sources to rely on, I think. I'd give more weight to what Art in America considers art than say, Forbes. Vexations (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, a source like Sotheby's. SiliconRed (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

As I've said before, the issue isn't answering the question of whether NFTs are art or not, the issue is external consensus on whether NFT sales are similar enough other artwork sales to belong on this list. The burden is to show that they are similar to merit inclusion here, which to my reading isn't a burden that has been met -- every opposition here has a different (albeit similar) argument in that realm. And of course this isn't to close the discussion off entirely, forever -- this consensus might shift in the next 6 months, at which point NFTs might be included here. Or not. Who knows, yet. Certainly not Wikipedia editors. SiliconRed (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, seems like we have consensus. Are there other comments to be made before closing this RfC and updating the article? SiliconRed (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

How can we have a consensus when, from the start, I have argued in support of including NFTs on this list. The overwhelming evidence from secondary sources places NFT art as art and thus worthy of inclusion on this list. If we agree Beeple and Pak are artists, why would their sales not count on this list? I don't understand the logic here Pmmccurdy (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:CON: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Consensus that I am reading is that NFTs should be removed from this list for now with the intention to re-open discussion at a later date. To my understanding this incorporates all concerns, including yours. SiliconRed (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't take my concerns into account. I do not think that they should be removed, if that wasn't clear. I think much of the art that is sold as NFTs is shit, but that doesn't matter. Vexations (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Including the NFTs already in the article (Merge, bought by a group/Everydays, sold as a lot)? Personally, I don't see why NFTs generally speaking shouldn't be included in the article, but I also don't see how these sales align with the other sales in the list. SiliconRed (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that NFT twitter is talking about this thread (see this tweet, for example). I noticed the {{notaballot}} notice above, and don't know if it's related to that, but thought I'd raise the point just in case we begin to see many SPAs come in.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is getting some interesting presscoverage, see top of page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe an NFT scholar can start the missing article on Merge which would tell Wikipedia readers what about it qualifies for inclusion on this list. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think it makes any sense to exclude NFTs from this list. If you did, then you’d also have to exclude performance art — when a collector purchase a work of performance art (which does happen), they are similarly purchasing a pointer to the artwork, not the “actual” work. The same applies to many works of conceptual art such as Cattelan’s Comedian, mentioned above. The exclusion of NFTs based on the idea that the artwork isn’t being purchased but just a link to the artwork is a mere technicality which cleary undermines the purpose of this list, to document the priciest artworks. Amplifysound (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

We'll cross that bridge when we get to it, Amplifysound, by which I mean if you can show me a pirece of purely performance or conceptual art that was sold for +50 million then we'll discuss those artworks. Concerns above aren't exclusively about whether NFTs are art or not, they also include both concerns as to how reliable sources describe NFTs as well as the character of the sales themselves. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added a specific proposal in the section below. Would appreciate commentary from some of the folks in the thread 😊. SiliconRed (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Changes to table based on RfC

Based on the discussion in the above RfC, I propose the following changes to the article (specifically the "All Time" section). I'm working with WP:CONFLICTING and WP:RS in mind, based on my conversation above with Hocus00.

There are three changes here:

1. I've removed the sale of Merge from this list. The few existing WP:RS describing the sale have rejected it as an artwork sale and describe it instead as an NFT sale. The only source I have found which states it should be considered among the highest-selling artworks by living artists is a Nifty Gateway press release, the vendor who facilitated the sale. This is a primary source: It is not sufficient to qualify the item for inclusion.
2. I have added a bit more to the comment at the top and bottom of the table which alert people to propose NFTs for inclusion on the talk page before adding them to the table.
3. I've added a note next to the line-item for the sale of Everydays. Many WP:RS describe this sale as the "third-highest by a living artist at auction". Not much to argue with here. That said, there are many WP:RS which do not consider this an artwork sale, but something else entirely -- either a promotion or different category of sale. I've summarized these sources in WP:NPOV as part of this note. Here's what it looks like on its own:

Taken together:

