NFTs - the way of the future?

[vieri]

In today's fast developing cryptoworld, NFT (see here: https://ethereum.org/en/nft/) are gaining new followers, collectors and creators everyday. While there are people on both sides of the fence, lovers and haters, supporters and denigrators, believers and sceptics, it is clear to me that NFTs are here to stay - as are blockchain and cryptocurrencies.

Personally, I find NFTs interesting for various reasons.

Commercially, I love the fact that hey are adding unicity to what would otherwise be just another digital file that everyone can copy, duplicate and share without recognising any compensation - or even credit - to the author.

Artistically, as a Fine Art landscape photographer who has been working for a long time on investigating the effects of time on still images, and on representing it in my photographs, I love the fact that they will stay around forever - as much as there can be such a thing as "forever" in the first place, of course - and that adds a layer of "timelessness" to my work on the effects of time. Plus, it gives me the possibility to play with moving stills in a way that the printed medium obviously doesn't allow me to do.

Last, I love the fact that the files are "out there" divided among all and belonging to none, so to speak - the beauty of blockchain applied to art.

Therefore, I started a Foundation account where I started collecting art, and where I also will be minting my own, starting soon now that I became a creator. Here it is, for those interested: https://foundation.app/vieribottazzini

So, what do you think about NFT and their application to the art of photography? Looking forward to your thoughts, best regards

Vieri

 

[Shashin]

I am not sure if it is just a fad. Right now, people are making money off of blockchain currencies, but they are not a currency, just speculative digits. When there is a crash, will people stick to it?

The bigger criticism of blockchain is the environmental cost. It takes a huge amount of energy to run a blockchain. This is a classic case of a market failure due to externalities. If people also had to pay the power cost of their blockchain investment, it would not look good.

The social implication is simply creating more wealth inequality. These things are really just pursuits of those with means.

As far as art or photography, it is an interesting idea, but I am not really sure of its value. You can ownership abstractly, but it does not stop people from simply copying the file and using it as they please. Unlike a copy of a painting, this is a duplication of a file, which does not lose any of the "material" nature of the work. There is only one Mona Lisa, but a copy of an electronic file is simply a multiplicity.

 

[vieri]

I am not sure if it is just a fad. Right now, people are making money off of blockchain currencies, but they are not a currency, just speculative digits. When there is a crash, will people stick to it?

The bigger criticism of blockchain is the environmental cost. It takes a huge amount of energy to run a blockchain. This is a classic case of a market failure due to externalities. If people also had to pay the power cost of their blockchain investment, it would not look good.

The social implication is simply creating more wealth inequality. These things are really just pursuits of those with means.

As far as art or photography, it is an interesting idea, but I am not really sure of its value. You can ownership abstractly, but it does not stop people from simply copying the file and using it as they please. Unlike a copy of a painting, this is a duplication of a file, which does not lose any of the "material" nature of the work. There is only one Mona Lisa, but a copy of an electronic file is simply a multiplicity.

Interesting points. Blockchain's environmental impact is definitely a concern, as is concerning (to me, at least) any human activity that impacts on the environment - which is pretty much everything we do, as humans. On the good side, power can be obtained through the use of renewable sources, which would solve that part of the problem, to a degree at least.

As far as the inequality, that's true of any sort of investment / speculation, and true of any form of art collecting: only the wealthy can pursue investments, and only the wealthy can pursue collecting any kind of art. That is true in the case of any art, not just digital one. On the good side, one could argue that the price of entry for blockchain investments is very low: you can buy very small amounts of cryptocurrencies and potentially make more money than you could with pretty much any other kind of investment, thus working to redistribute wealth rather than the other way round. I.e., if you bought 10 bitcoins when they came out, spending less than 1k US, you would now have over half a million dollars...

As far as the digital art part, you can definitely duplicate the jpg side of a NFT; this is a concern for the buyer, of course, but what is interesting to me, as a creator, is that someone doing so in this case doesn't impact my gain as a creator, whereas it is difficult to sell a jpg without the NFT part of it for the same money one can potentially sell a NFT.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Shashin]

Interesting points. Blockchain's environmental impact is definitely a concern, as is concerning (to me, at least) any human activity that impacts on the environment - which is pretty much everything we do, as humans. On the good side, power can be obtained through the use of renewable sources, which would solve that part of the problem, to a degree at least.

