Olivia Schoenfeld and Ellen Jansen
Electronic Media Review, Volume Eight: 2023-2024
Blockchain-based artworks are still considered to be in new and relatively uncharted territory in terms of conservation. While it may seem soon to be worrying about the obsolescence or deterioration of a technology that is so new, it is an inevitable truth. This research aims to pinpoint the vulnerabilities and future prospects of blockchain-based art (known as non-fungible tokens or NFTs), including its conservation. This research is conducted according to an existing risk assessment methodology that was developed during the Inside Installations: Preservation and Presentation of Installation Art (2004–2007) project, and the steps are carried out for the case study of the blockchain-based artwork series 81 Horizons (2021) by Rafaël Rozendaal (b. 1980). As more and more artworks using blockchain technology find their way into institutions, including those of Rozendaal, there will be increasing pressure to have possible future preservation protocols put into place for their battle against obsolescence, among other risk factors. The effectiveness of the existing risk assessment methodology is reflected upon to highlight strong points and discuss the steps that need adjustment to blockchain-based artworks specifically. This research on the use of a risk assessment approach to help identify vulnerabilities and diagnose preservation solutions for these artworks is well timed and much needed.
INTRODUCTION
$69.3 million with fees. That was the selling price of digital artist Mike Winkelmann (b. 1981), known as Beeple, Everydays—The First 5000 Days non-fungible token (NFT). From May 2007 until January 2021, Beeple made a new digital artwork daily. Everydays—The First 5000 Days compiles these 5000 digital images into a JPEG. The associated NFT was auctioned by Christie’s in 2021 (Reyburn 2021). Even with such high-profile sales occurring, there is much more depth to the buzzword ‘NFT’ than the unbelievable selling prices, difficult jargon, and often overall confusion that meets the eye (note 1). There are misunderstandings by the public and professionals who believe simply adding artworks to the blockchain preserves them for the future. This misconception exists due to the narrative referring to blockchain as a permanent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent entity. A correct understanding of the technology and use of preventive conservation methodologies such as risk assessments are essential and give the basis required for conservators to become knowledgeable advocates who push for further preservation strategies to be implemented.
Research Aims
This research aims to utilize an existing risk assessment methodology for a blockchain-based artwork case study and assess its vulnerabilities and future prospects. The focal case study of this risk assessment research is the series 81 Horizons minted by Rafaël Rozendaal (b. 1980) in December 2021. With the core framework of the risk assessment being maintained, a central part of the objective is to see if the existing approach for each step will have to be adapted to fit the criteria for on-chain blockchain-based artworks. It is essential to conduct risk assessments and have protocols set in place to help mitigate not only any loss of information about an artwork but also its significance and authenticity. Since blockchain-based artworks likely do not completely fit the mold of existing methodologies—whether it be risk assessment, preservation strategies, or institutional documentation protocols – they necessitate more research into where the bottlenecks are in the conservation of these artworks.
Methodology
The complex nature of blockchain-based works poses a difficult case for conservators who wish to preserve them and institutions who wish to acquire them. Thus, the risk management principles established in an international guideline by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management—Guidelines, serve as the framework used in this research (ISO 2018) (fig. 1).
The flexible risk management process has been utilized for cultural heritage collections, as can be seen through Risk Management for Collections, written by Agnes Brokerhof, Bart Ankersmit, and Frank Ligterink, senior researchers at the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (RCE) (Brokerhof, Ankersmit, and Ligterink 2017, 9–16). Furthermore, the risk assessment methodology has been put into action for contemporary artworks, such as interactive installations. The Inside Installations: Preservation and Presentation of Installation Art project that spanned from 2004 to 2007 was managed by the RCE and included more than 30 complex installation case studies to reinstall, investigate, and document (Foundation for the Conservation of Contemporary Art [SBMK] 2007). A case study carried out during the Inside Installations project included a risk assessment of the installation by Jeffrey Shaw (b. 1944), Revolution: A Monument for the Television Revolution (Brokerhof et al. 2011, 91–101).
Alternatively being coined as a “risk assessment methodology,” it has also been utilized as a tool in software-based artwork conservation, with further categorical risks having been formulated, such as disclosure, adoption, and transparency (Falcão 2010, 30). With blockchain-based artworks commonly including software-based elements, parallels can still be drawn between the risk assessment and preservation strategies used for software-based artworks and, inevitably, blockchain-based artworks.
Hereafter referred to as the Brokerhof method, the generalized steps of risk management were elongated into eight more revealing steps, which will be followed during the case study of this research due to the overarching adaptability beyond installation artworks (fig. 2). The installation artwork and the case study 81 Horizons can be linked to each other by their complex, multifaceted natures. The Brokerhof method first calls for an intricate examination of the context and significance of the artwork. These preliminary steps trace into the subsequent risk-related steps and are necessary and interpretative based on the artwork being assessed. The method rounds off with preservation options being weighed based on the highest risk factors.
An integral tool used during this research includes interviews with professionals who are knowledgeable about various topics, including NFTs, blockchain, time-based media conservation, digital art, and variable media preservation strategies. While it is not a necessity for interviews to be conducted during a risk assessment, it is a valuable way to find the answers to the questions posed within the risk assessment methodology. Interviews are especially notable forms of research in the field of contemporary art conservation, where living artists and external experts can help inform decision making for the preservation of such artworks.