I am open to ideas and suggestions! The discussion above has been productive and it seems like we are getting closer to a consensus supported by Wikipedia policy. SiliconRed (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I have amended the above table based on the discussion and added Merge. The relevant discussion on this talk page initially centred on the inclusion of NFTs and it seems there is a proposal to include them which then means Merge has its place. In the above statement justifying Merge's removal SiliconRed states that "The few existing WP:RS describing the sale have rejected it as an artwork sale and describe it instead as an NFT sale" however one of the sources provided is from Barron's whose title is "PAK’s NFT Artwork ‘The Merge’ Sells for $91.8 Million", the article title describes merge as an artwork. If this list is for the most expensive artworks, Merge has been recognized as an artwork by secondary sources; its status as an artwork is even in the title. The argument that "at the time of sale, the artwork did not yet exist" is a Red_herring. Pak's Merge is also referred to as art in Gotham_(magazine) . Articles in Artnet also recognize Merge as an artwork. As for the dollar value, that has also been published. We find us coming full circle if NFTs are to be included on this list - and I support of that - both Beeple's Everdays and Pak's Merge have a place on it. Pmmccurdy (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that there is consensus above to add merge, Pmmccurdy. I'd recommend waiting for the RfC to be closed before adding any NFTs to this proposal, as it will lead us to having the same conversation in two threads. Additionally, your own sources don't seem to clearly support merge's inclusion in the list: The price was a record for an artwork sold publicly by a living artist, according to Nifty Gateway, a leading NFT marketplace. [...] However, the claim is debatable, depending on whether The Merge is ultimately considered to be a single piece or a series of artworks. (Barron's) and in what is being called the “largest ever art sale by a living creator,” (and other ways of calling it art using others' words, i.e. not in their editorial voice) (Gotham). I will grant that Gotham called Pak the highest selling digital artist, but that can refer to his whole collection of works and not necessarily a single art work. The fact that RS are not sure whether to classify it as a single artwork or a group of them means we should probably use caution and wait a few months at least for academic consensus to form on the issue. Many of the sources are from 2021 and NFTs are a terribly new technology, so I suggest we avoid preemptively adding in recent and badly understood types of art (if it can be considered as such). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit the proposal in-line. SiliconRed (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I amended the proposal in line and then stated my rationale and provided sources, could you kindly point to the guidelines for amending a proposed table so I may amend accordingly. It's my preference to offer a visual representation so other users may see what is there. As for the current RFC, my understanding A. C. Santacruz is that it already has NFTs included by way of the Beeple work, hence my amendment was to add Merge. With respect to answering the question "Is Merge a single artwork", it has been reported as such in the media such as in Artnet and by the artist . Also, viewing Merge as a work of art that uses the blockchain as its medium, one can look at the smartcontract - which is available publicly - which shows clearly that all the pieces are indeed part of a larger work . So it's clear Pak's intention that it's a single work and the contract don't he blockchain shows how these are all a single work.Pmmccurdy (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I am utterly confused at what you mean by "work of art that uses the blockchain as its medium". I'd appreciate some clarification on that. Secondly, we need to base what we do here by what the RS say, and not original research. Statements like "one can look at the smart contract" or "it's clear Pak's intention that it's a single work" [sic] are, in my opinion, original research when determining whether Merge is a single artwork or a collection of them. The artist's own intentions, while useful, are also not the end-all be-all in art. The pieces are not sold as a whole, but rather individually or in subsets of the series, continually and infinitely into the future by a possibly infinite number of sellers and buyers. I strongly believe we should assess Merge in the same way that Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe prints are assessed. While they are part of a series, and gain value and meaning as part of this series in addition to individually, they are not parts of a single artwork but rather iterations of a theme. How different is Merge to this? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I’d say it’s common courtesy not to go about editing other people’s comments. If you have suggestions for improvement, you can make that clear (as you have…) without modifying my comment such that the proposal makes no sense (I propose to remove merge, then you add it back in… seems like there is just a mistake in the proposal). SiliconRed (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Noted re the revised proposal SiliconRed will devise and submit an amended one shortly. Concerning the point raised by A. C. Santacruz it's an interesting question. There are articles such as the Artnet one cited above which refer to Merge as a single work and there maybe more (I haven't looked). I would have thought a link to a statement by the artist about the work wouldn't constitute original research but it certainly is in line with secondary sources like Artnet. With respect to the similarity and difference between Warhol's Monroe prints, the difference here is that Merge is a single work linked to a single smart contract (link provided above), as much each piece of Merge is related to and impacts each other. Artnet describes them as "shares" (I think that may not be the best word) but they all work and exist under the same mechanism - thus they are not a collection of say PFPs or even a bundle of pictures as was the case with Beeple or Andy Warhol's series; Merge is a single work owned by many. This is clear in news articles and the artist's intention. Related, and using the argument above A. C. Santacruz, Beeple's Everydays which is on the list is not a single work but a collection of 5000 images. The difference is, Everdays has one owner, Merge has many. Pmmccurdy (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure what adding another proposal section will do beyond crowd the page. It's clear that the change you are interested in: The same as above but with Merge included in the list. Just my 2¢. SiliconRed (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As a follow-up A. C. Santacruz here's a piece which describes Merge as a single artwork published in Forbes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmmccurdy (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Pmmccurdy (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree that an article about this talk page conversation could be used as an RS for whether an artwork should be included in this list. Barring that, the article does not even declare whether Merge should be included in the list of highest selling artworks by living artists, as other RS for works in this list do. RS & NOR are the foundations of Wikipedia, a handful of sketchy sources doesn’t amount to something being documented here. SiliconRed (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