I guess you are more optimistic about moving away from fossil fuel than I am. But lets say we go to renewable energy, how much renewable infrastructure needs to be developed, including the land and material resources, to support blockchain technology, including its growth? Right now, these currencies use more energy than Ireland. The internet has brought a great revolution in information and technology, but somehow we think this is free, when the material and energy costs are simply increasing. And we are about to hit 8 billion people on our tiny world.

As far as the inequality, that's true of any sort of investment / speculation, and true of any form of art collecting: only the wealthy can pursue investments, and only the wealthy can pursue collecting any kind of art. That is true in the case of any art, not just digital one. On the good side, one could argue that the price of entry for blockchain investments is very low: you can buy very small amounts of cryptocurrencies and potentially make more money than you could with pretty much any other kind of investment, thus working to redistribute wealth rather than the other way round. I.e., if you bought 10 bitcoins when they came out, spending less than 1k US, you would now have over half a million dollars...

Is it a low cost entry? What technology and knowledge do you need to mine bitcoins? When the median household income world wide is less than $10,000 annually and 40% do not have internet access, how accessible and cheap is it?

For many people, $1,000 is a lot of money (40% of US adults say they would not have $400 in cash to spend in case of a medical emergency and only 53% of the US population have stock/investment assets). You are also assuming that bitcoin value can only increase? Where does the value come from? Is it supported by real assets? Bitcoin is not like any other investments. Even if we take into account that it is not regulated in any way.

As far as being secure, what if you forget your bitcoin password? Or you lose the drive, stolen, destroyed, or broken, with the password on it? How much is your investment worth?

Lost Passwords Lock Millionaires Out of Their Bitcoin Fortunes (Published 2021)

Bitcoin owners are getting rich because the cryptocurrency has soared. But what happens when you can’t tap that wealth because you forgot the password to your digital wallet?

www.nytimes.com

Did I mention these investments are not regulated or secure? In 2020, $1.4 billion in crypto currencies were stolen or hacked.

As far as the digital art part, you can definitely duplicate the jpg side of a NFT; this is a concern for the buyer, of course, but what is interesting to me, as a creator, is that someone doing so in this case doesn't impact my gain as a creator, whereas it is difficult to sell a jpg without the NFT part of it for the same money one can potentially sell a NFT.

Best regards,



Vieri

I think this does present an interesting idea for digital art. One problem has always been how to make digital art unique in where it can be a property. I think for artists, this present an interesting option. I don't think it will be widespread, as only those that can establish a certain reputation will benefit. It will also require a new type of buyer. How long term this is is unknown. I remember when ebooks came out, there was an idea that this would be a boon for writers/artists. It worked OK for some writers, but it has not panned out for visual artists and designers. This was the excitement initially about the internet, where photographers saw a whole new market for their work, only to see the value of their work decrease faster than the gain in sales.

But an interesting topic and issue.

 

[vieri]

I guess you are more optimistic about moving away from fossil fuel than I am. But lets say we go to renewable energy, how much renewable infrastructure needs to be developed, including the land and material resources, to support blockchain technology, including its growth? Right now, these currencies use more energy than Ireland. The internet has brought a great revolution in information and technology, but somehow we think this is free, when the material and energy costs are simply increasing. And we are about to hit 8 billion people on our tiny world.

I am always optimist - more than that, I do believe that we kinda need to move away from fossil fuel, to make life on the planet sustainable in the medium to long run.

Is it a low cost entry? What technology and knowledge do you need to mine bitcoins? When the median household income world wide is less than $10,000 annually and 40% do not have internet access, how accessible and cheap is it?

To invest in bitcoin, which is what I was talking about, you need zero knowledge and technology. It's much cheaper than having an investment portfolio with any financial institution, at least in my local.

For many people, $1,000 is a lot of money (40% of US adults say they would not have $400 in cash to spend in case of a medical emergency and only 53% of the US population have stock/investment assets). You are also assuming that bitcoin value can only increase? Where does the value come from? Is it supported by real assets? Bitcoin is not like any other investments. Even if we take into account that it is not regulated in any way.

I am not assuming that bitcoin will always increase in value, I never said that. As far as being supported by real assets, most investments stopped being supported by real assets a long time ago.