CHARACTERISTICS OF BLOCKCHAIN-BASED ARTWORKS
General Characteristics
Before diving into the risk assessment of 81 Horizons, a brief overview of the technology is important to establish. A glossary has been compiled to better ease understanding of the copious terms and abbreviations in this field (Appendix table I). In simplified terms, John Ippolito, professor of New Media and director of the Digital Curation program at the University of Maine, equates the blockchain to a giant receipt that lives in the sky (Ippolito 2021). The blockchain helps guarantee the integrity and security of the recorded data in an irreversible timeline, as the blocks where the information is stored and encrypted always refer to the previous block (Frankenfield 2022). NFTs live on the blockchain and are essentially transactional metadata; they show the information of the buyer, seller, and the amount of cryptocurrency used for the purchase. Well phrased by the creator of the first NFT, artist Kevin McCoy (b. 1967) stated, “In the same way that a picture file on your phone’s camera roll might have metadata—the date, the GPS coordinates, maybe the camera setting, and so on—metadata is not the data of the file, but draws from and relates to that file in specific ways” (McCoy 2022, 353–60). Therefore, for blockchain-based artworks, the NFT points to a digital file that can be an image, video, sound, or likewise. These digital files are known as associated assets. The associated assets of an NFT are what are commonly mistaken to be the NFT itself, which can include visual media files in digital formats such as JPEG or GIF. The associated assets of the NFT can often live on a URL that can be accessed by a server or multiple servers (fig. 3).
An essential component of NFTs is smart contracts. Smart contracts “digitise agreements by turning the terms of an agreement into computer code that automatically executes when the contract terms are met” (Ethereum 2023). A common analogy that is used to describe smart contracts is a vending machine; you select an item, the machine tells you what is required to buy the item, you give the correct amount, the machine verifies your amount, and finally the machine gives you the chosen item. There are many benefits to smart contracts: automatic execution, predictable outcomes, public records, privacy protection, and visible terms (Ethereum 2023).
Continuing with the investigation into what blockchain-based artwork is and how to best define it, this confusing and complicated territory should be tackled on a case-by-case basis and is in the hands of the creator. Some blockchain-based artists find the most significant portion of their artwork to be held within the NFT and its collective nature, whereas others simply use blockchain technology as a sales mechanism for their digital assets, which are the core of the artwork. Therefore, it is paramount to individually investigate blockchain-based artworks to see what is found to be significant and most acceptable for the future.
Characteristics of 81 Horizons
To introduce the chosen case study, some specific characteristics of the artwork are notable. Rafaël Rozendaal is a Dutch-Brazilian visual artist based in New York who works with “instructions and elements of chance and interactivity and studying color in a systematic way with software” (Rozendaal 2023b). The 81 Horizons series is a collection of landscapes that each consist of two colored rectangles. The unique combinations of colors were hand picked by Rozendaal himself. His 81 Horizons has all 81 works completely stored and rendered on-chain using Ethereum. The smart contract is programmed by Berlin-based freelance software engineer Alberto Granzotto, and the series was released by Upstream Gallery Amsterdam. Through Upstream Gallery, the works are available for primary sale (Upstream Gallery Amsterdam n.d.). OpenSea is used as a secondary market, a platform where collectors can buy and sell NFTs that have already been created and sold before.
RISK ASSESSMENT OF 81 HORIZONS
The Brokerhof method is used as the core research methodology of this research, with the assessment being split into three phases to help cluster steps together that have intertwined subjects. The first phase—steps 1 through 4—will dive deeply into 81 Horizons by Rozendaal. This starts by compiling information and concludes by establishing values and significance. The second phase—steps 5 and 6—will concentrate on the associated risks and the probability of them occurring and causing a loss in value. The third phase—step 7—will pinpoint the largest risk and elaborate on possible preservation strategies for the future of not only this case study but blockchain-based artworks by and large. While the final eighth step of deciding on the specific preservation strategies that need to be implemented would be included in the third phase, it will be omitted from this research as it is well beyond a diagnostic scope.
First Phase: Context, Identity, and Significance
The first phase of the Brokerhof risk assessment method begins by peeling back the layers of 81 Horizons by Rozendaal. Step 1 lays the foundation for the assessment by describing the artwork’s making, history, and context. It establishes the essential information about the artwork, as described previously under Characteristics of 81 Horizons. Step 2 includes defining the anatomy, character, and identity of the work. For installation artworks, this may include going under the facade of the sculptural elements and identifying the technology built within it. Even though it is common for blockchain-based artworks to have all-digital anatomy, it is also possible that the associated asset is linked to a physical artwork.
In the case of 81 Horizons, the work had been installed and displayed during Rozendaal’s first major solo exhibition in 2023, Color, Code, Communication, at Museum Folkwang (2023). Furthermore, three of Rozendaal’s NFT artworks, as part of the series 81 Horizons, were acquired and exhibited by the Centre Pompidou in 2023: Horizon 31, Horizon 59, and Horizon 73 (Upstream Gallery 2023) (fig. 4). The artwork also exists as an artist book comprised of the smart contract code and each unique horizon (Rozendaal 2023a). The functionality of 81 Horizons as NFTs allows collectors to be a part of the experience by purchasing the token of a horizon (Rozendaal 2023b). For some artists, tokenization is simply used as a sales mechanism. However, in this case study, the identity of the artwork is linked to the importance of the collective of owners—or collectors—to the artist. Collectors play a large role in an artist’s recognition, and Rozendaal believes that the more ease for the collector, the better. Rozendaal affirmed that the real ownership lies in the transaction of the collector (Rozendaal 2023b). All of these key pieces of information about the artwork compiled in step 2 were largely informed through discussion with the artist, along with information noted in the symposium titled New Landscapes: NFTs and the Museum at Museum Folkwang (n.d.). To conclude the findings of the first two steps, the key aspects of 81 Horizons’ identity are encompassed by the smart contract, source code, visual appearance, permanence, and collectivity (Museum Folkwang 2023).
Step 3 encompasses establishing values based on the information revealed in the two previous steps of the risk assessment, which paves the road for losses in value that may occur. The Inside Installations project used an existing Australian model—Significance 2.0—to determine the values and significance of the Jeffrey Shaw case study (Russel and Winkworth 2009). After the four primary criteria for assessing significance—historic, artistic or aesthetic, scientific or research potential, and social or spiritual—were evaluated, there were four comparative criteria applied to evaluate the degree of significance: provenance, rarity or representativeness, condition or completeness, and interpretive capacity (Russel and Winkworth 2009). Using the artist interview and documented sources, the Significance 2.0 assessment was effectively conducted to determine where the meaning and values lie in the series 81 Horizons (Appendix table 2). A statement of significance summarized the importance, values, and meaning of the series and was approved by the artist: “The smart contract is the ground-zero and skeleton of the project. The artwork exists as an installation, a book, and is viewable on Etherscan, OpenSea, and my website. It is considered to be a collective work with a community of owners” (Schoenfeld pers. comm. 2023).