From what I can tell NOR does not appear to be an issue here. With respect to using Forbes as a source a Wikipedia named user once told me SiliconRed "It's not the job of Wikipedians to make up information to compensate for global media bias." I'd extend this to calling sources "sketchy" when they meet Wikipedia RS guidelines. Pmmccurdy (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate the sarcasm and deliberate misreading of my comments -- I'm not taking issue with Forbes the publication, I'm just reading and repeating the contents of the article. I'll repeat again: There are no secondary sources about this sale which have described it as among the highest-selling artworks by living artists. Coverage from Forbes, Barron's, Gotham, and ArtNews all refuse to support the claim from Nifty Gateway. By "sketchy sources" I specifically am describing the lack of support in clear writing. Phrases like "debatable" and "may or may not be accurate" or pull quotes from primary sources mean that the claim from Nifty Gateway is not verifiable. I'm not sure how many more ways I can say this. SiliconRed (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's an article from Gotham_(magazine) whose headline reads "NFT Artist Pak Sells New 'Merging' Art for Record-Breaking $91.2 Million" ; the record being broken is the same record this very long thread is discussing. And FWIW, my comment was not intended to be sarcastic your use of sketchy was unclear and appeared, to me at least, to be a comment on the source. As for the Forbes article, I cited specifically in reference to Merge being a single work as that issue was raised. Hope that clears things up.Pmmccurdy (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES are not reliable sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

To quote directly from Gotham: Case in point: in what is being called the “largest ever art sale by a living creator” This is from the second paragraph, I'm not digging to get this. Read your sources. SiliconRed (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I would just remove the word "dismissed" from the note so that it reads ". . . or as a separate category of sale." Hocus00 (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks! SiliconRed (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, this proposal makes sense to me. There's a lot of wiki jargon on this talk page that I don't understand, but big picture, it seems clear that works like this need to be in this article. The only thing I'd tweak is the claim that the Beeple work was sold "as a nonfungible token." Christies (https://www.christies.com/features/Monumental-collage-by-Beeple-is-first-purely-digital-artwork-NFT-to-come-to-auction-11510-7.aspx) says that it was sold WITH a non-fungible token. The NY Times also describes it the same way (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/arts/design/nft-auction-christies-beeple.html) - it's the artwork/JPG file that sold for the money, not the blockchain link. This page is incomplete as written. Amplifysound (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I hear you on this (and stand by this proposal), but NYT says: Beeple’s collaged JPG was made, or “minted,” in February as a “nonfungible token,” or NFT, no separation of the idea of the art and the NFT. I don't see the "with" syntax in that article. Are there any WP:SECONDARY that say "with" rather than "as"? SiliconRed (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References

References

Press coverage

Is becoming quite extensive, I wouldn't be surprised if there's something on it in the next The Signpost. Anyway, I removed from the template [5] Twitter, because come on, and Hypebeast, because WP seems to say it's a blog.