As far as being secure, what if you forget your bitcoin password? Or you lose the drive, stolen, destroyed, or broken, with the password on it? How much is your investment worth?

Lost Passwords Lock Millionaires Out of Their Bitcoin Fortunes (Published 2021)

Bitcoin owners are getting rich because the cryptocurrency has soared. But what happens when you can’t tap that wealth because you forgot the password to your digital wallet?

www.nytimes.com

True, one needs to be savvy with their passwords, if you forget them you have no way to get into your account. If you forget a bag full of cash on a park's bench, I guess you have the same chance of finding it again

I think this does present an interesting idea for digital art. One problem has always been how to make digital art unique in where it can be a property. I think for artists, this present an interesting option. I don't think it will be widespread, as only those that can establish a certain reputation will benefit. It will also require a new type of buyer. How long term this is is unknown. I remember when ebooks came out, there was an idea that this would be a boon for writers/artists. It worked OK for some writers, but it has not panned out for visual artists and designers. This was the excitement initially about the internet, where photographers saw a whole new market for their work, only to see the value of their work decrease faster than the gain in sales.

But an interesting topic and issue.

That's exactly the point. Making digital art unique. As far as the spread, as everything else it will benefit only artists with a reputation; not everyone can sell million dollars prints, after all, so that won't be any different than the "physical art" world. I totally agree with you about NFTs requiring a completely new type of buyers - which actually works great, to me, to make NFTs an add to my portfolio of products and ways to get my photography out there, without competing with my "traditional" outlets, which are fine art prints. In my particular case, since I sell Fine Art prints in editions of one copy only, the fact that NFTs are also single editions works well to integrate them into my offer more seamlessly, so to speak.

As far as the long term, only time will tell. I believe that blockchains are here to stay, and NFTs are very likely here to stay as well. To expand on your point above, re: established artists, I believe that getting in the game early and creating a reputation is the best way to ensure a long life to one's business. If, on the other hand, the thing will just disappear in a short time, for me personally it will be a matter of writing off a few hundred dollars worth of minted artwork - not the end of the world, and in my opinion definitely worth a try

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[robert kuprion]

wOW, i AM SO FAR BEHIND EVERYONE. i HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS CONVERSATION IS ABOUT. i AM STILL WAY BACK WITH MY BROWN COLORED FINGERS IN THE DEVELOPING TRAYS. bOB kUPRION

 

[vieri]

wOW, i AM SO FAR BEHIND EVERYONE. i HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS CONVERSATION IS ABOUT. i AM STILL WAY BACK WITH MY BROWN COLORED FINGERS IN THE DEVELOPING TRAYS. bOB kUPRION

It seems that you also have your caps working backwards! Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Jack]

I was at a photographic artists gallery about 6 years ago near Glacier National Park. He said the only pictures that sold anymore were pictures of larger fires, and the occasional bear fighting or fishing -- and then it was mostly an 8x10 or postcard. He said none of his landscapes sold anymore at all. His reasoning was, "Those cell phone cameras are getting too good." I thought it was a sophomoric comment at the time, but it turned out to be prophetic and he was maybe 2 years ahead of time. I know very few successful landscape photographers that are maintaining a brisk large print sales stream today. Most successful commercial photographers I know have gone to a much heavier percentage of video production. Very few do commissioned commercial work. Weddings and real estate are two markets that still thrive, but even most of those are going to video and abandoning stills -- and there's little need for NFT in them... We live in such a rapidly changing world, that nobody appreciates anything static anymore -- even a video after they've seen it once.

When was the last time you viewed your own wedding album?

Long way around to get to my point: I think NFT is a solution to a photographic art world "problem" that doesn't exist -- most people simply don't care about that medium enough anymore, and the ones of us that do are so few in number we're irrelevant... And then who cares if you copy and share an advertising image or video -- that's just free advertising... Blockbuster large-screen productions and music, it makes obvious sense -- those "files" are viewed or listened to by large numbers of people and easily shared if not protected. It also makes sense for the online gaming and bit-coin worlds in the form of tracking ownership. But I (sadly) don't see a large enough base in the still image art world to support it.

 

[tcdeveau]

Blockchain and NFTs leave me scratching my head - in general I see the tech as solutions to problems that don’t exist. Perhaps it’s a sign I’m officially over the hill and have become a luddite but I just don’t get it...