As a conclusion to step 3 of the Brokerhof method, a value distribution pie chart was made using the defining characteristics of the artwork—the smart contract, visual appearance, and collectivity—to showcase the contribution of values and characteristics to the overall significance of 81 Horizons (fig. 5). These three aspects were all found to be of equal importance, largely based on the significance assessment and statement of significance of the artwork. The smart contract holds the primary criteria of artistic and aesthetic, social and research potential. These criteria are also linked to the collectivity in the same manner. The visual appearance holds artistic and aesthetic along with historic significance. Across the three decisive attributes for the identity of 81 Horizons, the artistic and aesthetic significance was found to be the largest, spanning across all three features. The historic significance was found to be the smallest, being only linked to the artwork’s visual appearance.
How might a digital artwork have its tangible and sensorial aspects linked to its significance? While step 4 is more crucial in the methodology for purely physical installations, this bonding link in the risk assessment can be adapted to fit blockchain-based artworks and applies especially well due to 81 Horizons’ various existences. The Museum Folkwang exhibition, along with the Centre Pompidou exhibition, poses as tangible viewings of 81 Horizons. While 81 Horizons will exist on-chain and in collectors’ wallets, viewing the actual associated asset naturally requires a screen, whether that be a phone, personal computer, projector, monitor, and so on. The viewer experience of the image can be directly related to the brightness, pixel geometry, and color calibration of the screen being used for display. While support technology is important, it is not always completely needed to view the artwork; the physical manifestations also include the artist book.
Second Phase: Risk and Recoverability
To develop groupings for risks to cultural heritage objects, in the late 1980s, the agents of deterioration were formulated by researchers at the Canadian Conservation Institute (Michalski 1990). These agents are also the foundational risks used in the Brokerhof method. Unfortunately, the predominantly materialistic agents of deterioration—such as water, fire, thieves and vandals, and pests and plants—do not apply to Rozendaal’s 81 Horizons, or other blockchain-based artworks for that matter, as strongly.
The risks associated with purchasing and holding NFTs are very particular to the technology involved. A very practical example is how Christie’s has made an effort to describe them in their conditions of sale under “Buyer’s Acknowledgments and Representations for NFTs” (Christie’s Inc., n.d.). Discussed heavily by Jon Ippolito, the contract pinpoints numerous potential failure points that they are not responsible for after the auction (Bell, Ippolito, and Harsanyi, n.d.). These risks range from disruption of the associated asset to the token metadata itself to blockchain as a technology. It is not indicated who compiled the risks for the conditions of sale or what exactly they are based on. Nonetheless, this contractual disclaimer helps to offer a stepping stone to identify the associated risks for 81 Horizons and can be applied to many blockchain-based artworks. In step 5 of the risk assessment, all relevant risks associated with the artwork are identified. The completion of this step resulted in 30 risks being compiled for 81 Horizons from sources of the Inside Installations case study, Christie’s conditions of sale, and the risk assessment of software-based artworks by Falcão (Appendix table 3).
Step 6 in the risk assessment typically quantifies the expected loss of value. The magnitude is found by considering the likelihood and size of value loss within a specified amount of time (Brokerhof, Ankersmit, and Ligterink 2017, 9–16). The dependencies of blockchain-based artworks are varied and complex, making them very hard to quantify. In general, the parameters of sculptural installations can vary immensely, and artists carry their own opinions. However, the character of the parameters makes them easier to predict than those for blockchain-based artworks. For 81 Horizons and other blockchain-based artworks, the quantifiable approach is much less achievable and beneficial. In a slight pivot from the Brokerhof method, an alternative approach could still shed light on 81 Horizons and blockchain-based artwork risks. Groupings of the associated risks allow for clarity on which areas of the technology could cause the most chaos. As expressed in Risk Management for Collections, “Grouping risk scenarios, based for example, on common sources, effects or weak links in combatting loss, makes it possible to develop effective options for risk reduction” (Brokerhof, Ankersmit, and Ligterink 2017). The risks that could be effectively categorized were compiled into groups created based on common effects: collector, creator, market, cultural institutions, blockchain, NFT, and all parties combined (Appendix table 4).
To further the applicability and contextualization of the identified risks beyond groupings, scenarios that have occurred and may occur in the future can be articulated. The development of such scenarios is still part of the Brokerhof method, yet leaves out the original quantified scoring system. Instead, following a similar structure to the risk assessment thesis of software-based artworks within the Tate collection by Patricia Falcão, risks can be contextualized by scenarios of acquisition, display, and the long-term (Falcão 2010, 37–42). For example, the technical aspects of storage such as hosting the token in a digital wallet—as Centre Pompidou has done with their three acquired horizons—should be explored in depth to avoid risks like security weaknesses, preferably before acquisition ensues. Regarding display, the variability in what is considered an existence of the artwork through a physical exhibition shows the fragility of display parameters and how they could lead to the risk of confusion and mal-interpretation of the artwork. Last, long-term risks have not yet been encountered but pose a threat over time. For instance, the risk of dissociation of the artwork from pertinent information about its existence can occur over the coming years as technologies progress and pieces of information get lost or left behind.
Third Phase: Largest Threats and Preservation Options
Step 7 assigns the biggest threats to the artwork. While the risks defined in step 5, “identification of risks,” are all worth noting, obsolescence is inevitably the most demanding risk to this particular medium in terms of future conservation prospects. The obsolescence of blockchain technology poses a slew of questions to ponder. What would a blockchain-based artwork be without the blockchain technology backbone? If the associated asset were to continually live on its own without its token, would it still be considered a blockchain-based artwork? If the technology obsolesces, does the collector’s ownership of the NFT disappear into thin air?