The guidance at Template:Press is a bit fluid, what should be considered "press" is not always clear, but Twitter ain't it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Just found this talk, an article from The Smithsonian Pmmccurdy (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Counter Proposal: Changes to table based on RfC and the inclusion of Merge

Based on the above discussion I have created this second proposal in chart form as much of the discussion has centered on the potential inclusion or not of Pak’s Merge on this list. As such, it is better to offer a visual representation of the chart with Merge, its relevant sources and reasons for inclusion. This can also allow for more transparency in discerning between the two competing proposals. With respect to SiliconRed other additions, I support these and there seems to be agreement NFT artworks should make this list (a position I have taken from the very beginning). Where we differ is on Merge, this section adequately addresses all of the concerns rasied.

Reading through the objections or questions raised around Merge various questions have been raised. If we accept the premise that NFTs are artworks, as per SiliconRed’s proposal then Merge qualifies as an artwork to be considered on this list.

A. C. Santacruz asked if Merge was a single artwork. Merge is indeed a single work and cited as such in Artnet , it was described as a single work in a Forbes piece and, of course, the smartcontract shows it as a single work.

With respect to dollar figures, Merge has been recognized as a 91.8 million dollar sale. Fast Money described Merge as "the most expensive NFT ever sold". The full quote is: "You are looking at 91.8 million dollars. That's how much this NFT, Merge, by the artist Pak that auctioned earlier this month. It is the most expensive NFT ever sold" (I can find the video if required). If we accept NFTs as art – which we should – Merge qualifies. Related, a December 27, 2021, Artnet article recognises Pak’s Merge as a single NFT sale of $91.8 and continues, “Based on that sales total, Pak is now the world’s most-expensive living artist, eclipsing his fellow crypto-art master Beeple, who landed in the number three spot with his record-breaking Christie’s sale this spring (more on that below), as well as more traditional blue-chip artists such as David Hockney and Jeff Koons, whose sculpture Rabbit (1986) holds the current benchmark, selling for $91 million sale in May 2019.” . The Barron’s article discussed already supports this reading . The fact that Merge is a single NFT Artwork that sold for 91.8 is a fact supported by multiple sources and such entitles it to be on this list. Given this list is focused on dollar value, its sales total qualifies it to be on the list.

Recognizing and proposing Merge does not violate Wikipedia’s “No original research” policy; all of these facts have been published by secondary sources and directly support the argument that is deserving of a place on the list of most expensive artworks.

Taken together:

Constructive discussion welcome Pmmccurdy (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Genuinely don't see what the point of this is. Let the RfC close. Then we can discuss proposals. There's no point in this proposal before the RfC. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if I have upset you A. C. Santacruz. As no one objected to the initial proposal, I assumed it was de rigueur to propose them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmmccurdy (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Pmmccurdy (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't upset, Pmmccurdy. I hope I didn't sound passive aggressive, it is clear that you are making these proposals in good faith. It's just a bit premature to make the proposals now. The RfC ends in a week, in any case, so we won't have to wait long to discuss proposals. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The list article from ArtNews does not include Pak because it considers the sale in a different category: It calls him the world’s most-expensive living artist and explicitly distinguishes this from most expensive artwork. The Forbes citation isn't a reliable source, WP:FORBESCON. We've already discussed the other cites repeated here. Adding Merge does violate WP:NOR if there are no secondary sources to back up the claim... Generally, this proposal seems nonconstructive. SiliconRed (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

References

References

Inclusion of "For the Love of God"?

Recent press suggests that the $100mil sale of Damien Hirst's "For the Love of God" may have never actually happened, as the artist appears to still own a large portion of the work. From NYT:

That $100-million skull, called “For the Love of God,” was Hirst’s ultimate test of whether artistic and financial value could be the same thing. It now languishes in storage in Hatton Garden, London’s jewelry district, Hirst said, owned by him, White Cube and undisclosed investors.

Hirst owns an undisclosed portion of the work and the actual $100mil sale reported in 2007 did not happen as publicized.

It's going to be impossible to verify the actual sale price of the work (which I guess would be the portion owned by "undisclosed investors"), and it would makes sense to remove the work from the list or add it in an appendix of some sort -- any other thoughts? SiliconRed (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

References