Unbefungingleivable!

In what is definitely going to be a permanent movement in the art world and is not in any way a bubble or a dumb trend that no one will remember in two years, a JPEG has sold at auction for sixty nine million--with an "M" and not a "B," but still--dollars. Of money.

Specifically this JPEG, but not this exact JPEG, but this JPEG. Still with me?

"The bid is $69 million, going once, going twice-
are you absolutely certain? You realize this piece
doesn't actually-very well: Sold. For $69 million."

-Some auctioneer

Which is nonsense, right? I mean, why would someone pay anything for a JPEG, much less $69 million dollars? There is a why, like, a stated reason, but I'm not sure I'm any closer to an answer. This particular JPEG is something called an NFT or a non-fungible token. An NFT represents a digital file (like an image or a video) that is stored on a digital ledger called a blocktechnical (yeah, I know) chain as a unique file. Because the ledger contains information such as ownership, there is only one "true" instance of the file that can be bought and sold.

Right now, people, let's call them chumps, are paying crazy money for what are essentially NFT sports cards. Which even in a fandom that loves gambling and bets heavily not only on real games in whose outcome they have no control, but on fantasy sports as well, even among them this seems, you know...

Pictured: an eBay listing for a $997.77 fan token of 
some bobble heads. So a picture of some bobble heads.
A thousand dollars. Of money. Cool.

Still missing by the way. And there's
a $124,000 reward, so if you see it...

I think the idea is that it makes a commodity out of something that would otherwise be functionally infinite. Like a painting or a sculpture might be unique because there's only one of it. You can buy a print or a replica sure, but usually only the original has value. That's sort of what's going on here except instead of there actually being only one original Starry Night or that Golden Toilet somebody stole, we're just all agreeing that there's only one Everydays--The First Five Thousand Days.

Above: Beeple. And it's not just you,
he does look like a 90's sitcom dad.

That's what it's called. The $69 million JPEG. And look, that's great for Beeple, the artist. The piece that sold at auction was part of a project he started back in 2007. He posted a new piece online for five thousand days and Everydays--The First Five Thousand Days is what it says on the crypto-tin. 

According to Beeple:

"I believe we are witnessing the beginning of the next chapter in art history, digital art."

-Beeple, whose real name is

Mike Winkelmann, which I kind

of think is better than Beeple...

"Yes, but what is art?"

-that one guy in college

And, I don't know, is it thought? I mean, that's totally the kind of thing someone who just made $69 million dollars selling the theoretical ownership of his work would say, but is it the next chapter in art history? Please, take my opinion for what it's worth, which is to say nothing. I'm not an artist or even someone who knows what they're talking about. And I get that the act of creating something digitally and selling is is defiantly a statement, but is it about the piece itself or the idea that it can exist as a discrete creation? 

Is it the scarcity that's being valued here? Maybe. And maybe that's as legitimately an artistic statement as any other. But it also seems like part of the reason rich people buy art is to have something to show to their rich art collecting friends and at some point they're going to realize they've bought millions of dollars worth of scarcity. 

"These are nice, but do you have anything, I don't know, non-existent?"

-Some art collector