The posing of possible preservation options that align with mitigating the major risks is also part of step 7 of the Brokerhof method. The risk of obsolescence can be most minimized through existing conservation approaches. The overarching preservation options posed in this step apply to 81 Horizons, but they can also expand beyond it to be possibilities for blockchain-based artworks in general. Best applied to variable media, the variable media strategies entail four major methods for defeating obsolescence in mediums which include storage, migration, emulation, and reinterpretation. Following these strategies encourages an artwork to be defined in parameters that are medium independent for the work to be later transitioned to a new medium once obsolescence comes along (Guggenheim New York, n.d.). Preservation options that could help mitigate obsolescence in blockchain-based technology further include documentation and artistic collaboration. To add to the strength that can be found within artist and technological communities (like those found within the NFT world), networks of care within cultural institutions play a major role in the responsible preservation of artworks. The desire to have a network for an artwork brings together the various departments within a museum—curation, conservation, registration, and so forth—combined with external knowledge in a well-documented and archived fashion. Nonetheless, these strategies come with ethical considerations such as maintaining the artistic intention and staying within the confines of what makes the artwork its truest form that it was meant to be, as defined by the artist.
REFLECTION
A critical part of contemporary art conservation entails a reflection on the process at hand, whether it be regarding acquisition, installation, or risk assessment. The 81 Horizons series by Rafaël Rozendaal was analyzed using an existing risk assessment approach referred to in this research as the Brokerhof method. The following reflection on its performance as a risk assessment methodology does not apply to all blockchain-based artworks but may apply to similarly composed artworks. For example, artworks that are entirely on-chain may be assessed using comparable alterations to the Brokerhof method.
The first phase of the risk assessment for 81 Horizons included steps 1 through 4 of the Brokerhof method. These steps were adhered to, making use of a model that utilizes eight criteria for assessing significance and a value distribution chart. Step 5, which identified risks, was still executed; however, the core 10 agents of deterioration that are used in the Brokerhof method were missing risks that specifically involved the technology. Therefore, this step required pulling from alternative sources—the Inside Installations case study, sources that have dealt with the auctioning of blockchain-based artworks, and a risk assessment of software-based artworks—to best inventory the vulnerabilities to 81 Horizons and most blockchain-based works. It should be noted that there may be different sources available for identifying blockchain-based artwork risks that were not used in this research. The following step that quantified loss of value and recoverability needed the largest adjustment, with there being an exceptional number of parameters leading to a less attainable and constructive quantifiable score. Instead, the risks were clustered based on the creation of primary groups they may affect: collector, creator, blockchain, NFT, and so forth. The last step remained intact, diving into the biggest risk—obsolescence—and discussing the variable media strategies and possible additional ways to reduce risks. The eighth step of pinpointing the particular preservation strategies that need to be implemented based on their urgency was purposefully omitted, as it requires a larger study of research outside the range of the research. All in all, the Brokerhof method required a few changes to better fit 81 Horizons and its analysis while still sticking to its framework (fig. 6).
CONCLUSIONS
While the scope of this risk assessment on 81 Horizons by Rafaël Rozendaal pertains to only one blockchain-based artwork series, the outcome can be translated to other blockchain-based artworks by the same artist and hopefully expand beyond into the blockchain-based art scene as a whole. Additionally, this risk assessment methodology attempts to set the groundwork for the final step of deciding on preservation options to be eventually chosen and implemented on 81 Horizons when needed.
With the use of methodologies such as risk assessments, institutional collections can foresee possible vulnerabilities and circumstances that can cause unrecoverable losses within the artwork. This approach could become engrained as part of the standardization that has yet to be established by cultural institutions acquiring blockchain-based artworks; not only is the provenance well documented, but the risks are pinpointed that could ensue through acquisition and the life of the artwork. As more and more blockchain-based artworks find their way into institutions, there will be increasing pressure to have preservation protocols put into place for their continuance. Thus, the research on the adaptation of an existing risk assessment approach and utilization of preservation strategies is well timed and much needed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to gratefully thank my supervisor, Ellen Jansen (University of Amsterdam), for her feedback, patience, and consistent encouragement throughout the research. I am very thankful to Evelyne Snijders (University of Amsterdam) for always being keen to listen and give helpful guidance. The professionals who have been so willing to be interviewed and share their knowledge are highly appreciated for their time and enthusiasm. I would like to lastly thank my family, friends, and fellow contemporary art colleagues for their unwavering support throughout this research.