NFTs in particular seem like a fad of just trying to cash in on the popularity of cryptocurrency at the moment. Some NFTs also seem to be available in the public domain (like tweets), so I really don’t get those.

Photography, landscape photography especially, I think has become a commodity with a lot of photographers shooting the same things as other people with the same gear. From my personal experience, most people don’t even want to buy prints...so If ppl aren’t buying prints why would they buy NFTs?

Obviously my experience is not everyone else’s, and there are photographers out there that have made it to a place where photography is their full time gig based on print sales. Maybe NFTs would work well for them?

Wish the best to those that give it a go!

 

[vieri]

I was at a photographic artists gallery about 6 years ago near Glacier National Park. He said the only pictures that sold anymore were pictures of larger fires, and the occasional bear fighting or fishing -- and then it was mostly an 8x10 or postcard. He said none of his landscapes sold anymore at all. His reasoning was, "Those cell phone cameras are getting too good." I thought it was a sophomoric comment at the time, but it turned out to be prophetic and he was maybe 2 years ahead of time. I know very few successful landscape photographers that are maintaining a brisk large print sales stream today. Most successful commercial photographers I know have gone to a much heavier percentage of video production. Very few do commissioned commercial work. Weddings and real estate are two markets that still thrive, but even most of those are going to video and abandoning stills -- and there's little need for NFT in them... We live in such a rapidly changing world, that nobody appreciates anything static anymore -- even a video after they've seen it once.

When was the last time you viewed your own wedding album?

Long way around to get to my point: I think NFT is a solution to a photographic art world "problem" that doesn't exist -- most people simply don't care about that medium enough anymore, and the ones of us that do are so few in number we're irrelevant... And then who cares if you copy and share an advertising image or video -- that's just free advertising... Blockbuster large-screen productions and music, it makes obvious sense -- those "files" are viewed or listened to by large numbers of people and easily shared if not protected. It also makes sense for the online gaming and bit-coin worlds in the form of tracking ownership. But I (sadly) don't see a large enough base in the still image art world to support it.

Hello Jack,

great to see you! Hope you are doing well.

Thank you for chiming in. I am much more of an optimist than you, perhaps, but I am not sure I share your view on this. To me, if the guy owning a gallery couldn't sell landscapes because "these cellphones cameras are getting too good", that tells me a lot about the quality of his landscape photos, more than about the possibility of selling landscape photos in general. When market changes, and buyers change, it is our job to offer artworks that are artistically way beyond what cellphones can do, and it's our job to educate the public to understand the difference. If there is one, of course - which I believe there is. If we fail to do so, we can blame cellphones as much as we want, but we should really blame ourselves instead.

About the future of cryptocurrencies and NFTs in general, I think time will tell. It's too young a technology to know for sure what will happen, but it looks like blockchain is here to stay, since it has so many applications besides NFT and cryptocurrencies. If it will stay, then there is a good chance that cryptocurrencies and NFT will also stay. Will we be able to create art that can find interested buyers, using that platform? That's up to us - sure, there will always be more people interested in flashing gifs than in black & white landscape photography; the question is, is the base large enough to sustain artists selling their work on that platform - you say there isn't, and that might be true; I believe there might be,
and since for me it's a very small investment to dedicate time to create and mint artworks to be sold as NFT, since it's fun to be (or at least feel) cutting edge , and since it's something that shows potential - so why not? After all, if one never risks and invests, one never gains

Blockchain and NFTs leave me scratching my head - in general I see the tech as solutions to problems that don’t exist. Perhaps it’s a sign I’m officially over the hill and have become a luddite but I just don’t get it...

NFTs in particular seem like a fad of just trying to cash in on the popularity of cryptocurrency at the moment. Some NFTs also seem to be available in the public domain (like tweets), so I really don’t get those.

Photography, landscape photography especially, I think has become a commodity with a lot of photographers shooting the same things as other people with the same gear. From my personal experience, most people don’t even want to buy prints...so If ppl aren’t buying prints why would they buy NFTs?

Obviously my experience is not everyone else’s, and there are photographers out there that have made it to a place where photography is their full time gig based on print sales. Maybe NFTs would work well for them?

Wish the best to those that give it a go!

Blockchain's inner workings are a mystery to me as well; as I mentioned above, I believe blockchain is here to stay, and if that's true, then NFTs are also here to stay. As all markets, after the initial craze there will be people that disappear - or that will just keep posting work that nobody buys - and people that will flourish, like with everything else.

The discussion about landscape photography, and the approach to making something that could be considered - and sold - as an artwork using landscape photography as one's "mean of expression", so to speak, is a very interesting one and one with a wider scope than NFT, I think. For sure there is a lot of landscape photography that falls into your and Jack's category, photos that are "not artistic enough" so to speak, that they simply disappear in a sea of million images like them. But, whether this mean that it's actually not possible to use landscape photography as a medium to express an artistic vision that might interest collectors, buyers and the public in general that's a different story. Obviously, I believe that to be possible.

If we agree that it's still possible to make art based on landscape photography, then we should agree that such art is also sellable; if we agree that there can be sellable art based on landscape photography, then it's a matter of understanding which medium will support that best to which public. Fine art prints printed on paper? Definitely, for a certain public. Photos printed on aluminium / acrylic? Definitely, for a certain public. NFTs? Well, I don't know just yet, that's the topic of this thread - perhaps yes, perhaps no; time will tell. Is it worth exploring? For me it is, as I said above in my answer to Jack, since for me it's a very small investment to dedicate time to create and mint artworks to be sold as NFT, since it's fun to be (or at least feel) cutting edge , and since it's something that shows potential - so why not? After all, if one never risks and invests, one never gains.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[tcdeveau]

Hello Jack,

great to see you! Hope you are doing well.

Thank you for chiming in. I am much more of an optimist than you, perhaps, but I am not sure I share your view on this. To me, if the guy owning a gallery couldn't sell landscapes because "these cellphones cameras are getting too good", that tells me a lot about the quality of his landscape photos, more than about the possibility of selling landscape photos in general. When market changes, and buyers change, it is our job to offer artworks that are artistically way beyond what cellphones can do, and it's our job to educate the public to understand the difference. If there is one, of course - which I believe there is. If we fail to do so, we can blame cellphones as much as we want, but we should really blame ourselves instead.

About the future of cryptocurrencies and NFTs in general, I think time will tell. It's too young a technology to know for sure what will happen, but it looks like blockchain is here to stay, since it has so many applications besides NFT and cryptocurrencies. If it will stay, then there is a good chance that cryptocurrencies and NFT will also stay. Will we be able to create art that can find interested buyers, using that platform? That's up to us - sure, there will always be more people interested in flashing gifs than in black & white landscape photography; the question is, is the base large enough to sustain artists selling their work on that platform - you say there isn't, and that might be true; I believe there might be,
and since for me it's a very small investment to dedicate time to create and mint artworks to be sold as NFT, since it's fun to be (or at least feel) cutting edge , and since it's something that shows potential - so why not? After all, if one never risks and invests, one never gains



Blockchain's inner workings are a mystery to me as well; as I mentioned above, I believe blockchain is here to stay, and if that's true, then NFTs are also here to stay. As all markets, after the initial craze there will be people that disappear - or that will just keep posting work that nobody buys - and people that will flourish, like with everything else.

The discussion about landscape photography, and the approach to making something that could be considered - and sold - as an artwork using landscape photography as one's "mean of expression", so to speak, is a very interesting one and one with a wider scope than NFT, I think. For sure there is a lot of landscape photography that falls into your and Jack's category, photos that are "not artistic enough" so to speak, that they simply disappear in a sea of million images like them. But, whether this mean that it's actually not possible to use landscape photography as a medium to express an artistic vision that might interest collectors, buyers and the public in general that's a different story. Obviously, I believe that to be possible.

If we agree that it's still possible to make art based on landscape photography, then we should agree that such art is also sellable; if we agree that there can be sellable art based on landscape photography, then it's a matter of understanding which medium will support that best to which public. Fine art prints printed on paper? Definitely, for a certain public. Photos printed on aluminium / acrylic? Definitely, for a certain public. NFTs? Well, I don't know just yet, that's the topic of this thread - perhaps yes, perhaps no; time will tell. Is it worth exploring? For me it is, as I said above in my answer to Jack, since for me it's a very small investment to dedicate time to create and mint artworks to be sold as NFT, since it's fun to be (or at least feel) cutting edge , and since it's something that shows potential - so why not? After all, if one never risks and invests, one never gains.