APPENDIX
Table 1. Glossary of Terms
| Term | Description |
| Associated asset | The associated asset is the entity being tokenized, whether it be a physical asset or a digital asset (Myers 2023). |
| Bitcoin | “Bitcoin (BTC) is a cryptocurrency, a virtual currency designed to act as money and a form of payment outside the control of any one person, group, or entity, thus removing the need for third-party involvement in financial transactions” (Investopedia, n.d. [c]). |
| Blockchain | “A series of blocks of validated transactions, each linked to its predecessor by its cryptographic hash” (Myers 2023). |
| (Block) hash | “A unique, algorithmically generated, unguessable identifier for a piece of data” (Myers 2023). |
| Burning | “To destroy or render a cryptographic token inaccessible by sending it to an address that has no associated cryptographic key” (Myers 2023). |
| Cryptocurrency | “Cryptocurrencies are digital or virtual currencies underpinned by cryptographic systems. They enable secure online payments without the use of third-party intermediaries. ‘Crypto’ refers to the various encryption algorithms and cryptographic techniques that safeguard these entries, such as elliptical curve encryption, public-private key pairs, and hashing functions” (Investopedia, n.d. [a]). |
| Digital marketplaces | “NFT marketplaces are platforms where NFTs can be stored, displayed, traded and in some cases minted (created). These marketplaces are to NFTs what Amazon or eBay are to goods” (CoinDesk 2021a). |
| Ethereum Request for Comments (ERC)-721 | “ERC-721 defines ‘non-fungible tokens (NFTs)’” (Myers 2023). |
| Ethereum Virtual Machine | “The Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) is the computation engine for Ethereum that manages the state of the blockchain and enables smart contract functionality. The EVM is contained within the client software that you need in order to run a node on Ethereum. Nodes on Ethereum keep copies of transaction data, which the EVM processes to update the distributed ledger” (QuickNode 2023). |
| Fungibility | “Fungibility is substitutability. Two things are fungible if you can swap one for the other without meaningful difference” (Myers 2023). |
| Gas fee | “Ether used to pay for the execution of code by Ethereum” (Myers 2023). |
| Generative | “Generative art is an art form in which an artist develops a system for the creation of individual works. With historical roots in conceptual art, today generative art typically entails the creation of an algorithm using computer code. Randomness is introduced into the artist’s algorithm, and the system outputs a unique artwork” (Art Blocks, n.d.). |
| InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) | A decentralized network that is composed of IPFS nodes that are open and participatory, and which can be used to store NFT metadata and associated assets (IPFS, n.d.). |
| Ledger | “A ledger is a digital or physical log that records transactions associated with a financial system. Blockchain networks are a type of decentralized ledger system designed to store data securely” (Ledger Academy, n.d.). |
| Mining | “Validating blocks in return for rewards including mining fees” (Myers 2023). |
| Minting | “At a high level, the minting process entails a new block being created, NFT information being validated by a validator, and the block being closed. This minting process often entails incorporating smart contracts that assign ownership and manage the transferability of the NFT” (Investopedia, n.d. [b]). |
| Non-fungible token (NFT) | “A cryptographic digital asset that can be uniquely identified within its smart contract” (Myers 2023). |
| Nodes | The networked stakeholders that are authorized to keep track of the distributed ledger, and individual node operators band together to uphold the distributed ledger (Myers 2023). |
| On-chain/Off-chain | “Information of events that occur within blocks of a blockchain, or out in the real world” (Myers 2023). |
| Peer-to-Peer | A peer-to-peer network lets networked participants perform transactions with no need for any intermediaries, central server, or “middleman” (Cointelegraph, n.d. [a]). |
| Proof-of-Stake | “An alternative to Proof-of-Work that uses the ‘staking’ of large amounts of a blockchain’s cryptocurrency to establish who gets to mine the next block. This uses a lot less energy than Proof-of-Work” (Myers 2023). |
| Proof-of-Work | “Performing a computationally-intensive task to prove that the accompanying data is being provided in good faith. Bitcoin and other early cryptocurrencies use it to secure their blockchains by making it costlier to attack the chain than it is to extend it properly” (Myers 2023). |
| Smart contract | “A program stored on the blockchain that executes in response to blockchain transactions” (Myers 2023). |
| Time-stamping | “Time-stamping consists of associating a specific date and time with an event” (Connective 2022). |
| Token(ization) | “A cryptographic token built on top of a cryptocurrency blockchain. The representational proxy for an identifiable and quantifiable ownership claim on some other value or object, real or imagined” (Myers 2023). |
| Wallet | “A piece of software, hardware, or paper used to secure cryptocurrency account keys” (Myers 2023). |
Table 2. Significance Assessment for 81 Horizons
| Significance | Description |
| Historic | The series is linked to Upstream Gallery through the original (yet separate) project, 12 Horizons. The historic references of early-age video game landscapes and cartoon scenery are present in the series. In an art historical consideration, the artwork is not only of born digital art but also of the new era of blockchain-based artworks. Within this new era, the series made its way into the permanent collection of Centre Pompidou. |
| Artistic or aesthetic | The artistic and aesthetic values can be recognized in the characteristics of collectivity and the visual appearance of the artwork. The series is extremely representative of Rozendaal’s oeuvre—bright colors, reduced, simplistic, minimal, and abstracted. The abstraction and reduced nature of Rozendaal’s works shows through this series in a way that may not be as functional as in other cases; the code is small enough to fit on the blockchain, leading to its permanence and self-containment. The various ways in which the artwork can be viewed sits in these values, as well—through an installation, an artist book, and online platforms and websites. |
| Scientific or research potential | Rozendaal’s Museum Folkwang exhibition—Color, Code, Communication—coupled with the sheer amount of research regarding blockchain technology that was discussed and put into motion by professionals in the field during the New Landscapes: NFTs and the Museum symposium exemplifies the series’ potential to impact the blockchain-based art and technology of blockchain. This thesis also shows that the series has very high research potential; associated risks and preservation strategies are being documented thoroughly within the context of this case study. |
| Social or spiritual | The current association of a specific group of people with this series is clear; it embodies a community of owners who have collected the horizons. These collectors find value in the horizons, enough so to become part of its collective ownership. In an even larger social context, the series is part of the larger digital art and NFT community. |
| Provenance | 81 Horizons is a well-documented artwork that has been spoken about by the artist in many instances. The series will likely continue reliably enriching its provenance through every installation, transaction, and sale of token. The various physical and digital manifestations of the artwork are integral to its provenance and permanence. So far, information associated with its existence and history is well kept through exhibition, acquisition, an artist interview, and the blockchain itself. |
| Rarity or representativeness | 81 Horizons answers to these criteria, as it is the only NFT of Rozendaal’s to enter a permanent collection—Centre Pompidou. It has unusual qualities that distinguish it from other blockchain-based artworks, such as that it is fully on-chain. Each horizon is unique and hand picked by Rozendaal. It is representative of Rozendaal’s evolution from creating websites to now minting blockchain-based artworks. |