Best regards,

Vieri

By all means Vieri, give it a go! It’s certainly worth a try and more established artists have a better shot at taking advantage of NFTs than most.

Part of my own cynical outlook is no matter how complimentary people have been when they’ve seen prints of mine exhibited, it’s never translated into actual sales. There could be a million reasons for that (maybe the medium is the issue after all and digital is better) but I’ve given up on selling prints - and commercial photography in any capacity - just for fun now Combine a cynical outlook with a technology I don’t understand (or get why it exists in the first place - digital work can be sold sans blockchain after all), and I personally just don’t “get [NFTs]”.

That said, please keep us updated on how it goes! Not that I’d rush our and start selling NFTs if you’re successful but because we all wish you success. I think there’s a Phase One ambassador I follow on Instagram that recently sold a piece of his as an NFT for the equivalent of $60k USD....maybe you can have similar success?

 

[Godfrey]

It would help if you had said what an "NFT" was so that I didn't have to go look it up.

People are spending millions on NFTs. What? Why?

NFT WTF FAQ.

www.theverge.com

G

In today's fast developing cryptoworld, NFT are gaining new followers, collectors and creators everyday. While there are people on both sides of the fence, lovers and haters, supporters and denigrators, believers and sceptics, it is clear to me that NFTs are here to stay - as are blockchain and cryptocurrencies.

Personally, I find NFTs interesting for various reasons.

Commercially, I love the fact that hey are adding unicity to what would otherwise be just another digital file that everyone can copy, duplicate and share without recognising any compensation - or even credit - to the author.

Artistically, as a Fine Art landscape photographer who has been working for a long time on investigating the effects of time on still images, and on representing it in my photographs, I love the fact that they will stay around forever - as much as there can be such a thing as "forever" in the first place, of course - and that adds a layer of "timelessness" to my work on the effects of time. Plus, it gives me the possibility to play with moving stills in a way that the printed medium obviously doesn't allow me to do.

Last, I love the fact that the files are "out there" divided among all and belonging to none, so to speak - the beauty of blockchain applied to art.

Therefore, I started a Foundation account where I started collecting art, and where I also will be minting my own, starting soon now that I became a creator. Here it is, for those interested: https://foundation.app/vieribottazzini

So, what do you think about NFT and their application to the art of photography? Looking forward to your thoughts, best regards

Vieri

 

[vieri]

By all means Vieri, give it a go! It’s certainly worth a try and more established artists have a better shot at taking advantage of NFTs than most.

Part of my own cynical outlook is no matter how complimentary people have been when they’ve seen prints of mine exhibited, it’s never translated into actual sales. There could be a million reasons for that (maybe the medium is the issue after all and digital is better) but I’ve given up on selling prints - and commercial photography in any capacity - just for fun now Combine a cynical outlook with a technology I don’t understand (or get why it exists in the first place - digital work can be sold sans blockchain after all), and I personally just don’t “get [NFTs]”.

That said, please keep us updated on how it goes! Not that I’d rush our and start selling NFTs if you’re successful but because we all wish you success. I think there’s a Phase One ambassador I follow on Instagram that recently sold a piece of his as an NFT for the equivalent of $60k USD....maybe you can have similar success?

Thank you for the good wishes - we'll see what comes out of it, and I'll certainly keep the forum updated if I see that there are opportunities that we could all benefit from

Just a note on what you said re: digital work can be sold sans blockchain. Indeed it can, normally for pennies on a royalty-free service NFT put back "uniqueness" in a file, transforming back into an artwork can can be sold and traded as, i.e., a painting or a signed, single-copy edition of a photograph - and that is a big difference, IMHO. Add that the artwork is then trackable (in most cases), and that royalties can be paid to the creator of the photograph on secondary market sales as well, which you can't do if you just sell a digital file to someone.

It would help if you had said what an "NFT" was so that I didn't have to go look it up.

People are spending millions on NFTs. What? Why?

NFT WTF FAQ.

www.theverge.com

G

Sorry, I assumed that people knew - just added a link in the original message. Incidentally, I wouldn't recommend The Verge but information straight from those who created NFT: https://ethereum.org/en/nft/

Best regards,

Vieri