| Condition or completeness | The condition or completeness criteria are hard to pinpoint, as Rozendaal pointed out that the installation at Museum Folkwang purposefully questions (and does not answer) if the collection is the work or the individual tokens are the work. The exhibition also ambiguously questions what it means to own one of the horizons and what it means to show them altogether. While not clearly being answered, these questions are posed by the artist. For now, all original 81 landscapes are on-chain. If the artwork were to lose some of its constituting parts—the tokens—it is unclear if the artwork would still be the most authentic version of the artwork. |
| Interpretive capacity | The interpretive capacity related to the usability and relevance to the organization’s mission—in this case, Centre Pompidou. For Centre Pompidou, it has a special place in the permanent collection, as it was acquired with numerous other blockchain-related artworks. The series helps to interpret aspects of its context, such as its intended visual appearance to the viewer. |
Table 3. Associated Risks for 81 Horizons
| # | Risk factors | Descriptions |
| 1 | Forgotten passwords | A digital wallet requires a recovery phrase, or secret password, to get access to it. |
| 2 | Incorrectly constructed transactions | Once initiated, transactions cannot be canceled or reversed (Blockchain.com 2023a). |
| 3 | Mistyped addresses | |
| 4 | Server failure or data loss | If all servers and hosts shut down, there will be no blockchain network. “Data loss occurs when valuable or sensitive information on a computer is compromised due to theft, human error, viruses, malware, or power failure” (Investopedia, n.d. [d]). |
| 5 | Corrupted wallet files | Errors can be encountered when attempting to open a digital wallet when the wallet files have been corrupted. It is speculated that it could be from nodes providing information that are contradicting one another (Andrés 2021). |
| 6 | Unauthorized access to applications | “Unauthorised access refers to individuals gaining access to an organisation’s data, networks, endpoints, applications or devices, without permission” (Cynet, n.d.). |
| 7 | Unauthorized third-party activities | |
| 8 | Viruses | “A crypto virus is a type of ransomware virus like Locky or Cryptowall that encrypts files on a compromised computer and demands a ransom in return for a decryption code” (Mimecast, n.d.). |
| 9 | Phishing | “Phishing is a type of cryptocurrency scam that involves tricking victims into giving up their private keys or personal information” (Cointelegraph, n.d. [b]). |
| 10 | Sybil attacks | “A Sybil Attack is a form of online security violation where an entity has numerous fake identities on a blockchain for malicious reasons” (Hacken 2023). |
| 11 | 51% attacks | “An attack on a blockchain by a group of miners controlling over 50% of a network’s mining hashrate—the sum of all computing power dedicated to mining and processing transactions” (CoinDesk 2021b). |
| 12 | Brute-forcing | “A brute force attack on a cryptographic system is trying to decrypt or gain access to a password-protected resource by trying every possible combination of characters in the password” (Crypto Adventure, n.d.). |
| 13 | Loss of private key(s) | Private key(s) are needed to access a digital wallet, and if lost, there is no recovery available. |
| 14 | Custodial error | Custodial wallets are when a third party manages the private key and it is possible for a custodial platform to suffer a security breach (Blockchain.com 2023b). |
| 15 | Purchase error | Failure of purchase often is due to using an insufficient fee or omitting the fee completely (Blockchain.com 2023c). |
| 16 | Mining attacks | Cryptomining malware, or “cryptojacking,” is a malware attack that co-opts the target’s computing resources to mine cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (ExtraHop, n.d.). |
| 17 | Hacking | Hacking is gaining unauthorized access and can happen to digital wallets, NFTs, and blockchain. |
| 18 | Security weaknesses | Security weakness is any kind of vulnerability of flaw that could weaken the overall security of the system. For blockchain technology, security weaknesses can result in fraud, 51% attacks, Sybil attacks, and so forth. |
| 19 | Unfavorable regulatory intervention in one or more jurisdictions | Regulation is “a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law” (Merriam Webster 2023). Regulatory intervention therefore is when a rule or order is used as a means of intervention. |
| 20 | Token taxation | “In most countries, crypto is subject to Capital Gains Tax. You’ll pay Capital Gains Tax on any profits you make from selling, trading, spending or (sometimes) gifting crypto” (Koinly 2022). |
| 21 | Personal information disclosure | “The term ‘personal information’ is defined slightly differently across privacy laws, but it always refers to information that can be used to identify an individual such as a name, home address, phone number, and even an IP address” (TermsFeed 2019). |
| 22 | Uninsured losses | Uninsured losses could include losses from hacks, lefts, or lawsuits (Reed Smith LLP, n.d.). |
| 23 | Unanticipated risks | Any risks that cannot be foreseen. |
| 24 | Volatility risks | “Volatility is a measure of how much the price of an asset has moved up or down over time” (Coinbase, n.d.). Both the NFT market and crypto market can change unpredictably and rapidly. |
| 25 | Fraud (e.g., wash trading, impersonations, rug pulling | Fraud is the act of wrongful deception for financial or personal gain. Wash trading is “when an NFT creator or seller inflates the price of their NFT” (Ingold 2022). Impersonators lie and sell their own NFTs as the work of an actual famous artist. Rug pulling is when “an NFT seller announces a new NFT project that is supposed to come with future features, to appeal to investors. The seller then closes the project and takes off with the money once the first element of the supposed project is sold” (Ingold 2022). |
| 26 | Obsolescence | “Obsolescence becomes a condition that affects an element or system when it or its parts are no longer commercially available or supported by the industry that produced them, usually because a new product was introduced in the market that fulfills or substitutes the function of the previous product” (Falcão 2010). |
| 27 | Mal-interpretation | Mal-interpretation is the wrongful interpretation of an artwork, effecting conceptual and contextual integrity (Brokerhof et al. 2011). |
| 28 | Dissociation | Dissociation is when “the link between an object or collection and the associated knowledge, information or documentation is broken” (Brokerhof, Ankersmit, and Ligterink 2017). |
| 29 | Market interdependency | The NFT market and crypto market can be dependent on each other. |
| 30 | Burning | “Burning an NFT is equal to destroying it. The process involves sending a token to an un-spendable address that no one has access to. Once you burn an NFT, you can’t recover it” (BitKan.com, n.d.). |
Table 4. Groupings of Risks Based on the Primary Groups It May Affect
| Groupings | Risks |
| Collector | Forgotten passwords, incorrectly constructed transactions, mistyped addresses, corrupted wallet files, unauthorized access to applications, unauthorized third-party activities, viruses, phishing, brute-forcing, loss of private key(s), custodial error, purchase error, mining attacks, unfavorable regulatory intervention in one or more jurisdictions, token taxation, uninsured losses, fraud |
| Creator | Forgotten passwords, incorrectly constructed transactions, mistyped addresses, corrupted wallet files, unauthorized access to applications, unauthorized third-party activities, viruses, phishing, brute-forcing, loss of private key(s), custodial error, purchase error, mining attacks, token taxation, uninsured losses, fraud, mal-interpretation |
| Market | Volatility risks, market interdependency, obsolescence |
| Cultural Institutions | Mal-interpretation, obsolescence |
| Blockchain | Sybil attacks, 51% attacks, obsolescence |
| NFT | Burning |
| All | Server failure or data loss, hacking, security weaknesses, unanticipated risks, dissociation |
NOTE
- I would like to include a disclaimer that I am not an NFT expert, and I carried out this research to the best of my understanding of the technology involved between January and June of 2023. The landscape of blockchain technology is constantly changing and evolving, which makes it difficult to stay up to date with every piece of new knowledge that arises. Since the world is constantly in flux, the methodology used in this research will likely need to keep updating frequently.
REFERENCES
Andrés. 2021. “How to Solve a Corrupt Wallet File with Monerujo.” Medium Blog, July 19. https://anhdres.medium.com/how-to-solve-a-corrupt-wallet-file-with-monerujo-19fc621b1f2d.
Art Blocks. n.d. “How It Works.” Accessed June 25, 2023. https://www.artblocks.io/info/how-it-works.
Bell, John, Jon Ippolito, and Regina Harsanyi. n.d. “Right-Click to Save: Preservation, NFTs, and Distributed Ledgers.” Panel presented at the ISEA2022: 27th International Symposium on Electronic Art: Summit on New Media Art Archiving, Barcelona, Spain. Accessed March 1, 2023. https://isea2022.isea-international.org/event/panel-right-click-to-save-preservation-nfts-and-distributed-ledgers/.
BitKan.com. n.d. “How to Burn an NFT and Why Are NFTs Burned?” Accessed June 23, 2023. https://bitkan.com/learn/how-to-burn-an-nft-and-why-are-nfts-burned-9968.
Blockchain.com. 2023a. “Can My Transaction Be Canceled or Reversed?” Blockchain Support Center. https://support.blockchain.com/hc/en-us/articles/211162263-Can-my-transaction-be-canceled-or-reversed-.
Blockchain.com. 2023b. “Custodial vs. Non-Custodial: What’s the Difference?” Blockchain Support Center. https://support.blockchain.com/hc/en-us/articles/4417087807380-Custodial-vs-Non-Custodial-What-s-the-difference-.
Blockchain.com. 2023c. “Why Was My Transaction Rejected?” Blockchain Support Center. https://support.blockchain.com/hc/en-us/articles/4417071819924-Why-was-my-transaction-rejected-.
Brokerhof, Agnes, Bart Ankersmit, and Frank Ligterink. 2017. Risk Management for Collections, edited by David Saunders. Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed.
Brokerhof, Agnes, Tatja Scholte, Bart Ankersmit, Gaby Wijers, and Simone Vermaat. 2011. “Installation Art Subjected to Risk Assessment: Jeffrey Shaw’s Revolution as Case Study.” In Inside Installations: Theory and Practice in the Care of Complex Artworks, edited by Tatja Scholte and Glenn Wharton. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 91–101.
Christie’s Inc. n.d. “Conditions of Sale for Christie’s Inc.” https://nft.christies.com/conditions-of-sale#:~:text=Christie%27s%20reserves%20the%20right%2C%20in,even%20if%20the%20bidding%20has.
Coinbase. n.d. “What Is Volatility?” Accessed June 23, 2023. https://www.coinbase.com/learn/crypto-basics/what-is-volatility.
CoinDesk. 2021a. “NFT Marketplaces: A Beginner’s Guide.” https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2021/07/12/nft-marketplaces-a-beginners-guide/.
CoinDesk. 2021b. “What Is a 51% Attack?” https://www.coindesk.com/learn/what-is-a-51-attack/.
Cointelegraph. n.d. (a). “What Are Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Blockchain Networks and How Do They Work?” Accessed June 24, 2023. https://cointelegraph.com/learn/what-are-peer-to-peer-p2p-blockchain-networks-and-how-do-they-work.
Cointelegraph. n.d. (b). “What Is a Phishing Attack in Crypto, and How to Prevent It?” Accessed June 23, 2023. https://cointelegraph.com/learn/what-is-a-phishing-attack-in-crypto-and-how-to-prevent-it.
Connective. 2022. “What Is Time-Stamping?” https://connective.eu/time-stamping-definition-advantages-and-limits/.
Crypto Adventure. n.d. “What Is a Crypto Brute Force Attack?” Crypto Adventure Blog, January 10. Accessed June 23, 2023. https://cryptoadventure.com/community/articles/short-series-what-is-a-crypto-brute-force-attack/.
Cynet. n.d. “Unauthorized Access: 5 Best Practices to Avoid Data Breaches.” Accessed June 25, 2023. https://www.cynet.com/network-attacks/unauthorized-access-5-best-practices-to-avoid-the-next-data-breach/.
Ethereum. 2023. “Introduction to Smart Contracts.” https://ethereum.org.
ExtraHop. n.d. “Cryptomining Malware: Definition, Examples, and Prevention.” Accessed June 23, 2023. https://www.extrahop.com/resources/attacks/cryptomining/.
Falcão, Patricia. 2010. “Developing a Risk Assessment Tool for the Conservation of Software- Based Artworks.” Bern: University of the Arts. https://www.academia.edu/6660777/Developing_a_Risk_Assessment_Tool_for_the_conservation_of_software_based_artworks.
Foundation for the Conservation of Contemporary Art (SBMK). 2007. “Inside Installations: Preservation and Presentation of Installation Art.” https://www.sbmk.nl/source/documents/inside-installations-kl.pdf.
Frankenfield, Jake. 2022. “What Is a Block in the Crypto Blockchain, and How Does It Work?” Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/block-bitcoin-block.asp.
Guggenheim New York. n.d. “The Variable Media Initiative.” The Guggenheim Museums and Foundation. Accessed March 1, 2023. https://www.guggenheim.org/conservation/the-variable-media-initiative.
Hacken. 2023. “Sybil Attack in Blockchain: Examples & Prevention.” Hacken Blog, February 16. https://hacken.io/insights/sybil-attacks/.
Ingold, Lucy. 2022. “NFTs: Risks, Rewards, Ethics.” Seven Pillars Institute. https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/nfts-risks-rewards-ethics/.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2018. ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management—Guidelines. 2nd ed. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100426.pdf.
Investopedia. n.d. (a). “Cryptocurrency Explained with Pros and Cons for Investment.” Accessed June 25, 2023. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cryptocurrency.asp.
Investopedia. n.d. (b). “Non-Fungible Token (NFT): What It Means and How It Works.” Accessed June 25, 2023. https://www.investopedia.com/non-fungible-tokens-nft-5115211.
Investopedia. n.d. (c). “What Is Bitcoin? How to Mine, Buy, and Use It.” Accessed June 25, 2023. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bitcoin.asp.
Investopedia. n.d. (d). “What Is Data Loss?” Accessed June 25, 2023. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/data-loss.asp.
IPFS. n.d. “IPFS Powers the Distributed Web.” Accessed May 15, 2023. https://ipfs.tech/.
Ippolito, Jon. 2021. “NFTs: Myth and Reality.” Webinar presented at the New Media, University of Maine, May 25. https://nmdprojects.net/teleconferences/nmd_webinar_nft_2021.html.
Koinly. 2022. “Crypto Tax 101: What Is Cryptocurrency Capital Gains Tax?” https://koinly.io/blog/101-capital-gains-tax/.
Ledger Academy. n.d. “Ledger Meaning.” Accessed June 25, 2023. https://www.ledger.com/academy/glossary/ledger.
McCoy, Kevin. 2022. “Art and NFTs: Past and Future.” Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 45 (3): 353–60.
Merriam Webster. 2023. “Definition of Regulation.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulation.
Michalski, Stefan. 1990. “An Overall Framework for Preventive Conservation and Remedial Conservation.” ICOM Committee for Conservation. 9th Triennial Meeting. Dresden. Paris: ICOM. 2:589–91.
Mimecast. n.d. “What Is a Crypto Virus?” Accessed June 23, 2023. https://www.mimecast.com/content/crypto-virus/.
Myers, Rhea. 2023. “Glossary.” In Proof of Work: Blockchain Provocations 2011–2021. Falmouth, UK: Urbanomic.
Museum Folkwang. n.d. “New Landscapes: NFTs and the Museum.” Accessed February 19, 2025. https://www.museum-folkwang.de/de/ausstellung/rafael-rozendaal/new-landscapes-nfts-and-museum.
Museum Folkwang. 2023. “Rafaël Rozendaal: Color, Code, Communication.” Exhibitions Blog, April 20. https://www.museum-folkwang.de/en/exhibition/rafael-rozendaal.
QuickNode. 2023. “What Is the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)?” https://www.quicknode.com/guides/ethereum-development/getting-started/what-is-the-ethereum-virtual-machine-evm.
Reed Smith LLP. n.d. “Cryptocurrency Insurance: Protecting Crypto Assets after FTX Collapse.” n.d. Accessed June 23, 2023. https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/cyber-insurance-claims/2023/06/cryptocurrency-insurance-protecting-crypto-assets-after-ftx-collapse.
Reyburn, Scott. 2021. “$69 Million Art Sale Amid ‘NFT Mania.’” The New York Times, March 12.
Rozendaal, Rafaël. 2023a. 81 Horizons, edited by Museum Folkwang. Cologne, Germany: Walther and Franz König Ltd.
Rozendaal, Rafaël. 2023b. “Interview with Rafaël Rozendaal.” Interview by Olivia Schoenfeld. Zoom. Transcript.
Russell, Roslyn, and Kylie Winkworth. 2009. “Significance 2.0: A Guide to Assessing the Significance of Collections.” Collections Council of Australia LTD. https://www.arts.gov.au/what-we-do/museums-libraries-and-galleries/significance-20.
Schoenfeld, Olivia. 2023. Personal communication. Letter to Rafaël Rozendaal: “Statement of Significance Draft Email,” June 4.
TermsFeed. 2019. “What Is Personal Information under Privacy Laws.” 2019. https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/personal-information-privacy-laws/.
Upstream Gallery. n.d. “81 Horizons.” Upstream Gallery Blog. Accessed May 1, 2023. https://www.upstreamgallery.nl.
Upstream Gallery. 2023. “Centre Pompidou Acquires NFT Artworks by Rafaël Rozendaal.” Upstream Gallery Blog, February 11. https://www.upstreamgallery.nl/news/1255/centre-pompidou-acquires-nft-artworks-by-rafael-rozendaal.
FURTHER READING
Abrams, Nora Burnett, and Amy Whitaker. 2021. “MCA Denver Presents…NFTs: Putting the FUN in Non-Fungible Tokens.” https://mcadenver.org/event-series-nfts-fun.
Bracegirdle, Anne, Claudia Hart, Kenny Schachter, and Jerry Saltz. 2021. “NFTs: Fad or the Future of Art?” https://hirshhorn.si.edu/explore/nfts-fad-or-the-future-of-art/.
LACMA. n.d. “NFTs and the Museum.” Accessed March 1, 2023. https://www.lacma.org/lab/nfts-and-museum.
AUTHORS
Olivia Schoenfeld
Post-Master’s Student, Contemporary Art Conservation Specialisation
University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Schoenfeldoj@gmail.com
Ellen Jansen
Supervising Lecturer, Contemporary Art Conservation Specialisation
University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
E.M.Jansen@uva.nl